How powerful is Crimson Edge?

[FitzTheRuke]

Why do so many people think it's Powers at Odd levels, Feats at Even?

I really seem to recall a designer comment that you'd get a feat at every level.

I can see the Utilities at evens, seeing as Tumble clearly says 2...

This would also go a long way to solve the whining about rogues not having enough weapon proficiencies. If you get THAT many feats, it's not a big deal to use 'em to customize your character.


Fitz

 

[wherwrthal]

That's the way it is in the Star Wars Saga Edition, and one of the books said that it was a basis for 4e.

 

[Sitara]

How does that work? The examples "Paladin 27" and "Rogue Utility 2" make it difficult for me to imagine a framework that makes sense.

It makes sense ifyou factor in multiclassing. So a fighter 1/Rogue2 will be able to select this power for his ECL3 power slot.

 

[fafhrd]

This would also go a long way to solve the whining about rogues not having enough weapon proficiencies. If you get THAT many feats, it's not a big deal to use 'em to customize your character.

Agreed. Proficiencies aren't a big deal. IMO, the real issue is the ability of other weapons to work with both sneak attack and rogue powers. Is your elf really going to use a bow if none of his class abilities function with it?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Hmm, I'm guessing utility at even levels and combat powers on odd levels. Probably feats on even levels as well (after first).

Also, the daily powers we've seen are at levels 9 and 27, so (to extrapolate wildly) we could guess that you only get a new daily power at multiples of 9 (1, 9, 18, 27). That doesn't sound like a ton, but more than four daily powers actually would be a lot, if you think about it.

Here's the thing, though. Remember what they said about stretching out the 3e "sweet spot." The sweet spot was sweet because most characters had just about the right number of options at their disposal - they weren't stuck with one or two moves (like a level 1 fighter in 3e) and they weren't overwhelmed with several dozen spells (like a level 20 wizard in 3e).

It seems to me that adding a new encounter power EVERY odd level would just reintroduce this problem. By level 30 you'd have 16 encounter powers, which is just silly. But then again, I have no idea how (or if) they'd go about preventing this, since you certainly want something new and shiny every level.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think one of the confessions said something about number of feats of a PC, and that number highly implied one feat at 1st and another at every even level.

 

[Stalker0]

I do think most of these concerns may be addressed with more information. Multiclassing, feats, weapon proficiency rules may give us more insight.

However, I do agree that requiring the rogue to have thievery and stealth as skills is just stupid. I can't see any good reason for it. Just allow the rogue to select 6 skills. If he wants to be thiefy then let him. If he doesn't no problem.

 

[FourthBear]

However, I do agree that requiring the rogue to have thievery and stealth as skills is just stupid. I can't see any good reason for it. Just allow the rogue to select 6 skills. If he wants to be thiefy then let him. If he doesn't no problem.

I can think of several reasons for requiring the rogue to have Stealth and Thievery. You can decide if they are "good", but they appear to be quite plausible for the game designers.

1) The designers wanted to define the rogue class more tightly than in 3e, where it was skill monkey with Sneak Attack. So they decided to rally the rogue around the most central of the rogue concepts, the thief.

2) The designers wanted players and DMs to have a better idea of what it meant when a rogue joined the group. There have certainly been stories where groups got together and were disappointed to learn that the rogue character wasn't one of *those* type of rogues, but rather an expert on politics, diplomacy and appraisal (who could also backstab).

3) They wanted to make the most common rogue concept explicit in the rules for new players in D&D and they preferred this to having strong suggestions in the flavor text.

I suspect is is primarily the first, as I think the designers like the idea of classes with strongly defined central concepts that allow for significant customization of that concept. I think that they believe that part of D&D appeal to many people is the ability to discuss characters and play using terms that have robust definition across many game tables. That this meant creating a central concept that may interfere with some character concepts is a negative. But I think most players and groups with such strong concepts will feel pretty comfortable in creating alternate class abilities and such.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I think one of the confessions said something about number of feats of a PC, and that number highly implied one feat at 1st and another at every even level.

There was a tenth level character with 6 feats, which could mean that, or one every odd and one human, or something similar.

I personally feel that due to the "nerfing" of feats that most classes won't give bonus feats, they'll be giving out several different types of powers, but not feats.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Um, I might be totally misremembering Binding Smite, but doesn't it cause the target to lose line of _effect_ to any other target for one round? If I remember my rules (and they apply going forward), wouldn't that mean that a dragon's breath would affect no one but the Paladin no matter where he breathed while under the target of Smite, etc.?