Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[Bagpuss]

Two problems I see in the argument:
2. Even if your "character sheet" says Thievery +9, does that mean that the actual character has to use that?

Character background wise how did your character become Trained in Thievery if he never stole anything in his life?

The weapon restrictions bother me more than anything, so a Rogue can't effective use a club, or a sap, or have a bar-fight? Stuff you would expect a low-life criminal to be involved in.

He can accurately use a sling, but never a bow or even a shuriken* (which he has class ability for)?


*I wonder if they have been classed as light blades - it seems really unlikely.

 

[Derren]

Character background wise how did your character become Trained in Thievery if he never stole anything in his life?

Shhh, don't ask.
That is a general 4E skill problem. Its impossible to not to be good. Ask the 20th level beduine water who never ahs seen a body of water before which was deeper than his knee high where he got his automatic +10 untrained ranks in swimming from.

 

[Nytmare]

Playing a rogue with the bow will be as viable as playing a wizard with a sword. Doable but not effective barring multiclassing. But that exactly the situation like it was in 3E. No improvment.

I thought that the wizard with a sword was viable now?

 

[MaelStorm]

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.

 

[Derren]

I thought that the wizard with a sword was viable now?

Apperantly not. Otherwise WotC wouldn't make a special swordmage class for it. Likewise they apparently also have to make a special skirmisher class to cover non thief agile warriors unless ranger cover this niche. But then we are missing a archer class.

 

[Steely Dan]

Keep in mind though, that the builds are only suggestions. You don't have to follow any of the suggestions and can explore other options.

Do you mean the Artful Dodger or Brutal Scoundrel options?

 

[The_Fan]

I dunno, I'm a brutally honest person who has never shoplifted in his life, but I'm quick enough with my hands and good at distracting people that I regularly lift stuff from them and return it as a joke. I also find myself sneaking up on people accidentally. It's quite unnerving when you turn around and find yourself face to chest with a 6'4" guy who somehow managed to get right behind you without making a noise.

...yeah, I'm kinda creepy.

But seriously. If you're the type to play a rogue with max ranks in Use Rope and none in Disable Device, why the heck does it bother you that you now get explicit mechanical bonuses for following a "build"? You already have no problem making suboptimal characters, is the problem that they made it more obvious?

 

[Bagpuss]

Playing a rogue with the bow will be as viable as playing a wizard with a sword. Doable but not effective barring multiclassing. But that exactly the situation like it was in 3E. No improvment.

Erm no because playing an rogue required no multiclassing to be really effective with a short bow, or a long bow if elven. And in 3rd Ed even if you played a human rogue and multiclassed to pick up the longbow feat you could effectively use your rogue abilities with it from then on like Sneak Attack.

Now if you are playing a rogue and some how pick up the bow proficiency you can't actually use it.

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.

 

[Irda Ranger]

1) You also didn't mention multi-classing. Perhaps some combo of Ranger, Rogue, Fighter or even Warlord would fit your concept to a T.

2) It's a class-based system, not a make-any-concept-I-want-point-buy system. Always has been, always will be (as long as it's D&D). This implies that the classes actually mean something and define an archetype; which further implies that an infinite universe of archetypes isn't possible without an infinite number of classes. Between the choices of acceptance of that fact and an early aneurysm, I choose acceptance. I'm not your doctor (or anyone's doctor), but I suggest the same for everyone.

3) We still haven't see a complete list of feats and powers available to the Rogue. Proper feat/power selection may address several of your concerns.

But all of those arguments are applicable to all of the rants we have on EN World. You just shouldn't have such high blood pressure over a system you haven't seen in entirety yet and played a few times. Rant away at GenCon '08, if you must, once you've got a couple months of playtest under your belt, but until then there's no justification for this kind of excitement.

But lucky for you, I have an argument that's directly on point.

4) A playtester has already inferred that the Fighter has an agile, swashbucklery build option.

So chill out.

 

[hong]

But that isn't what we're actually getting. What we're getting is classes that have a great deal of inescapable flavor. And not just metagame flavor like feat names - this is highly visible in-game flavor.

Good. A class with a strong class identity is one that requires less explanation. Cf the 3E monk, which is in much the same boat as the 4E rogue. You do not go pure monk unless you want a _highly_ specialised character; instead, to create a more flexible and more useful build, you multiclass.

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

It will most likely be possible to play a thug with a club, or a sniper with a bow. These character concepts may very well involve levels of rogue. They will probably also involve levels of fighter, ranger, or whatever. The paradigm adopted here seems to be "multiclass early, multiclass often".

So yes, a pure rogue is going to be fairly narrowly defined (although, it seems, still quite useful to have around). That doesn't mean all characters with rogue levels, or all character concepts involving rogue levels, will be similarly narrow.

* Ok, that's exaggeration. But it does bring up a real point. Since Rogues use these specific weapons, just have your guards stop anyone carrying those from entering - use magic to find the hidden stuff. All your "disguised assassin" problems eliminated in one fell swoop. Plus, Rogues are now useless in any kind of "prison break" scenario where there aren't a bunch of knives conveniently lying around.

These are both similarly contrived.