Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised

[Chocobo]

I'm guessing its something like 1/20th. If you count feats, multiclassing rules, races, etc, its more like 1/40th of what it will actually be like to play a rogue in a real game.

I'm guessing we've seen about 1/5 to 1/7 of the rogue class. I have reasoning to back that up.

1. We've seen 6 powers described which took up approximately 1/3 of the article.

2. We've seen 10 level 1 powers mentioned, so that is the minimum available at that level.

3. We've seen that there are powers for both even and odd levels (maybe utility even, attack odd).

I am going to assume based on 3, that there are in fact powers for every level. I am also going to assume that there will be a choice for every power pick (i.e. at least 2 powers to choose from). This gives me a minimum of 68 powers for the rogue class: 10 at level 1, and 2 at each additional level. I also suspect that they wouldn't give much more than 3 powers to choose from per level, since that would give a Brutal choice an Artful choice and one that either could use. And they want to save something for splatbooks. That gives us a range of about 68 - 100 powers.

68 powers would mean we've seen about 1/5 of the class. 100 powers would mean we've seen about 1/7.

100 powers x 8 classes would certainly be more powers than there were spells in 3.x core rules, but it looks like powers also use up a lot less space than spells due to the shorthand and specific effects. So I wouldn't say it is an unreasonable number. With 2 columns of 5 powers per page, that's only 80 pages of powers which should easily fit in a PHB.


Now, on the subject of how many feats there will be, I also have some thoughts. First, on how many class-based feats there will be. We know from the much maligned wizard feat Golden Wyvern Adept that there will be class-based feats. We can also extrapolate from that feat a set of 6-18 wizard feats based on 6 schools and 3 tiers. There might be others as well, but also I can't see many more than that showing up in a core book. It is likely that each class will have a similar number of class-based feats available to them. Multiplied by 8 classes, we then have 48-144 class-based feats.

Then they need general feats too. I'm estimating 5 x the number of feats earned, because you'd want a party of 5 characters to be able to have unique feat choices. The class-based feats don't really cut into this number since, based on the Wizard example, only about 1-3 of those feats necessarily apply to a particular character. This would give you a number from about 50 to 150 depending mainly on how often the characters get feats.

So essentially, we're looking at a minimum of about 100 feats, on up to a maximum around 300. Now that is a crapload of feats, but remember that this is 30 levels instead of 20 so they need a lot more feats than the 3.x PHBs. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see over 200 feats, because if you add the PHB and ELH together you get way over 200 feats.

If there are 200 feats, then the single classed rogue would be able to choose from about 112 of those feats. At first level even they'd be able to choose from about 37 of those, since they have access to the whole heroic tier. 2-6 of those would be rogue-based feats to directly affect their class features or powers.


Of course, that's all a lot of guessing based on very little information...


And it doesn't figure in races, paragon paths or epic destinies. Or anything that they haven't told us about yet.

 

[JohnSnow]

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.

Okay.

A single light weapon is stupid. Period. Nobody in their right mind fights this way. Even if you are using a single weapon (á la "single sword" style), you tend to make use of your off-hand for parries, grabs, and the like. If you're not doing so, you're handicapping yourself.

As has been mentioned, shields are heavy and bulky. They're also single use - defense only. If you lose your primary weapon, you're now unarmed.

A good backup weapon, on the other hand, is useful if you lose your primary weapon. It's also functional for parrying, and thus providing defense. Potentially, it can be a utility instrument, like a dagger or a handaxe, that has another purpose as well. It could even do a different damage type, making you versatile against different foes.

The only good argument is the "big freakin' axe." I'd contend that a smart ranger with a "big freakin' axe" is either a) wearing heavier than average armor, or b) using it as a double weapon. The latter is just smart if you fight in light armor with a big weapon. It's even how knights in heavy armor usually fought with longswords. They engaged in lots of half-swording, trips, and similar "double weapon" kinds of tactics.

And do I need to point out that, in D&D, fighting with a double weapon is two-weapon fighting?

