Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[helium3]

Read the sneak attack ability carefully. You can't sneak attack limbs (a.k.a legs, arms) and a halfling shouldn't even be able to sneak attack an ogre.

I've never seen sneak attack implemented this way and the groups I've played in have interpreted that particular bit of rules verbiage as a way of stating that you can't sneak attack a huge sized monster from 15' away even if it's able to reach you with it's arms or slam attack.

But really, that's a question for the 3.5 forum . . .

 

[Celebrim]

This is the perfect example of the sort of complaint that is NOT justified at this stage of the game.

So you say.

However, whether the rogue can move past a target and stab it for extra damage is precisely the sort of thing you cannot predict, because if it exists, it is almost certainly amongst the rogue's powers. These are as of yet unknown. Nothing indicates that skirmish-like abilities will not be available, and there is evidence that spring attack like abilities are part of the rogue's 4e concept.

Something very strong indicates that the ability to do skirmish damage is available to the rogue, that it is as an additive ability rather than an option. Additive abilities are pretty simple. I could easily make feats that let any class do a bonus 1d6 damage if they moved at least 10' in the turn. It's replacement abilities that are somewhat more complex, because even if I write a feat which replaces an ability it isn't a true replacement ability, because you still have to spend the feat and a true replacement ability is simply an exchange.

If rogues had a more general bonus damage ability, it would be referred to in the text by its more general term rather than as 'sneak attack' so that all the various abilities that interacted with it would be clearly understood. If rogues had a more general bonus damage ablity that was configurable, it would have in all likelihood been mentioned in the description of sneak attack. We can conjecture this because otherwise it wouldn't be a very good design and it would be a very misleading preview. Since we are working with the assumption that the 4E designers aren't incompotent, this is likely to be a very strong assumption on our part and I'm comfortable in making it because if I'm wrong it makes the designers look worse than I would be made to look.

 

[Cadfan]

etc, etc

I may be completely misunderstanding you.

But, if the complaint is "I want a Rogue who can hit and run like a 3e Scout," then the complaint is satisfied quite adequately with a rogue power or set of powers that allow the rogue to move in, hit, and move out, with in-game mechanics sufficient to make that a good idea. I think there is significant evidence that this WILL be available to the rogue, because 1) moving in, dealing massive damage, then escaping is the rogue's shtick as described by the game designers, and 2) we already can see Deft Strike, which is a start on this sort of ability that seems appropriate to level 1.

Meanwhile, if the complaint is "I want a Rogue who can give up his sneak attack power to get the ability to obtain bonus damage exactly like a 3e Scout," then that demand is... I'd personally say unreasonable, but a more charitable characterization might be "awfully nitpicky." Its like someone loudly proclaiming that they want a Wizard who can cast Fireball, being told that you CAN cast Fireball, and then rephrasing that what they REALLY want is a Wizard that casts Fireball with a big pile of d6s, not with a couple d6s and a flat bonus.

Such a person would be entitled to their preference, but they ought to accept that to the rest of us a Wizard who casts Fireball is a Wizard who casts Fireball, and a Rogue who Skirmishes is a Rogue who Skirmishes, even if Skirmish is now a selectable at-will power that is compatible with Sneak Attack, and the mechanics are not directly ported from 3e.

 

[Celebrim]

I may be completely misunderstanding you.

Quite possibly. Several people have told me I'm hard to understand.

But, if the complaint is "I want a Rogue who can hit and run like a 3e Scout," then the complaint is satisfied quite adequately with a rogue power or set of powers that allow the rogue to move in, hit, and move out, with in-game mechanics sufficient to make that a good idea.

In abstract, yes, I agree. Although, from that perspective, it seems like 3E scout ought to be equally unnecessary (something I don't necessarily disagree with).

Meanwhile, if the complaint is "I want a Rogue who can give up his sneak attack power to get the ability to obtain bonus damage exactly like a 3e Scout," then that demand is... I'd personally say unreasonable, but a more charitable characterization might be "awfully nitpicky."

Quite a few posters arguing against my ideas have said that 3E rogues weren't really flexible because they had to have 'sneak attack'. If you wanted to play a rogue that relied on some other mechanic than sticking it to someone when thier gaurd was down, this was pretty tough. Hense, at least in part, the existance of classes like 'Scout'.

Right now, the way the 4E rogue is written it appears to work like the 3E design. You must take the ability to do bonus damage whenever you have combat advantage against an opponent. You can't trade this advantage for one of similar value, as for example, not doing bonus damage whenever you have combat advantage, but inflicting bonus damage whenever you move 10' in the round.

Yes, I could have a feat that said, "You gain combat advantage against your target whenever you have moved X squares this round.", but that wouldn't be quite the same thing.

