Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[jaer]

Depends on what you consider a worthwhile upgrade I guess.. I cant imagine handaxes or clubs being much better than whatever the category "light blades" contain. Even if we're talking about going from 1d6 to 1d8 with my weapon (which seems unlikely shortswords to clubs), it hardly seems a big enough deal (even with the reduced HP of 4e) to bother with a feat for.

But your assumptions here is this "use new weapons for class abilities" is not equavalent to other heroic level feats, and is therefore somehow wasted. We might always disagree on this matter, but it makes sense to me to think that rogues are trained to do what they do with the weapons rogues typically use (those on the rogue list) and if they want to do the same thing with other weapons, they need a little more training (i.e., a feat).

If a longbow allows a rogue to attack from longer range and deal more damager per shot, that needs to be balanced against a rogue who is closer and doing less damage with a x-bow. The balancing factor is the x-bow rogue can sometimes do sneak attacks with his weapon. It sounds somewhat reasonable that for the price of a feat, the bow rogue can do the same thing.

 

[Campbell]

Sherlock Holmes was a monk (read martial artist).

 

[TwinBahamut]

I really don't agree that the fact the Rogue is much more focused of a class now is a problem.

The designers have already stated that they aren't trying to make it so that you can cover a wide variety of archetypes through a single core class. Instead, they want people to cover a wide variety of archetypes through multiclassing. I don't know where the quote is from, but the designers have already said that they want players to start designing characters from core concept, and pick classes starting from there, rather than start with a class and try to make it fit a concept. 4E is going to be built around a flexible character creation system, rather than flexible classes.

We already know that things like Wizards wearing full-plate and Warlords who use Wizard spells are going to be viable. Also, we know that the Rogue is designed to allow some degree of multiclassing. Sneak attack is limited, sure, but it is more open than the Rogue's weapon list. Light Blade is more generic than dagger and shuriken, Crossbow is more generic than hand crossbow. We don't know how wide it is, but there does seem to be an emphasis on it being more open than just assuming Rogue starting proficiencies.

Anyways, I am very happy with the options given to the new rogue, and I am happy that the class is focusing on a limited set of archetypes rather than remaining too broad.

 

[Voss]

It looks to me like there's too much focus on what the 4e rogue can't do instead of what it can. With class systems, you really have to come at it as 1) read the class 2) decide what kind of characters you can make out of it. Instead of 1) Decide what kind of character you want to play with a rogue 2) try to make it. That just seems, to me, to be totally backward.

Many roleplayers like to do things outside the box. Coming up with a concept is often first, class is almost an afterthought. Good rpg design, I would say, accommodates that. The more times the devs step in to the class design and state 'No, you can't do that (because we said so)', the less happy people who like to design their characters this way are likely to be. The forced skills are really egregious in this regard, because not a single feature of the rogue class (and yes, there may be some powers that take advantage of those skills, but the class itself does not), uses the mandatory skills in any way at all.

Forcing the rogue into a role of 'sneaky stealer who stabs schlubs' isn't going to match with a lot of concepts. In the core books, where else are people going to go for rogues that don't fit the dev's vision? The paladin, warlock, cleric and wizard are obviously out. The fighter is, by design, expected to wear heavy armor. That probably won't work. The warlord? Maybe for a concept or two, but I doubt 'inspiring combat tactician' is going to work for more than an individual concept or two when you're coming at it with a cunning scoundrel or knowledgable forger in mind. Ranger? Maybe, but I expect most of the ranger class is going to be defined as 'forester feathers fearsome foes', or some TWF silliness (in fact, I will be mildly surprised if those aren't the two builds).

So what they can't do seems rather important.
At the very least, if they were designing the game with very specific roles, they should have had a lot more classes in the first book. There's still time, apparently, too. Put the magic items in the DMG where there is room, and add another 6 classes so more concepts aren't left out in the cold, scratching at the door.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think the main issue here is that there is no generic "adventurer" or "expert" class with a lack of baggage at hand.

We could really use a very-vanilla melee striker class which lacks a defined secondary role.

Really, we need that lightly-armored fighter everyone has been clammoring for.

