Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MyISPHatesENWorld" data-source="post: 4202383" data-attributes="member: 65684">It seems to me that I based the character entirely off of what is available in the PDFs and previews and you're ignoring large swaths of my posts, not reading my posts, or just trolling the thread because you want to attack some one. I said several times in my posts I don't necessarily need sneak attack. But, the character needs something to work somewhere to bring it up to speed.One, I'm not pretending anything. It, or something should work. All rogues shouldn't be limited to light weapons.Two, as stated in my first post, it started as a Fighter/Assassin in 1e.Three, if it doesn't feel like the same character, it isn't better, regardless of the effectiveness.And the abilities and feel of the abilities are completely different from rogue. If the ranger killed the scout and took his stuff, and there wasn't a place for ranger or scout in the 3.5 version, that's not terribly surprising.If everything about Rogue fits except perhaps not being able to get the greatsword up to speed based upon what has been released so far. Suggesting Ranger after I specifically said in an earlier post it wouldn't get the right feel isn't contributing anything constructive to the process. It doesn't get Tumble, which is a way of moving that isn't just a little shift. Again, the abilities released for the Rogue fit far better than those of the Ranger.In theory. That hasn't been confirmed anywhere. Even with a feat for proficiency, that doesn't make the rogue abilities released so far (or all ranger abilities released so far) work with it either.That's extra damage that you get by using a minor action to mark a target, then have to follow him around or use another minor action to mark someone else. That is a lot different from doing extra damage in an oportunistic fashion when you have a combat advantage over someone and greatly different from how I want the character to feel.And I looked at adding fighter feats via multiclass feats to get weapon powers for the greatsword in my previous posts. What's your point? I read Races and Classes and the web article that talked about how fighters would be different depending on what weapon they used. But, we've been told several times that a lot of what was in the preview books has changed.The character concept is the most important thing. Note that the elf didn't work and 2e didn't get a lot of play, which is alluded to in my earlier posts.  I explained why half-orc isn't possible in an earlier post, but: half-orc isn't available and when it does become available it is going to have a different backstory. The story from the half-orc background can migrate in a meaningful way to human, but not to orc. Since the character used a 2-handed sword and then a greatsword through over 25 years of play, why change to an axe to match the flavor.None of the other classes fit the character anywhere near as well as Rogue, so I do need Rogue. A playtester posted about using an axe really effectively with his dwarf rogue at one point, so I don't know that a greatsword won't be workable, just that the stuff that has been released makes it look like there are a lot of hoops to jump through to get it to work well if it is possible to do so.  If you don't like my character concept, or have decided based upon a handful of posts that you don't like me, or that I'm an illiterate and ignorant fool who hasn't read anything about 4e or didn't understand any of it or whatever, I'm alright with that, but I'd really prefer to talk about the conversion. not how the concept isn't important and I should just throw it out completely.</blockquote>

Verification