How's that for an explanation?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I disagree. "Outside the Box" is doing something that is not in a system. A class system is there to provide exactly the opposite - packaging this inside a box - a class. A class that you can make to do anything (or just a lot) is something that's very much no longer a real class, it is some kind "point buy" system for building a character. It's not doing is job as a class.
It's certainly reasonable to demand a range of customability in a class, because otherwise, you need to invent classes for even the slightest differences (or you end up with a lot of abilities that you can only describe in your personal flavor text, not in actual mechanics), and more importantly, all Rogues look similar to each other. You'll lose all excitement about playing a Rogue after the second time when you noticed they all feel the same. You come up all with this interesting background for the Rogue, but he's still the same.

In 3rd edition, the Rogue was received as a very flexible class - and that it was. And basically only due to its broad class skills and many skill points. But all other abilities of the Rogue were the same. There was no choice whether you really wanted Sneak Attack for your "Jarod - The Pretender" clone, or your diplomat, or your dwarven trapmaster.

But the problem is - knowing that someone played a Rogue didn't mean anything. Does he sneak around and disarm traps? Or is he an eloquent talker? Creating false documents and selling our loot? You just didn't know, and that meant the class didn't do his job in telling us what the character was all about. And it could also lead to the opposite effect - someone has a cool idea for a Rogue, and then the party says "but we need you to be able to find and disarm traps, open locks and be generally percepive." "But my Rogue is a noble who worked at the city court - he doesn't know anything about this stuff. How am I supposed to fit this into his backstory? Or with his limited skill points?"

The 4E rogue has a stronger focus on what you can do. But there are still several options to explore how to play the Rogue. We've only seen a few 1st level power and 9th level power for the Rogue. This will give plenty of room for playing different Rogues.

In the end, Roleplaying means you play a role. In D&D, your role is described by a class.

 

[cthulhu_duck]

I wonder if the problem may not lie in two schools of thought on class roles.

In the flexible class role school of thought, while your main class grants you certain abilities it doesn't limit you, and you can build similar characters using different classes through adding feats, skills etc.

In the not-flexible class role school of thought, your main class defines who you are - your niche is "protected" - the spellcasters can't use spells to emulate you, the warriors can't use feats to emulate you etc.

Thoughts?

 

[helium3]

Sherlock Holmes was never in combat.

Well, except for that one time he got pitched over a waterfall. And he survived!! So, Sherlock Holmes was either a Monk or a high level PC of any class!!

 

[Celebrim]

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.

Exactly. And that's why all this talk of multiclassing, feat selection, and so forth misses the point. The archetype of 'brawny dagger wielding rogue' is reinforced at multiple levels. If I choose the strength based option in 'rogue tactics', that choices resonates throughout my career as a rogue. The archtype is continually reinforced at multiple levels. If I try to use the same class to build 'smart rogue' or 'charming rogue' or 'tough rogue', the best I can do is try to cobble something together through general feat choices. On the balance, that won't be nearly as effective or evocative as working within the tightly created framework of, 'You are this stealthy street thug whose handy with daggers and knows how to hurt people.'

 

[helium3]

By the way, I haven't sold off my 3e books yet, and Iwon't for awhile, because I'm not sure how 4e will play. I like most of what I've seen, but I'm not sold.

Right now, the one group I run a game in is orbiting around "we'll likely play 4E for a while but never give up 3E entirely or find another game to play when we want a less 'hack-and-slash' experience."

In the other group, the DM has already stated that he's sold most of his 3E books, keeping just what he needs to run 3E modules until 4E Ebberon is released.

 

[Raduin711]

Sure, but this is about 4e and how it's rogue isn't flexible.

If we want to compare, we still have 3e's rogue not having any required skills, and having a broader selection of weapons, and more opportunities for a sneak attack.

4e's "fix" seems to be to MORE narrowly focus the rogue.

I'm sure that not everyone is happy with that fix.

3e rogues had required skills too. They just had to buy them with skill points instead of getting them for free. Search and disable device, for example, are so necessary to party survival that they are essentially required. It's nice that we are getting them for free now.

