On the subject of powers, builds and "sub classes"

[Reynard]

There sure do seem to be a lot of people here discussing the meaningful choices you get out of combat.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=230233

Your snide tone aside, thanks for the link. That's interesting stuff. Maybe if we (I mean all of us here) spent less time taking swipes at each other and more time actually discussing and sharing things, the illusion of the Great EN World Divide would finally be broken and we could all get back to enjoying D&D, whatever edition, together.

 

[Stoat]

Reynard:

Generally speaking, I think you're correct. It would be possible to create different subclasses or flavors of the main classes by creating powers that fit a particular theme. IMO this is has already been done with the Warlock.

The question then becomes: what type of powers will lead to the "subclass" you're looking for. What makes a "burglar" or a "wilderness scout?" How could one create powers (as opposed to skills) to get the flavor of the subclasses.

w/r/t the "Burglar," I note that the PHB already has powers that improve the Rogue's stealth (Fleeting Ghost, Chameleon, Shadow Stride) climbing ability (Nimble Climb) lockpicking (Foil the Lock) and pickpocketing (Quick Fingers). The Ranger, at least after a first read, is light on woodsy scout stuff, and could probably benefit from similar nature-themed utility powers.

I think it is worth noting that 4E is designed around the assumption that every character at the table is more less equally useful in combat. A rogue build that didn't do a lot of striker-style damage is outside the assumptions of the game and will make combat more difficult for the whole party. Obviously different folks will disagree on whether that's a good idea.

I would go about it by focusing on the utility powers. They're an easy place to add some theme, and monkeying around with them shouldn't bollix up the combat mix.

 

[SSquirrel]

Reynard, now you're just arguing with hong. That means the terrorists have already won

 

[The Little Raven]

I disagree.

None of the stuff you say after this point has anything to do with being a burglar. Burglars commit burglary, which is breaking into a building to commit a crime, usually theft. Shifting goalposts to rant about combat does not strengthen your point.

Can you honestly not imagine such a character under the 4e ruleset? I am not making a dig, just asking, because of 4e's buggest proponents don't think 4e can handle anything besides high octane combat badasses, I'm more than a little concerned.

Did you actually bother to read my post, or did you have your anti-combat rant ready to go ahead of time? The rogue is perfectly capable of being a burglar (if we use the common definition, not your "weak at combat" definition). It takes training in a few skills (Athletics, Acrobatics, Perception, Stealth, Thievery) and some powers just make you better at it (Fleeting Ghost, Great Leap, Chameleon, Nimble Climb, Certain Freedom, Shadow Stride, Foil the Lock, Hide in Plain Sight, Cloud Jump, Hide from the Light), all of which are incredibly useful in non-combat situations, a bunch of which are at-will.

 

[pemerton]

Rogues -- or more properly, thieves -- are not front line combatants that can hew down foes with the same ferocity as axe wielding barbarians and shining knights. they are sneaky and crafty and get by on their wits and luck, not strength of arms. Every edition so far has made the "rogue" archetype more and more ridiculous in combat. But the power/build system put forth in 4E suggests this can be changed by a solid mix of "burglar" utilities, "luck" defenses and movement powers and "wiley" attacks and 'debuffs'.

Can you honestly not imagine such a character under the 4e ruleset? I am not making a dig, just asking, because of 4e's buggest proponents don't think 4e can handle anything besides high octane combat badasses, I'm more than a little concerned.

What kind of amazes me is that while I, an avowed 4E skeptic, am suggesting that perhaps the game system is more robust than it appears on the surface and might have already in-built tools for doing something other than fighting (because, as important as combat is to D&D, we all know it isn't the be all and end all of the game -- there's better systems with less baggage if that's what you want), it is the 4E prosalatizers that are essentially saying, "No, combat is all that matters."

Reynard, welcome to the dark side! And don't listen to those who are stomping on your idea for no very good reasons that I can see.

I don't know whether or not WoTC will give us the sort of power suite you are envisaging (eg lots of 1w + interesting condition attack powers, and a lot of encounter or daily utility powers that work well in skill challenges), but I think that it makes perfect sense for 4e.

Such a character might start to move from being a Striker to being a type of Controller, but that's not remotely an objection to the concept, just a reason to make sure that it is properly labelled.

I haven't looked at the Rogue powers yet, but I've been looking closely at the Paladin ones and they already have a lot of potential to do the sort of thing you are talking about - that is, give us a mechanical realisation of our thematic conception of a particular character.

That is what I am finding really attractive about 4e.