Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

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.

Generally true, though in the case of the two rogue classes the case for the 4E rogue is still more convincing given that it preserves the original choice categories in addition to offering new options.

It may be that the additional strictures on proficiencies, assuming we know how those work, and the differences in the skill and feat systems do create narrower choices for those categories than we saw in 3E, but that's a big maybe and in the mean time I don't think we should loose sight of the fact that very structure of class choices in 4E is both a very different and more robust creature.

I mean you could talk about how all the Rogue powers seem to variations on Dagger Strike! (TM), but the fact is that's 20 more dagger strike options then anyone in 3E ever got.

 

[Danzauker]

I really think must of the problems people see in the 4e Rogue are based on specilation without sufficient data.

I think the Rogue as posted in the preview as a sort of "vanilla" Rogue.

Only few weapons listed? Well, I'm more than sure that there are lots of feats to add other weapons to that list.

Sneak damage is low? OK, there will be powers, talent trees or whatchamacallits to bump the damage or do more interesting things via sneak attack (blind, paralyze, disarm...).

Thievery as a mandatory skill? Since there are less skills now and broader in scope I guess that now into thievery are folded other skills and mechanics like Find Traps, Disable Device, Sleight of Hands and others that fill nice in the Rogue niche. Not just Pickpockets.

That said, I don't really get the "Build angst", too.

In 2e there were kits, that were OPTIONAL packages that one could take to customize his character at creation time. In 3e we had prestige classes, that one could use to customize his character after some levels.

In 4e it seems we have the best of both worlds with builds and paragon paths.

Since they are optional, I don't see what's wrong in them. Basically, they look like "menu of the day" vs. "a la carte" ordering at a restaurant.

Plus they seem to make an easy way for some customizing of classes in campaigns. Once the books are available with all the power and feat lists, I guess it will be easy to design some new builds to fit our campaign worlds. I think it will not be long since someone makes up a ninja build or a pirate build.

Heck, I'm already thinking of how I can make an Athasian bard build for my Dark Sun campaign (since bards in Dark Sun are not arcane casters, I guess it's just matter of making up some music related and poison using powers)!

 

[JosephK]

Well, it's very nice to hear that there indeed will be feats to allow for non pigeon-hole weapon choices! I'm still a bit concerned with my hammer wielding dwarven rogue, or club wielding footpad.. As the the wondrous Mikos rapier is also a lightblade.. I hope it'll be possible to use the various rogue powers (and sneak attack) with stuff that isnt necessarily light blades.

That said, I still think using feat is a poor choice.. It reminds of why the weapon familiarity rules were introduced. I cant figure out a good reason why this sorta flexibility isnt build into the class from the get-go.. I can see it might be a problem if hammers or clubs for some reason turns out to be a vastly better mechanical choice than light blades (unlikely as it is), but as long as they arent, it just seems like a silly arbitrary constraint. I'd hate to have to waste a feat on getting rogue powers and sneak attack (possibly two) to work with handaxes.. As the choice is almost solely thematical and almost only has to do with how it "feels" to play a given character, rather than mechanical (I'd be all for using feats to be able to sneak with a greatsword or halberd for instance, depending on the mechanical advantage of those).

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It might be obvious, but I'll point this out anyway:
Character concepts that were best or at least easiest represented with a Rogue in 3.x might be represented with a different class then Rogue in 3.x. It's possible that some concepts that were better made with Fighter, Ranger or Barbarian in 3.x might work better in 4E with a Rogue.

Furthermore:
It is possible that some concepts that worked with the 3E core classes in the first PHB will not be that easily possible with 4E core classes.
On the other hand, some concepts that didn't work so well witht he 3E core classes from the first PHB might be easier possible with the 4E core classes. (Warlock and Warlord both open up a lot of options, and even the non-aligment-specific Paladin opens up a few options.)
Wether it will be a net gain or a net loss, it's a bit early to tell.


I think 3.5 paved the way for the stronger focussed classes, by the way.
In 3.0, there were next to no new core classes in the splats. But 3.5 supplements contained more of them. I think this was in realisation that some concepts just didn't work so well with the existing classes, and rather trying to make this possible with PrCs or new feats, they tried to make it work with entirely new classes.
3.x generally had a problem with some classes being very broadly defined, and others were narrowly defined. Compare the Rogue to a Paladin. The Rogue was your "catch-all" class to make any type of concept work (in some way, sometimes you might need to pretend sneak attack didn't exist or stuff like that), while the Paladin required you to play a holy warrior following a specific code of conduct, always lawful good, and eventually also getting a magic horse. You can probably get more narrowly defined then that, but barely so.
In 3.x, it would have made a lot of sense to make the Paladin a Prestige Class, but that wasn't done.
In 4E, instead of making the Paladin a PrC (or PrC equivalent), all classes get a narrower focus (though some classes, like the Paladin, apparently get a little braoder)

 

[Jinete]

<snip>
I can see it might be a problem if hammers or clubs for some reason turns out to be a vastly better mechanical choice than light blades (unlikely as it is), but as long as they arent, it just seems like a silly arbitrary constraint. I'd hate to have to waste a feat on getting rogue powers and sneak attack (possibly two) to work with handaxes.. As the choice is almost solely thematical and almost only has to do with how it "feels" to play a given character, rather than mechanical (I'd be all for using feats to be able to sneak with a greatsword or halberd for instance, depending on the mechanical advantage of those).

