# Classes ... Much Less Flexible than Advertised



## IceFractal (Feb 26, 2008)

Back when Races and Classes came out, there were some complaints that Fighter no longer supported the "agile warrior" type.  But this was countered with the statement that since the classes were flexible in flavor, you could simply play a Rogue or Ranger for your agile warrior.  And I was fine with that.  Classes as skill sets works in 3E, and can make things much cleaner, mechanically.  


But that isn't what we're actually getting.  What we're getting is classes that have a great deal of inescapable flavor.  And not just metagame flavor like feat names - this is highly visible in-game flavor.  Let's take our first case, the Rogue:

* Skills - Stealth and Thievery is mandatory.  Just wanted to be a agile type who doesn't sneak around stealing things?  Too bad.
* Weapons - Not only is the Rogue only proficient in a small set, but their powers are specifically limited to this exact set.  Want to play a thug who uses a club, or a sniper with a bow, or an infiltrator with unarmed strikes?  Nope, you must carry a dagger and wear a black hooded cloak.  And lurk in the shadows, even in your own house.  
* Ok, that's exaggeration.  But it does bring up a real point.  Since Rogues use these specific weapons, just have your guards stop anyone carrying those from entering - use magic to find the hidden stuff.  All your "disguised assassin" problems eliminated in one fell swoop.  Plus, Rogues are now useless in any kind of "prison break" scenario where there aren't a bunch of knives conveniently lying around.
* And apparently slings can be used for sniping, but not bows.  Yeah, that's just bad.


I'd be fine with either of these options:
A) Fighters are warriors, Rogues are thieves, and this is obvious in-game.  Fighter covers all types of warriors, including agile knife fighters.
B) Fighters use strength-based combat, Rogues use agility-based combat.  Rogue is sufficiently flexible to represent a non-thief, non-sneaky, knife fighter.

But apparently what we get is this third option:
C) Fighters are strength-based combatants who are warriors.  Rogues are agility-based combatants who are thieves.  If you want a non-thief agility-based combatant, wait for WotC to publish one.  

And yes, I haven't mentioned Rangers.  That's because, based on the Rogue, I fully expect them to:
1) Be locked to the bow as their primary weapon.
2) Have mandatory ties to nature.

And I haven't mentioned houseruling either.  Because the fact that you can fix bad rules yourself doesn't make them not bad.  And more significantly, houserules won't help you at convention games, RPGA games, or with houserule-wary DMs.  


Sorry about the rant, but what I'm seeing is a mechanically-sound and promising class that's been severely handicapped by a narrow enforced flavor with visible in-game effects, for no good reason.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 26, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> And lurk in the shadows, even in your own house.




My buddy does that.


----------



## devoblue (Feb 26, 2008)

It's probably a bit harsh to judge without seeing the ranger.  Mechanically, there is place in between the rogue and the fighter for the lightly armored skillful warrior.  The assumption that some people have that the ranger is tied to two-weapon fighting or archery is based on something that is only 3e, and we've got no indication that this will be duplicated in 4e.  I would expect that the swashbuckler archtype could be filled by a ranger build.  We know that the ranger is a striker and is losing spell casting, so that will allow him to be more focused on his combat options.  He also will probably get an archer as a build, and may keep a twf build, although that doesn't sound very striker to me.

Finally, on the possibility that he gets mandatory skill choices that force him to focus on wilderness like a rogue focuses on stealth and thievery - I would consider it highly likely that the DMG includes discussion on why it is mandatory (strong recommendation for new players), why you would change that, and also includes it on a check list of "approved" house rules.

Edit: Remember that the ranger killed the scout and took his stuff.  Ranger is supposed to be cooler in 4e.


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 26, 2008)

I think your touching a weak spot here. Based on the preview I would admit your are dead-on. I would like it very much if the new Core Books would prove all of this as pure ranting. But based on the Rogue class preview, I understand your concern. One of the aspect that I didn't like at all (aside the chaotic return!) is that there is only 2 character build. I hope that there will be 3 or 4 of this (not only 2 per class).

