Essentials Rogue is up!

[Aegeri]

It does not apply to curse and especially hunters quarry, for precisely the reasons you cite.

Phew. That almost had be reaching for the old pitchforks there. I can see why Sneak attack deserves the exemption, because it requires combat advantage before it actually can work (while HQ and Curse do not). I am pretty pleased with that change.

I do hope whoever made the "Death of Martial Healing" thread comes and reads this one. It's utterly hilarious that these martial classes are making the Warlord incredibly good. A Warlord and Thief is a dream sneak attacking combination. You could, with a Warlord and Thief get sneak attack four times in one round.

EG:

Thief action points (Warlord Bonuses!) hits monster and gets SA. Might as well throw in Backstab onto this first attack as well.
Thief readies his normal standard action at start of next creatures turn to attack again. Gets SA second time.
Warlord action points and uses commanders strike, the rogue attacks the monster and gets SA a third time.
Warlord readies a standard action to use commanders strike on the next creatures turn. The rogue again gets it and gets SA a fourth time.

That right there is a major amount of damage between those two. At first level that could be an additional +8d6 or +8d8 damage (with relevant feat) plus backstab (which even gets you another +3 to hit! How could it be better?). It also makes sense why Warlords weren't given an essentials treatment, as they are a martial class that requires powers to function well (due to being so focused on manipulating other characters). Dragging the Warlord into a MBA only using class just doesn't make sense - especially when it can use the other essential martial classes extremely effectively.

In many ways, Essentials actually makes more sense in this light than it did before it.

While I still dislike the Knight, the Thief I can see the genuine potential of.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In before:

"OMG, a thief uses a basic attack but strength is only a secondary or even tertiary ability score."

Spoiler

I believe weapon finesse will take care of it, but of course, some people here won´t believe that if the threads about the essential knight/fighter are an indicator

more serious:

@mearls: thanks for coming in and clarifying. Thief sounds like a class that is fun, simple and effektive.

 

[Aegeri]

Actually I think them getting dex as a primary from weapon finesse is just plain logical. That's what the feat or whatever has been called in the past, so we don't need any special guesswork here.

 

[Peraion Graufalke]

I was going to point that out. Sneak Attack now works with short bows, but in return drops all crossbows except hand ones.

Thieves also lose access to shurikens.
EDIT: Though they can still deal Sneak Attack damage with them.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

as a side note, backstab (though not sneak attack) works with all weapons. So yes, we are going back to the days when a thief can backstab with a two-handed sword greatsword ballista.

fify

 

[Aegeri]

Looks like things that affect MBAs may get updated if Mike over at RPG.net has his evil ways:

We're working through the MBA issue now and will likely issue updates to deal with the worst issues. It was on our radar from early on in the design, but you can bet we're looking at the charop boards to make sure we didn't miss anything. We didn't want to update anything too soon, since it doesn't become an issue until essentials is out.

I thought I would quote this over here because I know it's been bought up in the discussions of the Knight in the other thread.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Actually I think them getting dex as a primary from weapon finesse is just plain logical. That's what the feat or whatever has been called in the past, so we don't need any special guesswork here.

Sure?

Again, more serious:

what i really like is, that even if you have weapon finesse, i guess it "allows" you, not "forces" you to use dex as base attack ability score, which opens up the possibility to rely solely on strength (good acrobatics, maybe use charisma as secondary) which will make him very flexible if you want to multiclass.

 

[Aegeri]

I am 100% sure, because otherwise it has to be one of the dumbest classes in all of 4E if it can't use any of its powers. Some things are just unintuitively designed, like the Knight and stances being cut off when dazed - but I don't believe that the Rogue will suffer from a complete inability to do anything at all with a MBA without a feat tax. Like the Knight though, the thief is capable of taking Melee training and making himself any stat he feels like primary (Even Charisma if he feels like it).

A strength primary tumbler based thief could be very good.

 

[the Jester]

I really hate this direction that they took. The class seems TOO simplified. Anyone wanting to learn DnD will catch on quick enought that having so little variety will make combats really boring. Just my opinion of course. Needless to say I will not be buying the Essentials for making player characters.

Except that all that variety is still right there, in your Player's Handbook, which is probably in your backpack if it isn't already out on the table.

 

[ppaladin123]

Looks like things that affect MBAs may get updated if Mike over at RPG.net has his evil ways:



I thought I would quote this over here because I know it's been bought up in the discussions of the Knight in the other thread.

Now if only they'd simply give swordmages and battleminds a decent melee basic attack right out of the gate! I can understand moving to reign in abuses in the essentials characters, but why can't they fill in silly weaknesses in preexisting classes? My groups have all started giving melee training as a free feat at level one to deal with this.