Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Cadfan" data-source="post: 4071640" data-attributes="member: 40961">What, precisely, are Sherlock Holmes' combat tactics?&nbsp; Should he have powers like Eviscerating Quip?&nbsp; The Subtle Put-Down?&nbsp; The Knowing Smile (in D&amp;D terms, the Smile of Knowing)?For Indiana Jones, I don't see a problem with taking whatever the 4e equivalent is of Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Whip, and Improved Unarmed Strike.&nbsp; Will those suck?&nbsp; Heck, we don't know, we haven't seen them.&nbsp; Whip sucked in 3e.&nbsp; Maybe it will still suck in 4e.&nbsp; But saying that a Whip wielding rogue with a solid left hook isn't a possibility is awfully premature.&nbsp; I could justify him as either a Brawny rogue (he punched a lot of people) or a Tricky rogue (he ran away a lot).But the Sherlock Holmes one is a mystery to me.&nbsp; The Rogue Tactics choices are combat modifications to the basic rogue.&nbsp; Sherlock Holmes was never in combat.&nbsp; It seems that if you want a non violent character who talks a lot and solves mysteries, you have some more genre compatibility issues than could really be addressed in the rogue character class.&nbsp; And if you're willing to modify the Sherlock Holmes archetype to fit a game in which fighting is a regular occurrence, this rogue isn't THAT bad at it.&nbsp; The only thing he's missing is Knowledge skills, which, while pretty important 1) are barely available to the 3e rogue either so if your comparison is that the rogue's diversity shrank this is a loser position for you, and 2) are handled in some manner that we basically don't know- possibly by just roleplaying them as your DM permits.Sherlock Holmes- probably can't do it, because he doesn't fight people.Lord Vetinari- probably CAN do it, and makes a good Sherlock-Holmes-Who-Stabs-People.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Cadfan, post: 4071640, member: 40961"] What, precisely, are Sherlock Holmes' combat tactics? Should he have powers like Eviscerating Quip? The Subtle Put-Down? The Knowing Smile (in D&D terms, the Smile of Knowing)? For Indiana Jones, I don't see a problem with taking whatever the 4e equivalent is of Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Whip, and Improved Unarmed Strike. Will those suck? Heck, we don't know, we haven't seen them. Whip sucked in 3e. Maybe it will still suck in 4e. But saying that a Whip wielding rogue with a solid left hook isn't a possibility is awfully premature. I could justify him as either a Brawny rogue (he punched a lot of people) or a Tricky rogue (he ran away a lot). But the Sherlock Holmes one is a mystery to me. The Rogue Tactics choices are combat modifications to the basic rogue. Sherlock Holmes was never in combat. It seems that if you want a non violent character who talks a lot and solves mysteries, you have some more genre compatibility issues than could really be addressed in the rogue character class. And if you're willing to modify the Sherlock Holmes archetype to fit a game in which fighting is a regular occurrence, this rogue isn't THAT bad at it. The only thing he's missing is Knowledge skills, which, while pretty important 1) are barely available to the 3e rogue either so if your comparison is that the rogue's diversity shrank this is a loser position for you, and 2) are handled in some manner that we basically don't know- possibly by just roleplaying them as your DM permits. Sherlock Holmes- probably can't do it, because he doesn't fight people. Lord Vetinari- probably CAN do it, and makes a good Sherlock-Holmes-Who-Stabs-People. [/QUOTE]

Verification