Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[ThirdWizard]

But why should someone have to pick a character class based on some arbitrary *combat* role?

Any class can have any out of combat role. At least, with the investment of just one or two feats, you can do a lot.

 

[JDillard]

But why should someone have to pick a character class based on some arbitrary *combat* role? Who decided that that should be the only way to approach character creation? And while we're at it, who decided that each class should have only one specific combat role to play?

As you said, WotC. Why? Because it gives each class a specific focus in combat. Each class has a thing to do. They can tailor all the combat powers in each class to do that thing. Thus, you can't accidentally make a character that can't accomplish his class's combat role. This has been mentioned, a couple times already, in this thread alone.

In 4e, if someone wants to play a rogue, but not a "striker", or a wizard thats not a "controller", then he or she is out of luck.

And that is way more limiting than it needs to be.

What is a rogue that's not a striker? A rogue that's a defender? What makes it a rogue at that point? Thievery and sneak attack? Take a fighter and give it the rogue MC feat or a rogue with fighter MC feat.

I don't get what you think you're missing. Why is it so important to have "Rogue" written in big font at the top of the section? You can mix and match things really, really well within 4e. With the exception of an easy 50/50 split character (as mentioned above, this is going to be done via new classes rather than multiclassing), you can pretty much mix and match anything you want.

Combat roles are not limiting. They are exhaustive. There are four of them. Those four roles cover basically the entirety of what you can do in combat. You deal damage, keep others from taking damage, heal and support, or change how the enemies act to help the previous three. If you want a rogue that's not a striker or a wizard that's not a controller then you need to pick a different role because those four are it. And by the time you pick a different role, you're picking something that somebody else already does (or will do once the class list grows a bit bigger).

Classes = Combat role with some class specific bonus stuff added on. Even the class specific bonus stuff often plays right into that role (sneak attack = striker power). All that's left that makes something a rogue is what? Thievery and a couple other class specific skills? The combat powers are basically just "close range melee striker" with some rogue flavor thrown in.

That's why people keep saying "You want a ranged rogue? Make a ranger, give him 'Skill Training: Thievery'." You get the ranged combat role you want, and still get the part that makes him really rogue-like.

I know that people can make plenty of "Warlord-MC'd-to-Ranger-with-Ritual-casting" type characters to approximate different class/role combos, but we shouldn't have to fight the system to create the character that what we want.

How is that fighting the system? What you call fighting, I call using exactly as intended. It's not like it's difficult to make those things work. It's not like it's a struggle, or the mechanic doesn't work well. It's easy, and the mechanic works fine.

The system should help us create what we want. Maybe after some rules clarifications, some house rules, and some additional materials from WotC and 3rd parties, it will.

I still don't know what you feel like you're missing.

 

[ravenight]

In 4e, if someone wants to play a rogue, but not a "striker", or a wizard thats not a "controller", then he or she is out of luck.

Your entire complaint here is "I want to call my character a rogue, but play like a fighter" or "I want to call my character a wizard, but play like a rogue" or whatever. It has nothing to do with the flexibility of the system and everything to do with you defining your character by the name of their 3e class.

"A wizard that's not a controller" means a spellcasting class that doesn't do lots of area effect damage, debuff and terrain-changing spells. Not only are there already 2 that exist (Warlock and Cleric), but you can even make this character by playing as the Wizard class and taking a significant amount of another class to supplement your damage or healing or whatever it is that you'd like to do that doesn't involve AoEs.

The point is, stop getting offended by WotC applying terms to describe the way classes act in combat and just think about what character you want to play, then figure out how you can play that character in the game. If you want to play a sneaky, self-serving, non-spellcasting, offensive warrior with a huge sword, play a Ranger/Fighter, Fighter/Ranger or Warlord/Ranger. Don't take powers that do generous things (so you might take a Warlord power that commands an ally to attack, but not one that buffs your allies), don't use any free abilities you get that do generous things (is it really so bad to have an ability and not use it?) and just play the guy the way you want. I'm sorry that you used to get to do completely absurd damage by sneakily attacking several times a round with an enormous sword, but that's not how 4e does combat. There are plenty of playable builds, and the obsession over what is "suboptimal" is silly. If you want to be absolutely sure that you get every +1 and use every ability each day, and are a tweaked-out max-damage machine, then yes, you are limited in what you can build, but that's trivially true - it is not possible to create a system with variations in power level between builds that doesn't limit which builds are perfectly optimized.

So basically, I don't understand where your complaint has any basis at all. You want to use a big sword, sneak around and be selfish - no problem, the rules accommodate that completely. You want to not be overwhelmed in combat as a result? Also possible. You want to make the optimal selfish warrior with a big sword? Also possible. So what exactly is the problem?

