Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised
- Thread starter IceFractal
- Start date
IceFractal
First Post
Wow, I seem to have sparked quite a bit of response. My thoughts in a second, but first - would people please stop mentioning that Rogues can gain proficiency with weapons like bows? Yes, they can, and no, it doesn't matter. Sneak attack, and all the powers seen in the preview, have a specific list of weapons you can use them with. Proficiency is not the issue.*
The 4E Rogue is by no means the least flexible class I've seen. However, it's ancestor, the 3E Rogue, was a combination of simplicity, flexibility, and utility that the 4E Rogue comes nowhere near. Let's look at what a 3E Rogue could do:
* Use any weapon, even including spells with attack rolls, to deliver their sneak attack.
* Gain sneak attack in a number of ways - by rushing into melee (flanking), hiding in the shadows, using magical aid (invisibility), or hindering their enemies (many spells, items, and other abilities, such as Grease).
* Have a wide range of skills that could take you anywhere from face to con-man to mechanical expert to explorer to scout to assassin.
* Multiclass effectively with almost any martial or skilled class and many spellcasters (with the right split); use Sneak Attack in concert with abilities from other classes.
* Remain viable against high-level foes (much more so than most non-spellcasters), without the balance-shattering abilities of high-level magic.
* Use their abilities while in disguise with atypical equipment.
Of this, the 4E Rogue may accomplish #2 and #5, but fat chance on the rest. And honestly, the 3E Rogue was already well implemented mechanically - the 4E Rogue isn't worse in this aspect, but it isn't hugely better either. So from where I'm sitting, this is a downgrade. Is 4E the Vista of D&D? I hope not.
And why are less flexible classes bad? Because there are only going to be 8 or so in the PHB - simple as that. If they were providing twice as many classes as 3E, they could make them half as flexible. Since they're providing less, that doesn't work.
I'm not against supplements, but having to wait for PHBIII+ to play basic types of characters, when with better design I could be playing them right away, isn't inclining me to "upgrade".
One more thing:
*WotC_Miko posted an interesting hint in this direction, but didn't actually say you could get past the restriction with a feat. Shurikens are light blades, and probably so are Rapiers, so the feat in question may just be Weapon Proficiency, which wouldn't help with a club, whip, or bow.
The 4E Rogue is by no means the least flexible class I've seen. However, it's ancestor, the 3E Rogue, was a combination of simplicity, flexibility, and utility that the 4E Rogue comes nowhere near. Let's look at what a 3E Rogue could do:
* Use any weapon, even including spells with attack rolls, to deliver their sneak attack.
* Gain sneak attack in a number of ways - by rushing into melee (flanking), hiding in the shadows, using magical aid (invisibility), or hindering their enemies (many spells, items, and other abilities, such as Grease).
* Have a wide range of skills that could take you anywhere from face to con-man to mechanical expert to explorer to scout to assassin.
* Multiclass effectively with almost any martial or skilled class and many spellcasters (with the right split); use Sneak Attack in concert with abilities from other classes.
* Remain viable against high-level foes (much more so than most non-spellcasters), without the balance-shattering abilities of high-level magic.
* Use their abilities while in disguise with atypical equipment.
Of this, the 4E Rogue may accomplish #2 and #5, but fat chance on the rest. And honestly, the 3E Rogue was already well implemented mechanically - the 4E Rogue isn't worse in this aspect, but it isn't hugely better either. So from where I'm sitting, this is a downgrade. Is 4E the Vista of D&D? I hope not.
And why are less flexible classes bad? Because there are only going to be 8 or so in the PHB - simple as that. If they were providing twice as many classes as 3E, they could make them half as flexible. Since they're providing less, that doesn't work.
I'm not against supplements, but having to wait for PHBIII+ to play basic types of characters, when with better design I could be playing them right away, isn't inclining me to "upgrade".
One more thing:
The number of build options, even in 3E, was already virtually infinite. What matters is the number of distinct paths - chosing between two powers that are both dextrous strikes with daggers, where one causes more damage up-front and the other causes bleeding, doesn't increase the number of viable directions available. Chosing between three "blast people with fire" powers doesn't make the Wizard more flexible either.
*WotC_Miko posted an interesting hint in this direction, but didn't actually say you could get past the restriction with a feat. Shurikens are light blades, and probably so are Rapiers, so the feat in question may just be Weapon Proficiency, which wouldn't help with a club, whip, or bow.
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
IceFractal said:
Two things:
#1 - How do you account for the increased limitations on range with the 3E sneak attack?
#2 - If you are judging the number of build options in 4E based on this one choice of Rogue Tactics then 3E goes from your virtually infinite to one or even zero as that level of choice was never present within the 3E Rogue mechanics.
if the argument is that a 3E rogue has more build options then the 3E Rogue then that argument is patently false. The 4E Rogue gives the player far more options. Even the presense of two recommended builds doubles your options vs. 3E. Which is deceptive since each of those builds adds at least five additional choices on top of what you would have been given in 3E.
You might be able to argue that the framing of the new rogue reduces the overall flexibility of the class. You can argue that the new structure of the rogue eliminates options that were present previously.
You cannot argue that it reduces the number of distinct choices the player had before when building a rogue character.
It is possible that one could have fewer choices and still have more flexibility, but I must admit that intuitively I expect that the class that's built with more options must accomodate more choices and be a more flexible class.
