Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[Bagpuss]

You just couldn't PA with a light weapon.

That sort of broad restriction makes more sense than the arbitrary list they have for sneak attack. If they have just restricted it to light blades, and had no ranged weapons I'd have been happier I think, at least it would make some sort of sense.

It isn't restrictions I against, it's a class system after all, it's arbitrary ones that make no sense, game balance and/or flavour wise.

 

[devoblue]

I'm mostly happy with the weapon limitations for rogues and sneak attack. The only one I struggle with is sneak attacking with a sling.

 

[Engilbrand]

Allow me to say something again. Just because your "CHARACTER SHEET" says Thievery +9, doesn't mean that you have to use it. The sheet is not every thing about your character. Sure, the rules say that you have that, but that's something outside of the game. You don't need your character to play that. A Fighter can call himself a Knight or a Paladin. A Sorceror can call himself a Wizard. It doesn't matter. If you don't want your character to have any ability to steal stuff, then don't play him with the ability to steal stuff. Ignore what's on the sheet. Or, do the alternative and complain that your character is good at something that you don't want him to be good at, but use the skill anyway.

 

[wedgeski]

I'm mostly happy with the weapon limitations for rogues and sneak attack. The only one I struggle with is sneak attacking with a sling.

Well I think we can all probably think of at least *one* myth where the villain was downed by one shot from a sling.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

True. But in that case they've taken the wrong path with regard to editing the book / writing the rules.

It's clear that sneak attack now works only with some weapons, ok.

Mentioning the list here will only confuse people as soon as additional books introduce new weapons, each of which have anyway to be specified whether can sneak attack or not.

Much better would have been to allow sneak attack to work with all weapon of a certain group. That's better, because it will be automatically clear for every weapon in further books.

 

[Steely Dan]

Well I think we can all probably think of at least *one* myth where the villain was downed by one shot from a sling.

Hopefully the sling won't suck ass this time around.

 

[devoblue]

Well I think we can all probably think of at least *one* myth where the villain was downed by one shot from a sling.

Scoring a crit and sneak attacking are not the same thing.

 

[Drkfathr1]

And many where a villain was felled with a bow.

Hopefully there's something we're still missing....like some kind of extra weapon proficiencies gained from race?

Maybe weapons that can be used without proficiency (such as club)?

 

[Aristotle]

I'm probably too deep into this thread to have much hope of my post being read, but...

* Skills - Stealth and Thievery is mandatory. Just wanted to be a agile type who doesn't sneak around stealing things? Too bad.

I'll give you Thievery, that should probably have been recommended rather than automatic. As a DM I would likely let someone who wanted to use the class more as a skirmisher than a thief choose another skill instead. Stealth makes sense enough to me. The lightly armed and armor guy is better able to sneak around? I buy it.

* Weapons - Not only is the Rogue only proficient in a small set, but their powers are specifically limited to this exact set. Want to play a thug who uses a club, or a sniper with a bow, or an infiltrator with unarmed strikes? Nope, you must carry a dagger and wear a black hooded cloak. And lurk in the shadows, even in your own house.

I think your jumping way too soon here. For all we know all character classes are automatically proficient in simple weapons, or simple weapons simply don't require proficiency to use. Perhaps to build a better skirmisher you need to take the warrior training feat which might give you access to a number of weapons/armor proficiencies from the warrior class (I'm betting the training feats also let you alternatively select from the other class' at will and per encounter abilities.)

And I haven't mentioned houseruling either.

How can we houserule when we don't have the actual rules yet?

 

[tuffnoogies]

Ditto. The "Sneak Attack" Ampersand column is the first thing I've seen that really dampens my enthusiasm for 4e. As I was reading it, I kept thinking they should change the name back to "Thief."

R&C specifically states that rogues will be able to use rapiers and will have more of swashbuckler feel. I guess they decided to nix that. That's exactly the opposite of what I would have done.

Hopefully, we're seeing things way out of context (which wouldn't surprise me too much the way they're totally bungling the whole marketing thing) and thing's be ok when we have the complete ruleset.