As for the weapons, we don't know enough about how we buy weapon proficiencies to say whether or not the rogue's selection of weapons is narrow. And sneak attack is restricted in weapon choice, just like before. Plus ca change...

So what? It's incomplete, but that doesn't mean it won't be judged on what it is now. What it is now looks limited. If the final rogue is broadly similar (and it wouldn't be much of a preview if it wasn't), the final rogue will be limited.

Or you could point me to a place where the preview or the designers contradict anything that the preview or the designers imply, and I'd gladly admit that there's a question.

But with the designers trying to focus the classes more and the rogue seeming to be more focused, the preview is in line with everything we've been told and doesn't imply that the rogue will somehow be magically immensely more flexible in the final.

It's not proof, but it is evidence.

I still say it's only a preview. The class is going to appear narrow when we only have a narrow view of it.

Also consider that the rogue gets 10 skills total, not 6. Theivery, stealth, any four skills, and four from a list. Perhaps even more, if you get more skills for your inteligence bonus. (perhaps they haven't mentioned it because every character gets it, kind of like languages in 3rd edition... the extra skills are a benefit of your intelligence, not your class, so it isn't mentioned in the class.)

 

[I'm A Banana]

The 'black box' defense - you can't judge the quality of whats out of the box because the stuff still in the box is going to be so overwhelmingly good - is getting really old. We've got pretty big peices now. If you think narrower less flexible rogues capture the flavor better, are easier to use, and retain thier archetypal feel better, well then great. You are probably right. Enjoy 4E. But lets not put our hands over our eyes and refuse to see what we are seeing.

Can I get an Amen?

AMEN.

I wonder if the problem may not lie in two schools of thought on class roles.

In the flexible class role school of thought, while your main class grants you certain abilities it doesn't limit you, and you can build similar characters using different classes through adding feats, skills etc.

In the not-flexible class role school of thought, your main class defines who you are - your niche is "protected" - the spellcasters can't use spells to emulate you, the warriors can't use feats to emulate you etc.

Thoughts?

I think that's where the legitimate debate is, yes. How flexible should one class be? The 4e designers say "not very -- the focus helps define the role and tells you what you need to know about the class." Many disagree with this.

But then we have a school of thought that says that those in the first school just aren't seeing the big picture, and so they shouldn't be talking about their criticisms yet, before they see it all. This school seems to hold that the designers didn't say that, and that the flexibility is there, it's just obscured because it's incomplete, that the rogue really will be as flexible as it was before, we're just not seeing it all, the first group is just looking for something to criticize. And that any flexibility that is gone deserves to be gone because these characters aren't very good D&D characters anyway because D&D is about medieval fantasy combat and that's it.

I like non-flexible classes. I don't think that the 4e rogue will be as flexible as the 3e rogue was. I still want the archetypes it's leaving behind supported. And I think those who are saying that we just don't have the information, that it will be that flexible, and that D&D shouldn't be supporting those archetypes anyway, are kind of putting their heads in the sand.

 

[jaer]

Just something else about what weapons are useful: multi-classing. The rogue gets sneak attack at first level for +2d6 damage, which means a fifth level ranger might be able to take 1 level of rogue and be able to sneak attack.

So a rogue 6 does the same sneak attack as a ranger 5/rogue 1, but the ranger can use better weapons for it.

The same for the fighter. A fighter takes 1 level of rogue and can sneak attack as well as a rogue with better weapons.

Being that there is no longer a difference between rogue levels in sneak attack damage, that there should be a restriction on what weapons can be used to keep every class from grabbing one level in rogue for the sneak attacks.

Also, note the sneak attack damage section:

As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.
Level Sneak Attack Damage
1st–10th +2d6
11th–20th +3d6
21st–30th +5d6

It doesn't say "as you advance in rogue levels" or in any other way say that these levels correspond to rogue levels. I could be reading way too much into what isn't said...but it could be that even a ranger 21/rogue 1 might have a +5d6, and therefore the weapon restrictions are necessary or else sneak attack just becomes too good for people to not take it.