No, this is a bogus breakdown: Spells in 4.0 seem to occupy the same slot as the various powers, and seem to be much less numerous than in 3e; there are several classes in 3.5 at least that have featlike choices or power paths (ie ranger); there are alternate class features in the expanded rules for 3.5; and in any case much of this is still theoretical and the rogue could be more flexible than advertised depending on how feats and multiclassing works. Besides, breaking this down in terms of literal numbers of choices does not get us much of anywhere.Dr. Strangemonkey said:
Ximenes088
First Post
WotC appears to have simply decided that this is too good a quality for sneak attack to have- but even that's debatable, as Miko's post demonstrates that you can get sneak attack damage with at least one non-listed weapon. We'll need to see the actual rules to see whether you can spend a feat to use sneak attack with any weapon, or a feat to use sneak attack with non-Rogue-native light blades.IceFractal said:
Supported, as you noted- and supported in spades, since it appears at least some Rogue powers actually give their initiator combat advantage as part of the effect.IceFractal said:
The 4e rogue has everything on his class list that the 3e rogue had, in terms of capability, with the exception of Diplomacy. The 3e rogue class was used for a face man simply because it had the most skill points while also not being a bard.IceFractal said:
Until we know the multiclass rules, we really can't pass judgment on the likelihood of this. But I would be very, very surprised if the fighter's "sword" line of powers somehow stopped working when a short sword-wielding thief decided to add Sneak Attack to the damage. Or that the Warlock with a rogue dip became incapable of per-encounter tumbles and sliding pesty melee goons back into the defender. As for "skilled class", they don't appear to exist any more. You don't get your noncombat juju from your class choice, as far as I can tell. According to the hints I've seen, you get it from your feat choices, trading much broader (not much better) employ of your class abilities through feats for superior noncombat prowess.IceFractal said:
It's possible they'll screw this up, but since it's a problem they were aware of from day one, I'd be surprised if they failed on multiple axes.IceFractal said:
What disguise has "a knife" as atypical equipment? A perfectly bog-standard rogue that can get his hands on a belt knife has access to his full range of Sneak Attack and class powers.IceFractal said:
I see no evidence that the 4e Rogue hasn't already delivered on most of them and appears very likely to deliver on the rest.IceFractal said:
mach1.9pants
Hero
Did I get a nice funeral?DSRilk said:
Dr. Strangemonkey
First Post
Imp said:
I was specifically comparing to 3.0.
For 3.5 both Ranger and Monk have options for their bonus feats that seem to mirror the Rogue's choice of Tactics, but in the end it's still just picking feats.
There do seem to be spells that occupy the same slots as powers, but there are also rituals which are explicitly not powers and are spell like.
Alternate class features I didn't count as they did not appear in the core rule book.
I think breaking it down into the sheer number of choices is an important point.
If we know that we have more choices in 4E, but we theorize that the class is less flexible, then that opens up an important point for the validity of the rigidity theory -
Namely what does it mean that more flexible somehow equals fewer choices and more restrictions over what your class actually does?
It's a simple criteria, I'll grant you that, but it's one we shouldn't ignore.
small pumpkin man
Explorer
3 seems to work for the 4e rogue for me, the only one I see missing is face.IceFractal said:
The only part of 4 which we know to be true is the sneak attack thing, which references 1, and is likely intentional, the reason this was okay in 3.x, is that multiclassing hurt your character, a rogue wizard does less damage which their scorching ray, and needs the extra sneak attack to get back to normal (not that it really works...), a rogue Paladin does less damage with their smite, and sneak attacking on the smite brings it back to normal(which does kinda work), with the 4e multiclassing rules we know, it won't be like that, the multiclassed character will likely be just as good at smiting and scorching as the straight character, they'll have just swapped out some abilities for others, meaning asking to stack sneak attack on top of that is quite possibly asking for too much. (not that there's anything stopping you from smiting with a rapier)
6 also relies on 1, and I'd like to point out that part of the reason light blades, crossbows and slings and slings are considered appropriate for sneak attack, is that they can be disguised and hidden more easily than normal, meaning 6 isn't much of an example.
So ultimately, your argument comes down to "doesn't have diplomacy as a class skill, can't sneak attack with any weapons/ability". If the Utility powers aren't relatively interesting and iconic (which since the class is supposed to skill based, would suck), then I kinda see your point, otherwise, no.
As I said earlier in the thread, the rogue was one of the more open ended classes, the one people often used to make skill monkeys and bakers who didn't have great combat potential, WotC saw this as a bad thing and focused them a lot more, in the same way they saw the Paladin as being too restrictive, and opened it out some more.IceFractal said:
Guy who sneak attacks with a club is not a "type of character", it's a build. Stealthy guy with a club is, but I don't see that being particularly hard to make.IceFractal said:
"virtually infinite" you're kidding right? The major difference is the flavor built into the class(which could end up being a bad thing), not any actual differences in build options.IceFractal said:
IceFractal said:
IceFractal
First Post
However, the number of choices is secondary to the breadth of those choices. For instance, a Wizard with Fire Blast, Mind Control, and Create Labyrinth is more flexible than one with Fire Blast, Ice Blast, Large Fire Blast, Large Ice Blast, Lingering Fire Blast, and Flaming Ice Blast, even though the second has a larger number of choices.Dr. Strangemonkey said:
And something I forgot to post previously:
Re: Trapfinding/Stealth skills being required. They really aren't - and that's a good thing, because a 4E party is by no means guaranteed to have a Rogue. Even if you go with the classic Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller party, that Striker could just as well be a Ranger. And the devs have mentioned that a party missing one role is still viable.
For that matter, if the 4E encounter-based traps are anything like the encounter-based traps in Dungeonscape, they're more suited than 3E traps to a Rogueless party. The traps consist of a number of components that can be either disarmed, disabled, or destroyed. While someone with trap-skills certainly makes things easier, they are by no means necessary. And so a party with a non-trapfinding non-stealthy Rogue is no worse off than one without a Rogue - still perfectly viable.
Similar Threads
