Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[Elder-Basilisk]

Not necessarily so. WotC folks described the swordmage as an arcane defender--a character who uses magic to fight more effectively rather than a multi-role character who can swing a sword or toss a fireball as he sees fit. It is quite possible that the promised sword wielding wizard can fill the latter role effectively but has trouble functioning in the first role.

It is also possible that the swordmage will be to the sword wielding wizard either as duskblade is to eldritch knight (a simpler and less clunky build with much more predictable effectiveness) or as the Abjurant Champion is to Eldritch Knight (a horribly overpowered version of a different way to accomplish the same goal).

Apperantly not. Otherwise WotC wouldn't make a special swordmage class for it. Likewise they apparently also have to make a special skirmisher class to cover non thief agile warriors unless ranger cover this niche. But then we are missing a archer class.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

This thread is humorous. There's only 320 pages in this PHB. I'm still keeping my expectations for the flexibility low.

Then, by that logic, it's impossible to make any RPG ruleset with flexibility in it. I doubt too many people are going to be publishing 3,200 page books anytime soon. So if complete flexibility is the aim, and 320 pages is too short to put more than a smattering of flexibility in, it's impossible to produce an RPG which meets the standards people are expecting of it.

Actually, everyone seems to be overlooking one point -- that they say the math behind the rules is going to be more explicitly visible this time around. That would permit you to make balanced houserule additions more easily, building on the existing framework, and thus introduce more flexibility, correct? Just a thought.

 

[Raduin711]

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.

If that is what they meant, it would be much more clear and concise to say: "Thievery, stealth, plus four skills from the list below."

But it doesnt!

It says stealth, thievery, plus four others. From the list below, pick four more.

Now, they could be saying it like that because somewhere along the line, the writer's brains fell out of their everloving heads, or that it is a typo that has gone unnoticed for a very long time... but I don't think so.

I think picking skills from a special list may be the exception rather than the rule this time around. Some classes, like maybe rogues and bards, rangers, and all those skill-monkey classes may have a skill list like Fighters had a special list of feats. But that's all supposition on my part, but it would account for the sentence structure.

Edit: scratch that. The fact that they list stealth and theivery on the class skill list makes me believe that there is some benefit to having a skill on your class list. But the list is treated more like a bonus with a catch than the rule that all skills must adhere to.

 

[Incenjucar]

4E previews are notorious for bad wording, so I really wouldn't read too much into them.

 

[Raduin711]

4E previews are notorious for bad wording, so I really wouldn't read too much into them.

.

 

[helium3]

One problem with a GURPSian level of flexibility, which is what the critics of 4e seem to want, is that it screws over the casual player. Most players are casual so it's a losing proposition. GURPS loves only gearheads.

And out of what yarn did you spin this whole cloth? I have yet to see a single post in this thread where anyone takes the position that switching to GURPS is something anyone could do. At best, there is a series of linked posts where a single poster completely misreads one of my posts and comes to the conclusion that I want people to switch to GURPS because it's more generic than D&D.

I can't wait to see a thread with a post that contains the word "baby" followed by another post that contains the word "eater." I'm sure it won't be long before someone immediately follows up with a third post claiming that "4E Critics" like to eat babies.

 

[AZRogue]

So, shuriken count as a "light blade" and you can get a Rapier with a feat. Cool. That's good, at least.

To tell the truth, I'd like to be a knife fighting rogue. It wasn't something that was that effective before, but it might be now. Well, more so. the 1d4 damage will just be a small part of all the other damage you'll be doing. And a +1 to hit isn't anything to sneeze at.

 

[mach1.9pants]

4E previews are notorious for bad wording, so I really wouldn't read too much into them.

Yeah ENW has already done a bit of proof reading for the PHB, with the how many sneak attacks in a round thing.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

It says stealth, thievery, plus four others. From the list below, pick four more.

The two sentences should be quite clear. The first sentence is a descriptive sentence, listing two specific skills that a rogue gets and stating that a rogue has a total of four other skills. The next sentence is an imperative sentence, instructing the reader, who supposedly is in the process of creating a rogue character, to pick four skills, the total of the other skills a rogue knows, from the given list.

 

[Campbell]

The two sentences should be quite clear. The first sentence is a descriptive sentence, listing two specific skills that a rogue gets and stating that a rogue has a total of four other skills. The next sentence is an imperative sentence, instructing the reader, who supposedly is in the process of creating a rogue character, to pick four skills, the total of the other skills a rogue knows, from the given list.

This.