Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[withak]

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.

It's already way too late for that, anyway.

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

That's ok, and I think I noticed now that they just say "crossbow" which is probably a group and not a single weapon.

Still, no reason to really exclude the bows and the spears IMHO.

 

[jaer]

I'll withhold final judgment though Really, want to see how the multi-classing stuff works out.. Even if there is a feat called "use clubs as a weapon for your rogue powers" I still think it's a bad solution, having to spend feats on something like that. Also, I doubt the "rogue weapon talent" class ability, can be feat'ed.. And what about sneak attack? Another feat?

Actually, I think that is the perfect solution. Feats are now meant to customize your classes.

Rogue A is a dagger user. He's happy with the light blades and and the x-bows he as learned to use in the city streaks. He spends his feats and abilities improving his stealthiness and the like.

Rogue B does not like being limited to daggers and light blades. He's a street thug, and thus has learned to use a slightly wider range of melee weapondry. He spends takes strength-based combat powers and spends his feats on expanding his roguish weapon abilities (and now light maces can be used for any of his abilities as well). We don't know the mechanical difference between a light blade and a light mace...it could very well be large enough to require the restriction.

Rogue C is an elf, good a sniping with a bow (multi-class ranger). He spends some training (i.e., a feat) to use his archery skills in conjunction with his natural bow abilities and his ranger levels. Again a bow might be significantly better than a x-bow in 4e, hence the need for a rogue to take a feat to use his rogue-powers with them.

Rogue A, more stealth. Rogue B can use maces with his rogue powers. Rogue C can use bows with his rogue powers. That is exactly what feats are meant to do in my opinion: customize your character beyond the ability choices. I hope they do supply a couple feats to let rogues use their abilities with other weapons.

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

The preview says "Trained Skills: Stealth and Thievery plus four others." These skills aren't mandatory. They are FREE. You don't want your rogue to sneak around or be thievey, just decide you don't want them as trained skills and there you go. Free things can be declined.

 

[Mercule]

1) As there are two builds for the rogue, I suspect there will two builds for the ranger – ranged or TWF.

This would make me sad. Rangers excelling in archery makes some sense. Rangers having some propensity for TWF over light weapons, sword and board, or big freakin' axes goes beyond strange and well into absurd.

Can someone please give me an even remotely plausible excuse way a wilderness survivalist would have any greater inclination towards TWF? And "'cause the rules say so" doesn't count.

 

[TwoSix]

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

When did "use longbow effectively" become "use all your class powers with the weapon"? Is an elven warlord or cleric also broken?

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

* 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.

You mean a +1 to using daggers is a rule that if you play a rogue, you MUST carry a dagger? :\

I'm sorry, but having a +1 to using a dagger is not a set-in-stone requirement that you use one, and nothing else.

In fact, I'm not trying to be confrontational, but your statement appears to fall into the category of "complete misinterpretation of something fairly obvious, in order to rag on 4e." It's like saying "fighters in 3e have heavy armor proficiency, so they're forcing you to buy plate armor at level 1 when you can't afford to buy it." It's a correct observation, IMO, but an extremely exaggerated and distorted conclusion.

In short, rogues have a +1 with daggers. Big deal. If you want to use a club, pick up a club and use it. Appears to be a complete non-issue to me.

 

[jaer]

This would make me sad. Rangers excelling in archery makes some sense. Rangers having some propensity for TWF over light weapons, sword and board, or big freakin' axes goes beyond strange and well into absurd.

Can someone please give me an even remotely plausible excuse way a wilderness survivalist would have any greater inclination towards TWF? And "'cause the rules say so" doesn't count.

Because you cannot effectively swing a two-handed weapon in deep brush or with low-hanging branches around, and shields really just get in the way, always banging off of branches (and make quite a lot of noise, scaring off game).

Two smaller weapons is a much more effective way to fight in these sort of environments (especially when a bear grabs you), and when one is used to darting about (from running through the wilderness, dodging shrubs and branches) one is better trained for quick strikes and deft movement over blocking with a shield or slamming around a large weapon.

Take that for what you will. I know when I go camping, I'm more likely to take a small hatchet and a decent knife over an axe and a sword.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

We also don't know what proficiency actually means.

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

None. They've already stated, IIRC, that proficiency now equals a bonus, rather than non-proficiency equalling a penalty.

And furthermore, everyone is saying "there are only two builds for rogue!!!!!" -- when it explicitly states in this preview's disclaimer that the builds shown are SAMPLES that are included for new players and that you can build your rogue however you want. It says that in plain black and white -- go back and read the article before you claim that the game only allows these two builds, please, because if you state that you're going to be forced to pick one of these two builds, then you're objectively and demonstrably wrong.

It's like there are sample starting characters in the 3e PHB. There are sample feat lists in the 3.5e PHBII. YOu're not forced by the rules to play them, either. 4e is no different. They give you sample builds so that you get the hang of it if you don't know what the heck you're doing.

Either many people are skimming over the text way to fast, or there's a lot of wilfull misinterpretation going on so that people can justify their "4e sucks no matter what they do" stance. There are aspects of 4e that I personally don't like the sound of, but there are also a lot that I do, and making up problems that aren't there really isn't helping any kind of rational discussion about any issues that might really exist.

 

[Bagpuss]

When did "use longbow effectively" become "use all your class powers with the weapon"?

Since 3rd Ed when they got rid of arbitrary restrictions, they had in 2nd Ed.

Is an elven cleric also broken?

No, don't worry he'll be fixed buy cleric powers only working with bludgeoning weapons, because drawing blood is evil.

 

[Gargoyle]

Sorry about the rant, but what I'm seeing is a mechanically-sound and promising class that's been severely handicapped by a narrow enforced flavor with visible in-game effects, for no good reason.

I believe the classes are going to all be quite focused because:

- It gives them a stronger identity. All 4e fighters will have heavy armor and specialize in a weapon. The guy wearing the plate mail who is really good with that axe is probably a fighter.
- It opens up room for many more core classes. 3e had a proliferation of prestige classes, and I believe 4e will have a proliferation of core classes. If the classes are well designed, I'm ok with this. If you want to play a monk or a swashbuckler, or whatever you will have to wait, homebrew it, or make do with the options in the first PHB for a while. But eventually it will be very nice because the fighter won't be a better swashbuckler than a swashbuckler.

I think it's a good strategy, because there will be splatbooks, even if WotC doesn't make them, so I think it's good to leave some room for them and give the "core" classes a stronger identity.