 

[Zaruthustran]

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.

Carrying a shield into the wilderness is all kinds of foolish. Look at any army soldier faced with a long trek, and you'll see a guy shedding every bit of spare weight--even going so far as to cut excess length from belts and laces. No survivalist would want to lug around something so heavy, and of such extremely limited use.

Same goes for any "great" weapon. Too big, too bulky, too heavy. Two longswords are just as impractical. Longswords hate getting wet, and are really only good for one thing: being a longsword.

Much more practical: a spear in one hand (can double as tent pole, walking stick, river stick, quicksand probe, fishing spear/pole, etc etc) and a handaxe in the other (way too many uses to list). Or knife and handaxe. Or machete and spear.

It's all about keeping weight and fuss (maintenance) down, and keeping multi-purpose use and practicality up.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It would be like looking at the upper left section of the Mona Lisa and assuming there are no people in the picture. There might be, but there might not be. There is a dearth of information still.

You didn't use a generic food analogy!

The thing is that the upper-left section of the Mona Lisa wouldn't be a very good "preview." Maybe a sketch of it before it was finished. Maybe a completely finished eye. You'd save the smile for the true release. The upper-left section of the Mona Lisa doesn't tell you anything you WANT to know. It's functionally useless.

The rogue is bigger than that. It's like the left eye. I can't say with certainty what the smile or background is going to be, but I can probably tell that we're drawing a person, perhaps a woman, and that she's caucasian, and she probably has a right eye that's just like her left, unless Leonardo wanted to pull some tricks on us. I don't know what the whole effect is going to be, I don't know the center of the painting, but I can say that there is evidence for my claims.

I could be surprised, and I don't know everything, but I do have evidence for the claim. I might even criticize it based on that evidence: "Oh, great, another brown-eyed girl, like we don't have ENOUGH of those!"

Whereas someone who came along and said "She might be hazel-eyed, or maybe she'll be different colored in her eyes depending on how you look at her, or maybe she'll have three other eyes on tentacles coming out of her head! You're just seeing what you want to see because you want to be critical!" wouldn't have any evidence for the claims. She might, sure. It is just a preview. But one position is supported by that preview. The other is not.

If the rogue is more like the upper-left corner than the eye, then I can say that it's a HORRIBLE preview that is, in fact, directly MISLEADING.

It might be. But I do have some faith in WotC's competence in choosing what little bits of information to release, and that these bits of information are in line with what they're telling us about philosophy means that there is PLENTY of evidence for my position.

Yes, the Mona Lisa might have tentacle-eyes, but you're going to have to show me that, or make be believe that the preview is directly misleading.

Yeah, the rogue probably has more powers, even a greater diversity of them, but that doesn't mean the rogue is suddenly Captain Flexibility and "we just don't know enough." Evidence points to it NOT being very flexible, and to the designers believing that a narrowly focused class is a GOOD thing (and probably just hope it's not 'too narrow,').

So if we can drop that little "not enough information!" canard, that'd be great.

...some stuff...

A lot of this boils down to archetype fiddly bits. Suffice it to say that a selection of skills doesn't back up an archetype alone. It needs to be reinforced at multiple levels, especially something that's as counter-intuitive as a medieval action-adventure movie featuring a crime-solving detective with a pipe and an overcoat. It needs abilities, it needs to combat as if it were that character, and it needs to have the 'telling marks' of the archetype.

3e helped achieve this archetype with the rogue because of the vast number of skill points and the way that skills worked to begin with. Putting 1 point in 10 different Knowledge skills (with a few left over to max out Search and Spot and Listen, and a handful of points in Gather Information maybe) worked out to be a very "Sherlocky" thing. 4e mandates some of your skills (stealth and theivery), and looks to be getting rid of knowledge (in favor of several different skills like Arcana and Nature and the like).

But here's something interesting:

What would be a particularly Sherlock Holmes-ish way of killing orcs? Seems to me that using one's powers of perception to slip a dagger right between the plates of their armor is a pretty good option. Is there a better one? It seems like this is just the usual problem of taking a character from one genre (non violent detective work) to another(medieval style fantasy).