 

[MrGrenadine]

95% of what any given 4e class gives you is stuff that fills its combat role. Trying to use a class for the 5% that doesn't or for the stylistic implications of the class name when its combat role isn't the one you want just doesn't make sense.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, really--but here's an example character:

A cowardly rogue that isn't terribly strong, never learned to fight, and does everything he can to avoid combat. However, he's also a master of stealth, prevarication, lock picking, trap finding and pickpocketing.​

Now that is a valid character concept that has been supported by *every* version of D&D so far, and should be supported by the current system. Hell, throw in a heart of gold that makes him have to help the downtrodden, even when he risks his own skin--well there's a character I'd really like to play.

I *could* make a non-combat character in 4e by just not picking the combat powers available in the PHB, and replacing them with some cool non-combat skills of my own design--if a DM would allow that kind of thing--but 4e is SO combat-centric that you really have to jump through hoops to play a character that excels at anything but combat.

MrG

p.s. Hmm, cool non-combat oriented powers....Sounds like a job for the house-rule/ user creation forum!

 

[WalterKovacs]

1. If I am a warlock once I choose to make a pact where are my choices in my abilities? It seems that if I choose to be a fey warlock all of my abilities from level 1 on have already been decided.

At-Wills are decided (humans get a third at-will from one of the other pacts). If you go Fey (CHA) or Infernal (CON), there are a few Star pacts that have the matching main attack stat ... and if you are Star (both) you can pick from just about any power. [And that is restricting your power based on main attack stat]. The "benefit" for your pact is generally additional benefit based on INT score ... nothing stops you from picking other powers. Many powers have no pact specific benefit, so can be used by any kind of Warlock equally.

2. I understand that if I want to make a fighter/archer I can just choose to be a ranger. But what if I would like to have a fighter, sorry character, who can use all sorts of weapons and not specialize in using just one. The fighter doesn't get ANY ranged at will abilities and the ranger only has two weapon melee abilities. How would my character survive in a gladitorial game?

Multiclassing can allow for power swaps to break characters out of their molds.

A fighter is a defender ... it is difficult, if not impossible to be a ranged defender. Their powers are tied as such. A ranger can specialize in ranged fighting, and switch to two weapon fighting if neccesary. Their at-wills consists of 2 powers specific to each type, and 2 powers that are usable both ways. It's going to involve weapon switching [unless you are wielding thrown weapons in the off hand, in which case you aren't an 'archer' per se, but are able to go in melee or ranged with the same weapons in hand.]

Ultimately ... in gladitorial games which ranged weapons are you looking to use? A fighter doesn't have to specialize in a single weapon ... they get a benefit when wielding a weapon a certain type of way [one handed or two handed]. Their various powers get extra benefits when used with certain weapons, but they aren't forced to specialize. They could take a variety of weapon based powers so that, regardless of weapon, they'll get a benefit for it.

If gladitorial games are going to be part of the campaign ... you've already got things working a lot differently than normal [solo player fights instead of party fights, limited access to weapons and armor, etc]. More class options or powers could be developed to fit that concept. [I would guess the first "splat" book of martial things will increase the number of build options and could cover some of the
holes.

3. I like spellcasters. In 4e all wizards get at will ranged attack spells. Not bad but what if I wanted to make an illusionist? Or a conjurer. Sorry can't do that anymore.

They didn't want to give wizards everything. In 3e, wizards had all the spells, and every spellcasting type class got subsets or variations of the schools. Certain effects were taken away from wizards so that other spellcasters could get them later.

And ... Wizards has put up options for an illusionist on the website. Those options aren't in the core, but they aren't impossible.

4. There used to be different kinds of rogues. Facemen, thugs, conmen, cat burglars. Now every rogue (or anyone with the thievery skill) is just as good at picking locks as they are at picking pockets or disarming traps. What if I just want a pickpocket? I guess I can just ignore my characters other abilities.

(a) Thieves' tools are required for certain uses of thievery

(b) There are specific rogue powers that give you extra bonuses to certain uses of Theivery. One power, for example, allows for pickpocketing in combat (Dangerous Theft), while another allows you to swiftly open a lock (Foil the Lock).

4e does have some good stuff. Minions are great. I like some of the new monster special abilities. But I'm not too sure about character development. Why can't a fighter be artillery or a rogue the leader?

Fighter in 3e was open ended ... Fighter in 4e = defender. Artillery is not a defender role ... it's a striker role or a controller role.

Of course, in 3e, Ranger tried to be an archer or two weapon fighter ... but with fighter feats, you can quickly get better at either of those things than the Ranger is. So, people associate the "Ranger" stuff with Fighters. The difference between a 3e Ranger Archer and Fighter Archer is favored enemy, less feats, possibly an animal companion and some limited spellcasting, some skills, etc ... The favored enemy being/feat trade off being the most relevant in combat situations.