It seems to me that that handaxes will have different mechanics than light blades. They will probably do more damage, or do more damage on a crit or both. To allow them to be used with sneak attack without spending a feat would probably be too powerful a choice.

 

[Imp]

- the thing about these two rogue builds is that they do seem to be hard-coded into the power write-ups, where you have powers that gain extra benefit from particular rogue talents (instead of forking) - see "Charisma is a good third ability score, particularly if you want to dabble in powers from the other rogue build" and so on.

- 3e has basically no trouble with the "brawny rogue" concept. You go heavy on the strength, do a minor multiclass in something thumpy, skip Weapon Finesse. I don't remember ever thinking "boy, I can't make a thug with these rules!" So I'm puzzled at the perceived need here.

- on looking at the writeup again, I'm more skeptical about feats making up the difference: Weapon Focus is in there. So if you take a feat to use a club or a staff (why? because you can improvise weapons in a pinch!) or something that's not clearly better than what's on the short list, you are actually giving up mechanical advantages for flavor effects and it's wizards with longswords all over again.

- also, arrgh, sneak attack isn't backstab, there's no particular stealth requirement in the current concept that would translate into weapon choice! And I do remember the arguments from earlier editions about backstabbing with big swords.

 

[Pinotage]

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.

I'll agree with you that a player unfamiliar with the rules goes to the rules first and then decides on a concept.

But once you're familiar with the rules, you choose a concept first, and then work on how the rules can accomodate it. Essentially, instead of fitting the rules to the concept, you're fitting the concept to the rules because you're familiar with all the ins and outs. When creating characters these days, I select a concept first, and then decide what class or classes would best fit that, what ability scores would best reflect it, etc. Admittedly, that concept can be both a 'role' or a 'personality' concept.

Pinotage

 

[solkanar33]

The thing I'm most concerned with is the small number of classes combined with a system that at the moment does't shine in flexibility.

There are the four 'roles' and every class seems build around its 'role' in the party (leader, striker,etc..). There seems to be little room for a character to step out of its role and do something else. There seems to be no character that can play several 'roles' depending on how you build your character.

In 3.X your fighter could just as well be the tank (defender) or the main damage dealer (striker) by just taking some other feats and equipment.

One of the most appealing aspects of a druid is his ability to fill many different roles in a party depending on his spelluse and his wildshape. He wasn't as efficient as his 'core' buddies but he could go in melee or stand back and heal (leader) or cast fire and electricity mayhem (striker) or even summon blobs of hitpoints to defend the party (defender).

At the moment I don't see any class coming even close to this kind of flexibility.

Perhaps that is the reason it's not included in the first PHB.
With what we know now, they want you to stick with the 'role' of your class the way they designed it. I find that well...boring.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I'll agree with you that a player unfamiliar with the rules goes to the rules first and then decides on a concept.

I'm saying the opposite. A character unfamiliar with the rules does concept first.

Isn't that what we're seeing here? People are trying to come up with concepts first and attempting to put what little we've seen in this preview to work with our information about that class gleaned from a preview. We aren't seeing people looking at the class and then working back character concepts. And, since they know little about the game rules, that fact is supporting my point.

A character familiar with the rules does rules first. It isn't a conscious decision. I don't think the Buffy game offers any weapon crafting rules. I've never seen anyone go into a Buffy game thinking for their concept "I'm going to be a weapon crafting master!" I have seen that concept in D&D 3e.

I'm not saying its conscious. It's subconscious. It's still there. Once you've been playing the game for a while, your decisions are simply informed by the rules. I don't think it can be any other way. You don't try to make a pacifist in 3e.

When Planescape wanted to add the role of the fiend touched creature, they had to create rules for it. The trifling was made a PC class. Before that, you couldn't play it. Before the thief was no skill monkey archetype. Before bards there was no "singing support" character concept. Or do you usually go into a Shadowrun game wanting to play a norse skald who sings and helps your allies? It simply doesn't work.

 

[Pinotage]

I'm saying the opposite. A character unfamiliar with the rules does concept first.

Isn't that what we're seeing here? People are trying to come up with concepts first and attempting to put what little we've seen in this preview to work with our information about that class gleaned from a preview. We aren't seeing people looking at the class and then working back character concepts. And, since they know little about the game rules, that fact is supporting my point.

A character familiar with the rules does rules first. It isn't a conscious decision.

Well, then we're disagreeing!

Whenever I create a character, I come up with role first, then concept within that role, and then look for a class/prestige class combination that will allow me to do that. Sure, it's guided by knowledge of the rules, but it's concept first. I certainly don't know if the concept is plausible right at the start. I try to use the rules to build the concept.

I'd say that somebody unfamiliar with the rules would take a look at a class, decide to use it, and then build a concept around what's possible. Rules first, concept second. And that's what I think we're seeing here. Sure, people are familiar with the 3e rules, but this is an entirely new set of rules, and people unfamiliar with them are looking at the rogue and seeing what concepts they can create. Here you're trying to conform the concept to the rules.

I'll admit there's a bit of a grey area here since even if you do concept first you are to a certain extent guided by knowledge of the rules. Still, the majority of work for those familiar with the rules, is concept first, then rules.

Pinotage