Rogue archetypal characters

[Lizard]

Dear Wotc,

Please don't make X levels in Y class be a qualification for Paragon Paths, if they need qualifications at all. Which I sincerely hope they don't. This goes double for Epic Destinies. Please let the player decide what's appropriate for themselves.

Yours sincerely

Ruin

Too late.

You pick a Paragon Path at 10th level. Each class has two. Pick one.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Indiana Jones yet...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Indiana Jones yet...

Depending on which angle you're taking, Indiana Jones doesn't work the best.

If you start with the Rogue, as far as we know, you can't really make Indiana Jones (where's the whip? where's his History and Religion knowledge?).

If you start with Indiana Jones, he might not be best emulated by the rogue (he doesn't run around the battlefield stabbing people, at least).

However 4e wants to tackle Indiana, I don't think we've seen much of him yet.

 

[jaer]

Too late.

You pick a Paragon Path at 10th level. Each class has two. Pick one.

I could be wrong, but I thought they said that in the DMG there were two paragon paths that BEST fit a class or two (the Stead-fast Defender if there was one would fit best with Fighter and Paladin, not so much with any non-defenders). I don't recall them saying anything about a class's inability to pick up a paragon path that didn't actually jive with the class mechanics.

In other words: got a link?

4e has been, so far, looking very much to be ABOUT combat. Which is okay, and necessary, but it runs the risk of not giving us clever and usable mechanics for these archetypes OUTSIDE of combat, which, really, is where most of them shine. In storylines and in skill selection and in context in the world, rather than beating things up and taking their stuff. Which is a great and valid archetype, just not the ONLY archetype.

I agree that the previews have been mainly giving us a focus on combat (and we are in agreement that this is necessary as far as these previews go) but this particular direction in previews has not led me to believe that there isn't enough substance for what is going on outside of combat in the game. I don't think we can tell if the classes were designed around combat archetypes from what we have seen...or if they are just more easily reflecting the combat archetypes in the low-level examples we have.

 

[catsclaw227]

Thomas Crown,
Ethan Hunt,
Danny Ocean (and as an aside, the Nose),
Robert MacDougal (who can guess this one?),
Roy Waller/Frank Mercer

EDIT: Ok, not archetypal, but it's fun coming up with Roguish characters from history/fiction/film.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Also the fact that they specifically stated they won't be showing off the social-aspects of the game till it is released.

By this token, even if they released info on the most social-oriented class EVER in ANY edition. The fact that it be showcasing the combat aspect of the class would give the impression it is a "combat class".

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't think we can tell if the classes were designed around combat archetypes from what we have seen...or if they are just more easily reflecting the combat archetypes in the low-level examples we have.

Well, we kind of know they are, because they're designed around the Roles. Now, they'll be able to do other things, but I'd be pretty astonished if every 90% of the things a character can learn to do in the PHB didn't have a direct combat application.

The idea of a good social task resolution system is appealing, but what I think D&D really could use, that has been missing for 4 editions (probably) is an excellent way to unite archetypes under the "fantasy medieval roleplaying" roof, not just in combat, but in setting material, in DM plotting, in everything.

 

[fafhrd]

By this token, even if they released info on the most social-oriented class EVER in ANY edition. The fact that it be showcasing the combat aspect of the class would give the impression it is a "combat class".

Good point.

 

[ruleslawyer]

The idea is that the class is designed around a combat archetype. In fact, almost a minis/wargame/videogame archetype. It definately has existed since 1e, and it definately needs the majority of the game's attention, and has a good place. But D&D was built on tropes from myth, legend, and fantasy stories. That's it's major appeal to me. The combat is important, but it's not the reason I play it. I play it to be like the characters I see in movies and on TV and read about in books and learn about in old stories. That usually involves combat, and I'm happy to see it, but it's not ABOUT combat.

This is something that I'll be happy to discuss with you once we see the final version, but I feel like you're eliding the difference between silo-ing and combat emphasis. It is quite possible that the rogue can easily develop all the stuff needed to be a clever investigative type, or a charismatic ladykiller, or a diplomat, or whatever, using abilities not listed here. However, the combat style the rogue uses is fully defined here... and it's effective.

The designers' stated goal has been to make all classes competent in combat as a minimum; the rogue's listed abilities are how he stays competent in combat. How he works in a non-combat capacity is a different story.

Now, what the preview does make clear is that if you want a rogue that has substantially reduced (or virtually no) combat effectiveness, then 4e is not for you. But I think (and I'll have to wait and see) that I prefer a system that gives everyone a good combat "shtick" and then allows you to layer your non-combat characterization on top of that than a system that forces a tradeoff.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is something that I'll be happy to discuss with you once we see the final version, but I feel like you're eliding the difference between silo-ing and combat emphasis. It is quite possible that the rogue can easily develop all the stuff needed to be a clever investigative type, or a charismatic ladykiller, or a diplomat, or whatever, using abilities not listed here. However, the combat style the rogue uses is fully defined here... and it's effective.

Hey, I'll be quite happy with them if the narrative/role-play stuff is half as good as the combat stuff.

I just haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe that....yet...

The designers' stated goal has been to make all classes competent in combat as a minimum; the rogue's listed abilities are how he stays competent in combat. How he works in a non-combat capacity is a different story.

You're right, and it should be a different story.

Now, what the preview does make clear is that if you want a rogue that has substantially reduced (or virtually no) combat effectiveness, then 4e is not for you. But I think (and I'll have to wait and see) that I prefer a system that gives everyone a good combat "shtick" and then allows you to layer your non-combat characterization on top of that than a system that forces a tradeoff.

The tradeoff is, as 2e proved, not really much of a viable strategy (unless you take a dramtacally different position than 2e did on noncombat stuff).

I'd be happy to see a layered structure like this and, in fact, I think that would be something of an ideal 4e.