 

[drothgery]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, really--but here's an example character:

A cowardly rogue that isn't terribly strong, never learned to fight, and does everything he can to avoid combat. However, he's also a master of stealth, prevarication, lock picking, trap finding and pickpocketing.​

Now that is a valid character concept that has been supported by *every* version of D&D so far, and should be supported by the current system. Hell, throw in a heart of gold that makes him have to help the downtrodden, even when he risks his own skin--well there's a character I'd really like to play

Huh? In 3.5, even a low-str halfling rogue is pretty effective striker (those sneak attack dice do add up). The best class for a guy with no combat skills is Commoner, but they don't really get enough skill points to be a 'master' of more than one or two things unless you're a high-int human, and doesn't have the right skills (and in fact suck way too much to be a PC), so this guy is probably an Expert -- so he fights almost as well as a Rogue before sneak attack figures in, and has more hit points.

About the only 'non-combatant' type that was anything resembling an effective 3.5 character is the pure buffer (usually bard, but only with CAdv and Eberron feats so you don't suck too bad) or healbot (the pacifist healbot cleric is effective, just boring to play in combat).

 

[WalterKovacs]

But it would be a bad decision not to make the choices which are best for your character. You won't see a rogue ever fighting with a bastard sword because none of his at will powers work with it. So, yes, you can choose to pick a feat so your rouge can use a bastard sword but why would you? Even if you had a great background story for the bastard sword (katana, whatever) you would not make the choice for your rogue to fight with it.

Ranger, not Fighter, is the right choice. Ranger [TWF] could actually dual wield Bastard Swords if he really wanted to. Or, he could just have a dagger in the off hand, giving him an option for ranged attacks [to use with ranged or melee at-wills].

The hunter's quarry gives a pseudo sneak attack type, ranger's like all the strikers, have a selfish type concept "This guy is MINE!"

If you had a light blade in the off hand, it gives the option of multiclassing into Rogue and using the Rogue powers with that weapon.

 

[JDillard]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, really--but here's an example character:

A cowardly rogue that isn't terribly strong, never learned to fight, and does everything he can to avoid combat. However, he's also a master of stealth, prevarication, lock picking, trap finding and pickpocketing.​

Because the designers realized that the vast majority of D&D games involve combat, regularly. If you don't want any combat at all, you're probably not playing D&D in the first place.

Now, given that basic premise, they took away the option to screw yourself over by having to choose between combat stuff and non-combat stuff. Now they are like two separate little bins. One has all yoru combat stuff. The other has all your non-combat stuff. No need for overlap, because, in reality, most combat stuff *doesn't* overlap non-combat stuff.

And now I can't choose the character you mentioned above, try to bring it to a game and have everyone look at me like I'm crazy the first time we get into a fight and I spend each round hiding and hoping I don't get found.

 

[smetzger]

I don't get what you think you're missing. Why is it so important to have "Rogue" written in big font at the top of the section?

I recognize this.

However, this can also be said of the the many classed character in 3.5; and a lot of people had problems with characters that had 3+ classes. I called my character a scout even though he was a Rogue/Ranger/Barbarian.

Because of the multi-classing rules in 3.5 I found that one could make a very wide variety of character concepts with just the core rules.

I think with 4e we are going to see the return of a plethora of base character classes and because there is no Druid, Monk, Barbarian, or Illusionist (not saying that you couldn't make something like these with the given rules; but I bet WOTC will release a supplement with these at some point) WOTC has built in a demand for expansion books that did not exist in previous versions.

For me 4e is shaping up as a different way to play D&D not as a replacement for 3.5. Just as Arcana Evolved is a different way to play D&D.

 

[Spatula]

I'm not trying to be argumentative, really--but here's an example character:

A cowardly rogue that isn't terribly strong, never learned to fight, and does everything he can to avoid combat. However, he's also a master of stealth, prevarication, lock picking, trap finding and pickpocketing.​

Now that is a valid character concept that has been supported by *every* version of D&D so far, and should be supported by the current system.

I'm not sure what game you've been playing all these years.

A 1e/2e thief's THAC0 improves with levels, and he can deal a lot of damage with backstabs. Doesn't sound like someone who never learned to fight, to me.

A 3e rogue's BAB improves with levels, and he can deal a lot of damage with sneak attacks. Doesn't sound like somene who never learned to fight, to me.

So by "supported" you mean "I ignored all the class' combat abilities." Which you can still do in 4e, can you not? What you do outside of combat is largely the province of skill, feats, and roleplaying. Which is exactly how it was in 3e, too. I'm not seeing much of a difference, myself.

The 3e rogue is just as much as a striker as the 4e rogue, whether you made use of the striker abilities or not. The roles have always been there, although they always haven't been implemented well (namely meatshields, i.e. defenders).