Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[AllisterH]

Er, wasn't Power Attack also limited by weapon?

 

[Pinotage]

I think it's quite clear that the from what we've seen of 4e, and the 4e rogue, that the classes appear constrained in some way along the lines discussed in this thread. I'm wondering if this isn't a deliberate attempt which would allow the multiclassing system to be used more proficiently. As hong mentioned, if you want something a class doesn't give you, multiclass. I think we'll get a much clearer picture on the limitations of each class when we see how the multiclassing works and indeed the other classes.

Pinotage

 

[Thaumaturge]

The issue with "forcing" thievery on people is great from the perspective of a person who plays in organized play. I've joined too many tables where we had a rogue only to find out in the middle of the adventure he wasn't "that kind of rogue". Ugh. I understand the desire to make non-archetypes and different archetypes, but in organized play settings, it can be deadly to the other party members. In home games, just make it a pick 6, but in organized play I am ever so thankful for the mandate.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Steely Dan]

Er, wasn't Power Attack also limited by weapon?

You just couldn't PA with a light weapon.

 

[Li Shenron]

Because they just happen not to synergise well. Life is tough.

That's what I used to say to those that criticised 3e multiclassing. Not all classes synergize perfectly, not every single build is equally effective.

But here people are criticising the fact that there are indeed new restrictions on the applicability of sneak attack. It just doesn't pair well with the advertising of 4e. Maybe it's just 1 sad design choice in the whole game, but certainly it doesn't look promising to see it in the 1st class previewed...

 

[FourthBear]

While the rogue class featured may have several options mandatory (Stealth and Thievery) and possibly have more weapon restrictions, I believe it will still be overall more flexible than the 3.5e rogue. I think this flexibility will come from the ability to customize your character with power and feat choices, in particular the Class Training feats which will allow your rogue to dip into other classes' abilities without having to multiclass (and therefore gain abilities and baggage you didn't ask for). The two featured restrictions in the rogue writeup do appear to be intended to emphasize and focus the class around a certain class of abilities and weapons. It seems to me that the issue with the mandatory skills will be fairly trivial to get around, as others said, just make it pick six instead of pick four+S+T. The small weapon list I'll have to see the weapon classes and rules to make up my mind about. Even if they are quite restrictive, I don't think it overcomes the increased flexibility in 4e from the increased number of power and feat choices.

 

[Li Shenron]

You just couldn't PA with a light weapon.

Different between 3.0 and 3.5 anyway.

 

[Li Shenron]

The issue with "forcing" thievery on people is great from the perspective of a person who plays in organized play. I've joined too many tables where we had a rogue only to find out in the middle of the adventure he wasn't "that kind of rogue". Ugh. I understand the desire to make non-archetypes and different archetypes, but in organized play settings, it can be deadly to the other party members. In home games, just make it a pick 6, but in organized play I am ever so thankful for the mandate.

At least some core things in a class should be "forced", otherwise we should better play a class-less system.

I like playing against-cliches characters sometimes, but I guess that if this is a rare occurrence, it can be agreed between the DM and the player to make some variation on the class (perhaps with a partial compensation for something you give up).

So what should all Rogue have in common? A minimum of stealth, a minimum of thievery and dirty fighting ability (sneak attack) sounds reasonable to me.

Less reasonable the weapon limitations.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Less reasonable the weapon limitations.

The reasonableness of the weapon limitations is yet to be fully revealed though. We don't know the cost of adding more weapon proficiencies or adding weapons to the "can use with sneak attack list". It might very well be too costly or restrictive (requiring multiple feats and multiclassing or just impossible). It might also be as simple as 1 feat or utility power.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Unless the club has been transformed into a mighty weapon of DOOM(tm) in this edition, I cant think of any mechanical advantage it would have over a light blade. Nor a hammer or handaxe (longtime favorite of dwarven rogues everywhere).. It's mainly a fluff thing really, and it seems very arbitrary and nonsensical to disallow shortbows or clubs from sneak attack. Having to spend a feat on a using a club for sneak attack (possibly another on using rogue powers), seems pretty silly, considering it's mainly about wanting to play a slightly different style of rogue, than the pigeon-hole one presented in the write-up.

I somewhat agree with you: there's no reason a rogue shouldn't be able to use a club, assuming it doesn't give a mechanical advantage. Then again, a club might fall under "warhammer" or "mace"... should a warrior who's good at bludgeoning opponents be unable to use his special abilities with a club? If a club-warrior and a rogue can use a club, perhaps there's room for abuse there?

Alternately, you can always say you wield a club but you're actually wielding a dagger.

These solutions are suboptimal (or there's a good reason for the RAW... and I can always say your rogue can wield a club, as long as he's not using club-warrior abilities), but if these are the worst things I come across in 4E and the combat/whatever is "significantly" improved, I call that a win.