Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[hong]

Amusing enough, but also really quite unfair to the people who are complaining about "pigeon-holing."

Their opinions are nowhere near this silly.

 

[outsider]

For everybody that is asking why you can't sneak attack with a club, greatsword, or long bow, I think the answer is flavor. Rogues should be using weapons like light blades, crossbows, and slings, thus they are rewarded for doing so. Shortbow probably would have been appropriate, but bows are likely the ranger's shtick.

Also, it's quite possible that not all "sneak attacks" will come in the form of "Sneak Attack". Perhaps rangers will have a per encounter power named something like "Sniper Shot" that allows them to do extra damage to an unsuspecting target. Wouldn't surprise me if fighters got a backstab like ability, to punish their foes when they turn away from the fighter to target his allies.

 

[Cadfan]

Yeah. Never you mind that the 3.0 PHB had fewer pages and allowed for several different kinds of rogue, fighter, ranger, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, druid, monk, etc. :\

This is illusory. Its like arguing that the Fighter is a more diverse class than the Warblade because the Fighter can use ranged weapons. Its true that the fighter has the option of ranged weapons while the Warblade does not (unless he spends a feat), but the only way it makes sense is if you disallow consideration of the Warblade's maneuvers.

So... yes, if you disallow consideration of Rogue powers, Rogues are less diverse than they were before. Similarly, I am shorter than my girlfriend if you don't count my legs.

This is how I see this forum:

Imagine taking the 3e rogue. Give it a first level choice of +1 hit point per level or +5 feet of movement. Call the first one "thuggish rogue" and the second one "fleet rogue." This forum would then shriek that they DO NOT WANT to be pigeonholed into thuggish or fleet characters- they want to go back to the good old days when they had ALL KINDS of rogues they could play. The idea of playing exactly the same rogue they did before except now with an extra ability simply would not occur to them.

 

[Wolfspider]

This is how I see this forum:

Imagine taking the 3e rogue. Give it a first level choice of +1 hit point per level or +5 feet of movement. Call the first one "thuggish rogue" and the second one "fleet rogue." This forum would then shriek that they DO NOT WANT to be pigeonholed into thuggish or fleet characters- they want to go back to the good old days when they had ALL KINDS of rogues they could play. The idea of playing exactly the same rogue they did before except now with an extra ability simply would not occur to them.

So, in other words, you think they're idiots, unable to "simply" accept this way of looking at the rogue?

I think the problem many people are having is that this new "special ability" that they have to choose may not fit into their character concept at all. For some people, it is hard to simply ignore an ability (like a non-thieving rogue automatically having the ability to steal things or a desert-born character being able to swim like a pro) if it flies in the face of character concept.

Of course, all this has been explained before and better than I can, so I guess you'll just lump me in with the folks who have cognitive problems.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

So, in other words, you think they're idiots, unable to "simply" accept this way of looking at the rogue?

This language would be going too far. Just too far.

I think the problem many people are having is that this new "special ability" that they have to choose may not fit into their character concept at all. For some people, it is hard to simply ignore an ability (like a non-thieving rogue automatically having the ability to steal things or a desert-born character being able to swim like a pro) if it flies in the face of character concept.

Everyone who wants very specific campaign restrictions or should be doing serious considerations of the rules that they will be using. The example of the "swimming pro" is one involving a very high level character. The idea of the general skill bonus is that the DM can create difficult situations that do not hopelessly leave behind most PCs and that give PCs a feeling of competence commensurate with a certain general fantasy approach.

Of course, all this has been explained before and better than I can, so I guess you'll just lump me in with the folks who have cognitive problems.

The real problem, as Cadfan has pointed out, is that people are demanding things from D&D 4E that no game system can provide.

 

[Raduin711]

Sorry, you only get 6 skills, 2(thievery and stealth) + four others- in total

Take another look!

Trained Skills: Stealth and Thievery plus four others. From the class skills list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level.
Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dexterity), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha), Dungeoneering (Wis), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dexterity), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Dexterity)

Stealth and thievery
plus four others.
From the class list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level.

I wouldn't assume that's a typo. How else would you expect to get cross class skills in 4e?

 

[Lizard]

Take another look!



Stealth and thievery
plus four others.
From the class list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level.

I wouldn't assume that's a typo. How else would you expect to get cross class skills in 4e?

Feats.

That's how it is in SWSE.

I do not think it's a typo at all. I think rogues get 6 feats total, of which they pick 4, and those 4 (modulus feats) come from the class skill list. Everything I've seen indicates this is the case, and your interpretation is unique.

 

[DSRilk]

You're only fooling yourself. You don't go into 3e and say "I want to build X" and then try to make fighter or rogue or wizard work with that concept. You look at the classes first, digest the rules, then determine what you can play based on that.

I agree with many of your points. Not this one, however. I pretty much always come up with a concept first. Yes, many times it's based on a class - but that's because the classes are based on common archetypes, and what I'm actually picking is an archetype. Now, you could argue chicken or the egg with those examples, but there are many characters I've created that fit no mold at all and are obviously concept-first characters. For example, I created a merchant. I wanted a character that sold stuff and was an expert in art who ended up caught in the middle of an "adventure." So, given that concept, it was then a question of "what class can give me the highest knowledge of art and mercantile-like skills?" The answer was the rogue. The fact that he also "knew" how to wear armor and wield weapons? Well, I just ignored that. He never carried weapons. During his first combat, he went and hid, then grabbed a helmet off a fallen skeleton and started whacking anything that came too close. All this is to say, concept absolutely and unarguably does come first for some of us. I, at least, then pick a class that gives me most of what I want and I simply ignore the rest of it. The rules can say I am skilled with a rapier all they want, but if I, as the player, say otherwise... well, too bad for the rules. I also feel no need to create new classes to support all my whims - rogue was good enough. It's amazing how little classes truly strap you down if you're willing to reach outside the box a bit and have a flexible DM.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I agree with many of your points. Not this one, however. I pretty much always come up with a concept first.

Before you read the RPG rules? Because if not, your concept is going to be at least subconsciously affected by what you know about the rules of the particular RPG, I think.

The example you gave is very broad, and people in this thread are talking about extremely specific characters, so I'm probably more talking about those kinds of character concepts and less broad ones.

 

[Wolfspider]

This language would be going too far. Just too far.

Perhaps I did go too far. His characterization of people who disagree with him also goes too far, I think. In any case, I apologize for my harsh language.