Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 4293779" data-attributes="member: 32164">Without saying there's anything wrong with your concept, I find myself wondering why this character was a rogue to begin with.I realize that in (core) Third Edition, "Sneak Attack" was the only way to get precision damage. Even the scout's skirmish ability was, by comparison, lacking. However, rogues never got proficiency with the longbow. And that's a key point.The basic bow, traditionally, has been the best ranged weapon in D&D. It's the one every class wanted for ranged attacks. However, in Fourth Edition, only 2 character classes (fighter and ranger) are even proficient with bows. And only one of those (the ranger) has powers that can make use of them.I think the idea is to preserve a thematic separation between the rogue and the ranger. Looked at one way, they're quite similar: light-armored, mobile skirmishers that excel at laying down the smack on single targets. Both are also highly skilled, and have access to the skills acrobatics, athletics, dungeoneering, perception and stealth.That's why the rogue gets thievery by default and gets bluff, insight, streetwise, and intimidate on his skill list (but the ranger doesn't). It's also why the ranger gets nature by default (although dungeoneering is an option) and gets endurance and heal (but the rogue doesn't).It's also why the ranger gets all the simple and military melee and ranged weapons, whereas the rogue gets a much smaller list of thematically appropriate weapons (and has his powers restricted to those weapons).It's part of keeping the rogue "rogue-y" and keeping the ranger "ranger-y." Without that separation, the classes are just too hard to tell apart.I realize that the crappy nature of the 3e ranger led to the rogue (especially with his long skill list and plentiful skill points) becoming the "catch-all" class for a lot of concepts. In fact, multiclassing with either rogue or fighter was commonly used for ANY nonmagical concept someone had in 3e (until the swashbuckler and scout came out, that is).The Fourth Edition ranger is oddly schizophrenic. He's either: the two-handed fighting skirmish melee combatant OR the superior archer. That's been true of rangers since The Lord of the Rings. They're light-armored skirmishers. Shields have never been their big thing.The rogue is still adaptable, but not as much as he used to be. I could see there being a series of feats, possibly as soon as the "Martial Power" book, that let you use your class powers with non-standard weapons. For instance, something like this:Bow Sniper [Rogue]Prerequisites: Rogue, Sneak Attack Class Feature, Proficient with bow.Benefit: You may use a bow with which you are proficient as a ranged weapon for any powers or class features granted by the rogue class.Now, for a longbow, this is strictly speaking, at least 2 points better (on average) than the sling, shuriken, or hand crossbow (1d10 vs. 1d6). However, the balance precedent is the rapier: which for the cost of one feat, you can boost your weapon damage from 1d6 to 1d8. Weapon focus also adds 1, but on the other hand, backstabber adds 2 (on average).Of course, getting this actually costs the rogue two feats (unless he's an elf), because he has to take Weapon Proficiency first. Therefore, I don't think there's any question that it's balanced. Thematically, it starts to cause the rogue to tread on the ranger's toes a bit, but if you're okay with that, there's no reason not to use this.As far as the buckler goes, there's no reason it can't just be an offhand weapon. You don't really need "buckler proficiency" to use it. Just take two weapon defense and say you're carrying a buckler. In my personal experience, it works more like an offhand weapon than a shield.</blockquote>

Verification