It's perfectly fine to cede that 4e abandons the Sherlock trope entirely. 3e only gave a vague passing nod to it's possibility in the first place, and it is dissonant. In which case my criticism remains true, but becomes slightly more damning: In 4e, you can't play Sherlock Holmes-type at all (at least at launch). The game doesn't support it. Welcome to house rule and/or different game territory.

Of course, we have no evidence that 4e is wholeheartedly limiting itself in genre like this, or that it becomes impossible to play a nonviolent detective campaign or session, and I still think that D&D is "too generic" to not give a nod or three in the direction of at the very least a mystery-centric adventure or two.

So we're left with ideally making Holmes fun even when he's killing orcs, not just when he's solving crimes (but especially when he's solving crimes). Some basic seeds for abilities might include something like:

Momentum Shift: The character trips a creature who moves past him, ending that creature's movement.
Demoralizing Lecture: You point out how ignorant the target is. Intelligence attack vs. Will to gain combat advantage
Familiar Pattern: You become familiar with a creature's fighting habits and gain your Int bonus as an AC bonus against a creature that has hit you once in combat already.
Divinatory Knack: You can learn to cast 1st-level divination spells.
Trained to Subdue: You can make a Grapple check to pin an enemy and hold him immobile

...or, come to think of it, almost anything from the Archivist's Dark Knowledge class feature.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I really don't agree that the fact the Rogue is much more focused of a class now is a problem.

The designers have already stated that they aren't trying to make it so that you can cover a wide variety of archetypes through a single core class. Instead, they want people to cover a wide variety of archetypes through multiclassing. I don't know where the quote is from, but the designers have already said that they want players to start designing characters from core concept, and pick classes starting from there, rather than start with a class and try to make it fit a concept. 4E is going to be built around a flexible character creation system, rather than flexible classes.

This sums up my position on it pretty nicely, actually. I like that I can make a character "a little bit ninja" by taking a level of rogue better than I like the idea of making the rogue Captain Generic Dex-Based Class. It's a shame we haven't seen much of the multiclassing system, I'm hoping it's dynamite.

 

[BryonD]

It looks to me like there's too much focus on what the 4e rogue can't do instead of what it can. With class systems, you really have to come at it as 1) read the class 2) decide what kind of characters you can make out of it. Instead of 1) Decide what kind of character you want to play with a rogue 2) try to make it. That just seems, to me, to be totally backward.

Fourth Edition: The game so good it tells YOU what you want before you even think of it!!!!

 

[Cadfan]

I didn't say it wasn't possible. I'm just saying that Indy's player doesn't get the choice to move that +1 bonus from dagger to whip, just as Holmes's player doesn't get to move it to unarmed strike.

The +1 to the dagger is to compensate it for being per se crappier than the shortsword. In 3e, rogues use daggers for concealed backup weapons and for ranged attacks, maybe. For everything else its rapiers and shortswords, because they're objective better. This is a problem because it makes the "rogue with a dagger" archetype kind of a poor choice, even though it should be a strong one. The +1 attack bonus for the dagger is compensation to fix this problem. Now there's a mechanical reason to use it- its more accurate than a shortsword, even if less damaging.

If you let rogues move this to other weapons, we'd just kiss the dagger goodbye for another edition. Don't think of the +1 as a free weapon focus, think of it as an attribute of the dagger as a weapon- rogues are better with it than are other classes.

As for sneak attacking with these other weapons... I don't see that as all that important, to be honest. Thinking back over the Indiana Jones movies, "sneak attack" isn't the description I'd give his whip use. If whips can be used as improvised ropes for climbing and swinging, then THAT is what will make Indiana Jones work as a character. And as for unarmed striking for Sherlock... I'm inclined to think of that as a genre issue. Holmes comes from a genre where dangerous people might shoot you, someone might punch you, or someone might knife you (or attack you with a venomous cobra, but you know where I'm going here). D&D is a genre where people in heavy armor might stab you, or shoot fire at you, there are no revolvers, and non lethal unarmed combat generally doesn't take place versus foes in armor with military weaponry. I think you have to relax your demands for certain combat types to fit within the genre.