Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4071354" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>It's not hard to grasp, it just doesn't fix the problem.</p><p></p><p>A) The complaint isn't directly about builds. It's about a class that appears inflexible. This is a bigger issue than "build."</p><p>B) The abilities in the preview, and the text surrounding the rogue, all suggest "sneaky mobile sneak-attacker." All rogues have Sneak Attack. All rogues have Thievery and Stealth. All rogues are proficient in a limited selection of items that can be used with their abilities.</p><p>C) Nothing about the preview has abilities that are outside of this archetype. This matches with previous designer statements about focusing and streamlining the classes, so it's fairly well-supported that this is intentional: that the new rogue will expressly limit the kinds of characters you can build with it more than 3e did. Part of this reason seems to be that in building a 3e rogue, you could make sub-optimal choices that would ruin your fun down the line without really knowing it. </p><p></p><p>The big problem seems to be in that people *liked* the flexibility of the 3e rogue, and wanted to see that continue into 4e. It didn't, judging from the preview.</p><p></p><p>If you think I'm reading into this something other than what is implied, feel free to show me where the preview says a Rogue doesn't have to have Thievery and Stealth or that a Rogue can choose a club for a weapon, or where it previews an ability that allows the Rogue to serve as a master of logic and planning, or trechary and manipulation of others.</p><p></p><p>I see a rogue that is narrowly focused, and I do believe that was the POINT. The people clammoring for Sherlock Holmes might have to wait for a different splat-class, or mix-and-multiclass as was pointed out earlier in the thread.</p><p></p><p>So to say it in caps: THE LIMITATIONS OF THE ROGUE GO FAR BEYOND ANY OF THIS "BUILD" NONSENSE, SO STOP BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT THE "BUILD" IS OPTIONAL. IT IS IRRELEVANT. THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM.</p><p></p><p>THANK YOU.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Nope, but unless you can point to abilities that allow the creation of other archetypes, you're spouting rainbows from your behindus, building castles on sand, daydreaming of a day that isn't here, counting chickens before they hatch, and otherwise making a claim that isn't based on ANY evidence, and is, in fact, directly contradicted by most of the evidence we've seen so far (the rogue seems narrowly focused, and that narrowly focused core classes were something the designers probably shot for).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 4071354, member: 2067"] It's not hard to grasp, it just doesn't fix the problem. A) The complaint isn't directly about builds. It's about a class that appears inflexible. This is a bigger issue than "build." B) The abilities in the preview, and the text surrounding the rogue, all suggest "sneaky mobile sneak-attacker." All rogues have Sneak Attack. All rogues have Thievery and Stealth. All rogues are proficient in a limited selection of items that can be used with their abilities. C) Nothing about the preview has abilities that are outside of this archetype. This matches with previous designer statements about focusing and streamlining the classes, so it's fairly well-supported that this is intentional: that the new rogue will expressly limit the kinds of characters you can build with it more than 3e did. Part of this reason seems to be that in building a 3e rogue, you could make sub-optimal choices that would ruin your fun down the line without really knowing it. The big problem seems to be in that people *liked* the flexibility of the 3e rogue, and wanted to see that continue into 4e. It didn't, judging from the preview. If you think I'm reading into this something other than what is implied, feel free to show me where the preview says a Rogue doesn't have to have Thievery and Stealth or that a Rogue can choose a club for a weapon, or where it previews an ability that allows the Rogue to serve as a master of logic and planning, or trechary and manipulation of others. I see a rogue that is narrowly focused, and I do believe that was the POINT. The people clammoring for Sherlock Holmes might have to wait for a different splat-class, or mix-and-multiclass as was pointed out earlier in the thread. So to say it in caps: THE LIMITATIONS OF THE ROGUE GO FAR BEYOND ANY OF THIS "BUILD" NONSENSE, SO STOP BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT THE "BUILD" IS OPTIONAL. IT IS IRRELEVANT. THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM. THANK YOU. Nope, but unless you can point to abilities that allow the creation of other archetypes, you're spouting rainbows from your behindus, building castles on sand, daydreaming of a day that isn't here, counting chickens before they hatch, and otherwise making a claim that isn't based on ANY evidence, and is, in fact, directly contradicted by most of the evidence we've seen so far (the rogue seems narrowly focused, and that narrowly focused core classes were something the designers probably shot for). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised
Top