Rogue: 6 skills or 10?

[olshanski]

It clearly seems like 6 to me. I never would have considered 10.

What confused me was the wording:

Trained Skills: Stealth and Thievery plus four others. From the class skills list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level.
Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dexterity), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha), Dungeoneering (Wis), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis), Stealth (Dexterity), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Dexterity)

Why bother repeating Stealth and Thievery? You get it automatically, and you can also pick it again?

Or perhaps the better argument is why force every rogue to have Stealth and Thievery... instead let thim pick any 6 out of 10?

 

[Lizard]

If you get Stealth and Thievery for free, then why do they also appear on the Class Skill list?

There may be abilities/talents/feats which have, as a prereq, "You must have Skill X as a class skill".

Also, because I think that killing mandatory skill picks will be the first, easiest, and most common 4e houserule. I can already tell you if I run 4e, rogues get six Trained skills. Any six they want.

 

[Wolfspider]

Ah, we don't know yet if the primary source rules still say that text trumps example, but it probably does.

Anyway, I agree with the OP: Its 10 skills. It probably isn't meant to be 10 skills but that is what it says. Hopefully the actual PHB text will be better edited.


glass.

I have a feeling that this passage is taken directly from the PHB. I mean, hasn't that thing gone to print YET?

 

[Henry]

I have a feeling that this passage is taken directly from the PHB. I mean, hasn't that thing gone to print YET?

Why would it? It's not even March.

Truthfully, if it's due in June, they could probably have the print run done by April and still get distribution on time for early June.

 

[Toryx]

Chances are, if Stealth and Thievery were not part of the available skills for the Rogue, there'd be people saying that those two skills are not Rogue skills and come up for some argument for how it not only makes no sense, but is stupid to boot.

Also, because I think that killing mandatory skill picks will be the first, easiest, and most common 4e houserule. I can already tell you if I run 4e, rogues get six Trained skills. Any six they want.

Given that only a very brief sample of powers were printed, and the likelihood that various powers or even feats for the rogue require one of the two free skills given to the class, that sort of houserule without consideration would either seriously hamper the class or cause some significant complications later.

I'm all for houseruling the system -- I get the impression that's part of what 4th edition is designed for anyway -- but I'd hope that people would actually read the book first rather than creating a bunch of houserules simply from the preview material that could screw up the whole game later on.

 

[Mercule]

This '10 skills instead of 6' idea seems to me to be a deliberate and willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear and obvious text.

That would have been my reaction. I don't see it as ambiguous at all, just bad editing.

But, I also believe some people are legitimately mis-interpreting it.

Is there anyone who feels it's pretty obviously ten?

 

[Raduin711]

Two of what kind of sentences?

Seriously, what do you mean? I can see that they are both statements, and that they are both on the same line or paragraph. A sentence is a complete thought. They both belong to the same line because they both belong to the same topic, "skills". It's clear you see something I don't...

In this case, "more" seems to be a synonym with "others".

I disagree... More means, well, more.

more /mɔr, moʊr/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mawr, mohr] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective, compar. of much or many with most as superl.
1. in greater quantity, amount, measure, degree, or number: I need more money.
2. additional or further: Do you need more time? More discussion seems pointless.
–noun
3. an additional quantity, amount, or number: I would give you more if I had it. He likes her all the more. When I could take no more of such nonsense, I left.
4. a greater quantity, amount, or degree: More is expected of him. The price is more than I thought.
5. something of greater importance: His report is more than a survey.
6. (used with a plural verb) a greater number of a class specified, or the greater number of persons: More will attend this year than ever before.
–adverb compar. of much with most as superl.
7. in or to a greater extent or degree (in this sense often used before adjectives and adverbs, and regularly before those of more than two syllables, to form comparative phrases having the same force and effect as the comparative degree formed by the termination -er): more interesting; more slowly.
8. in addition; further; longer; again: Let's talk more another time. We couldn't stand it any more.
9. moreover.

It appears in this case to be an adjective in this case describing "skills" along with "trained". My question is why is it there? They also could have said "From the list below, choose four trained skills at 1st level." but instead they throw in the word MORE to clarify that they are talking about a new set of four skills.

As I said in my original post, it would have been easier and more natural to say "Stealth, Thievery, plus four trained skills from the list below." It is clear and concise, everything a game designer would want. Instead they seem to be taking special care to separate the two sets of four skills from one another.

 

[Raduin711]

Why bother repeating Stealth and Thievery? You get it automatically, and you can also pick it again?

I am thinking because there may be some benefit to having a skill on your list of class skills.

Or perhaps the better argument is why force every rogue to have Stealth and Thievery... instead let thim pick any 6 out of 10?

Another thread, perhaps.

 

[Atreides]

Another possibilty - wishful thinking here - is that all characters can select a number of skills, derived from their intelligence, from a general skill list beyond those skills available to them via choice of class.

This building rule would be defined in another section and not necessarily in each class write-up.

Jan van Leyden

I think this is probably true - there is a general skill list that includes a variety of very basic skills (think those that could be used untrained in 3e). Each character chooses a number of skills from this list equal to their Int bonus to be trained in.

This way anyone can be trained in say athletics (which presumably includes swimming/jumping/climbing), but only a Rogue can choose to be trained in Thievery (at least without spending a Feat).

It is a simple, elegant solution that everyone can understand and utilize.

 

[Raduin711]

This '10 skills instead of 6' idea seems to me to be a deliberate and willful misinterpretation of a fairly clear and obvious text.

It can go the other way too. I think this forum has its share of people who really want 4e to fail, and are always on the lookout for bad things to say about it.