Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[Li Shenron]

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

Did it suck before?

For a Fighter-type yes.

For other characters, like monks, druids, clerics and mages, not that much.

In fact you just don't expect fighters to fight with slings, when they can better use bows.

I don't think there's any risk of that, but I have to say that a game where a sling is as good as a bow... sucks ass!

 

[tuffnoogies]

I think all of our worries will be answered once we learn more on the multiclassing or class training options. An Ampersand article on this subject would be very appreciated.

No kidding. And we'll probably get one the last week of May just before the books hit the shelves and it's way too late to change anything the actual customers don't like.

 

[Steely Dan]

Did it suck before?

For a Fighter-type yes.

For other characters, like monks, druids, clerics and mages, not that much.

Very much I would say, all of those are better off with a crossbow, or throwing a carrot…

 

[AllisterH]

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.

Hmm?

Sneak Attack
Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling, your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases

.

Reading this, doesn't this do what you're saying? Looking at it, I would assume any future weapon that falls under the LIGHT category is available to be used.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I'm hoping there'll be a baseline of weapons that everyone's proficient in, like 3E's simple weapons, or each class gets a selection of chosen proficiencies in addition to their standard proficiencies.

 

[Patlin]

Oh look.. I'll play an Elven Rogue...

Elven Weapon Training: You gain proficiency with the longbow and the shortbow.

Rogue Sneak attack - hmm can't use it, still I could use my sling out to extreme range...

Rogue Powers - nope, nope, nope, oh I can Tumble, nope, nope.... etc.

This could be addressed by feats. Maybe the backstabber feat they mention, even.

Theoretical Feat
Benefit: Treat any one handed melee weapon as if it were a light blade for your rogue powers and class abilities. Treat bows as crossbows for your rogue powers and class abilities.

I sure hope so anyway... it's be crazy if the Elven Rogue couldn't use the longbow effectively. Entirely possible, but crazy.

 

[Stormtower]

I like the 4E rogue writeup. Trying to put my finger on why 4E's execution of class roles (that we have seen thus far) reminds me of a very mature, sophisticated version of BECMI/RC.

...I'm not sure I have the words to describe it. But the rogue feels like it's returning to its "Thief" roots, and I like it. I'll see how it plays on Thursday at DDXP (hope to meet some of you fellow ENWorlders in person there!). I'm a sucker for 3.5E rogues despite their occasionally limited utility in combat.

small rant coming: I was one of the anti-4E folks posting after GenCon, largely because I disliked the framing of 4E vs. my beloved 3.5E and felt it was too soon for a new edition. However, I am now serene and placid about it because 3.5E ain't goin' nowhere as long as some of us carry its torch for home campaigns. 3.5E is the game I want for nearly limitless PC options and gritty, deadly combat. 4E's tone and flavor is a significant departure from that style, and IMO that's not a bad thing... it's just different.

When I came out of my shell and became active in the MD/DC area as a gamer, I deliberately set out to improve my DM'ing by trying different styles of play within 3.5E (hardcore tactical dungeon crawl vs. strong narrative/story vs. hybrid tactical/RP) and I found the system was flexible enough to handle those divergent styles. So I'll embrace the differences in 4E as just another "style" of D&D in which to run.

The tightening of class abilities and roles was a stated design goal for 4E, and that's not a bad thing IMO. If 4E can truly make me feel like I'm playing a shinier and more mature version of Basic D&D, it'll grab me as a customer. Personally, the rogue writeup - perceived lack of flexibility and all - seems to do that.

We shall see what the weekend holds.

 

[Mad Mac]

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.

Or they made Rapiers an "Exotic" weapon that requires a feat. This seems supported by the DI screens which has it on a list of "Superior" weapons. It's pretty easy to see Rapiers as fitting into the light blades catagory.

 

[Steely Dan]

4E as just another "style" of D&D in which to run.

This is key.

 

[AllisterH]

We also don't know what proficiency actually means.

If you're non-proficient in a weapon, what penalties (if any) do you take?