It does seem to me that the exact mechanic of scout doesn't port well to 4E, because of the lack of iterative attacks and the assumptions of greater mobility that it makes. Scout is another of those classes that seems inspired by mechanical variaty for its own sake. But the general complaint of 'why must I take specific mechanics that don't necessarily apply' to my concept still stands. It is a fair complaint to suggest that 'sneak attack' doesn't seem really appropriate to every rogue, unless you define rogue really narrowly. I'm personally not into having every rogue loosely inspired by Victorian English street criminals, much as I love that archetype. I'm certainly not sure that I want as an archetype for rogue something as self-reflective as what 4E is looking like - the archetypal rogue being its own mechanically limited predecessor.

 

[Cadfan]

Right now, the way the 4E rogue is written it appears to work like the 3E design. You must take the ability to do bonus damage whenever you have combat advantage against an opponent. You can't trade this advantage for one of similar value, as for example, not doing bonus damage whenever you have combat advantage, but inflicting bonus damage whenever you move 10' in the round.

True, but not at all the same as being unable to hit and run effectively.

Personally, I am not one of the people who thinks that "This rogue has sneak attack and that doesn't fit my Sherlock Holmes character concept!" is a logical argument, particularly when the concept is otherwise satisfied. I think that in a game in which combat is an important part of gameplay, Sherlock Holmes + Sneak Attack + Dagger is better than Sherlock Holmes without.

Yes, I could have a feat that said, "You gain combat advantage against your target whenever you have moved X squares this round.", but that wouldn't be quite the same thing.

No, it wouldn't. But what about this?

Skirmish
At Will
Full Round Action
During this round you may move up to your normal movement rate and make one melee attack. This attack may be made at any point along your movement except that you must move at least 10 feet before the attack. Your attack deals 1[W]+Dex damage. Your movement during the use of this power does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Trickster Rogue: You may instead move your normal movement plus five additional feet per point of charisma bonus you possess, minimum +1 (5 ft).
Brutal Rogue: Your attack counts as a charge, and gets the appropriate bonuses, but no penalties.

That's probably really lousy game design because I just made it up, but you get the idea. It satisfies the criteria I have- it lets the rogue move, strike, and move away, it lets the rogue deal additional damage (+Dex, if I'm wrong on how 4e damage works and this is available for all attacks then this can be changed), and its usable at will. And beyond that, it doesn't have to replace sneak attack- it can instead be compatible with sneak attack. A rogue who used this ability to move into flanking position for each attack would be gaining additional damage on each hit above and beyond what's listed here.

 

[Spatula]

There's a real disconnect between the stated goals of the design ("Options, not limitations") and what they're choosing to show us (Limits, limits, and more limits.) Either the design failed to achieve its goals, or marketing is failing to show us these achievements. Based on the skill of the designers, I'm betting the latter.

That was the 3e design goals. It's looking like the 4e designers have no problem with arbitrary limitations. Viva la 1e!

 

[Spatula]

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.

Stop, please. You're never going to adequately rationalize the 4e rogue ability weapon restrictions with real-world logic. A heavy crossbow is easier to disguise & hide than... a staff? A sap? An improvised blunt instrument (i.e. club)?

 

[Cadfan]

Stop, please. You're never going to adequately rationalize the 4e rogue ability weapon restrictions with real-world logic. A heavy crossbow is easier to disguise & hide than... a staff? A sap? An improvised blunt instrument (i.e. club)?

For the sake of pedantry, the rogue is proficient with the Hand Crossbow. It is small and concealable. They are, quite literally, the size of a pistol, and are sometimes called Pistol Crossbows.

If a Rogue wants to use (and therefore sneak attack with) a larger crossbow, I presume he is going to have to spend a feat on it in the same manner that a rogue who wishes to sneak attack with a rapier must do the same.

I will grant that there needs to be some provision for clubbing enemies unconscious from behind. It doesn't have to be Sap Proficiency or Club Proficiency. It could be any particular mechanical method, such as special rules for the Sap or special rules for subdual damage versus unaware opponents. But it does need to exist in some form.

 

[Spatula]

For the sake of pedantry, the rogue is proficient with the Hand Crossbow. It is small and concealable. They are, quite literally, the size of a pistol, and are sometimes called Pistol Crossbows.

I realize that, but sneak attack works with any crossbow, out of the box.

 

[Crashy75]

That was the 3e design goals. It's looking like the 4e designers have no problem with arbitrary limitations. Viva la 1e!

I doubt the limits are completely arbitrary. I remember a playtest report about a rogue that went around with a great axe because the damage was just too good. I think they could have (and maybe they did?) made some sort of compromise. Perhaps there is a feat that allows sneak attack with other (more damaging weapons) that does less/equal overall damage. Also, assuming light weapons are roughly the same, they could have limited non-feated sneaks to light weapons. Limiting it to blades does seem rather arbitrary.