And yes, I pretty much agree that what we have seen so far is that classes are much less flexible than advertised.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 26, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> And yes, I haven't mentioned Rangers.  That's because, based on the Rogue, I fully expect them to:
> 
> 1) Be locked to the bow as their primary weapon.
> 
> ...





1) As there are two builds for the rogue, I suspect there will two builds for the ranger – ranged or TWF.


2) As there power source is Martial, not Primal, I don't think it will be overtly so.


----------



## Raith5 (Feb 26, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> I think your touching a weak spot here. Based on the preview I would admit your are dead-on. I would like it very much if the new Core Books would prove all of this as pure ranting. But based on the Rogue class preview, I understand your concern. One of the aspect that I didn't like at all (aside the chaotic return!) is that there is only 2 character build. I hope that there will be 3 or 4 of this (not only 2 per class).
> 
> And yes, I pretty much agree that what we have seen so far is that classes are much less flexible than advertised.





I agree I was really hoping that the base classes could be stretched by various options - especially for the martial templates.

But a lot turns on the nature of these builds - are they compulsory or they just guides/templates.


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 26, 2008)

Raith5 said:
			
		

> I agree I was really hoping that the base classes could be stretched by various options - especially for the martial templates.
> 
> But a lot turns on the nature of these builds - are they compulsory or they just guides/templates.




I would think its the latter not the former.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 26, 2008)

Keep in mind though, that the builds are only suggestions. You don't have to follow any of the suggestions and can explore other options.

The only thing you have to decide on are the Rogue Tactics. It's possible that Ranger will have something similar, but I am not certain that these will be described as limited as Two-Weapon Fighting or Archery. Rogue Tactics seems to allow you to choose your "secondary" stat (primary for Rogue is always Dex, secondary is either Strength or Charisma, and the remaining is the "tertiary"...). 
Maybe Ranger's primary stat will also be Dex, and it's secondary either Wis or Str, or something like that. That might still tie in with "combat style" related powers. (Wis seems to fit well for archery, since it covers perception. Strength is probably required for two-weapon fighting).


----------



## Engilbrand (Feb 26, 2008)

Two problems I see in the argument:
1. What if we only saw 2 out of 4 paths for the Rogue?
2. Even if your "character sheet" says Thievery +9, does that mean that the actual character has to use that?


----------



## Derren (Feb 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Keep in mind though, that the builds are only suggestions. You don't have to follow any of the suggestions and can explore other options.




Except that other options aren't really viable. You have thief skills prepicked and the other availiable skills on the class list also don't really scream "agile fighter". You have class tactics which also only support two different playstyles and most of you abilities require you to use specific weapons which you might not want to use.

Playing a rogue with the bow will be as viable as playing a wizard with a sword. Doable but not effective barring multiclassing. But that exactly the situation like it was in 3E. No improvment.


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

Engilbrand said:
			
		

> Two problems I see in the argument:
> 2. Even if your "character sheet" says Thievery +9, does that mean that the actual character has to use that?




Character background wise how did your character become Trained in Thievery if he never stole anything in his life?

The weapon restrictions bother me more than anything, so a Rogue can't effective use a club, or a sap, or have a bar-fight? Stuff you would expect a low-life criminal to be involved in.

He can accurately use a sling, but never a bow or even a shuriken* (which he has class ability for)? 


*I wonder if they have been classed as light blades - it seems really unlikely.


----------



## Derren (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Character background wise how did your character become Trained in Thievery if he never stole anything in his life?




Shhh, don't ask.
That is a general 4E skill problem. Its impossible to not to be good. Ask the 20th level beduine water who never ahs seen a body of water before which was deeper than his knee high where he got his automatic +10 untrained ranks in swimming from.


----------



## Nytmare (Feb 26, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Playing a rogue with the bow will be as viable as playing a wizard with a sword. Doable but not effective barring multiclassing. But that exactly the situation like it was in 3E. No improvment.




I thought that the wizard with a sword was viable now?


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 26, 2008)

I think all of our worries will be answered once we learn more on the multiclassing or class training options. An Ampersand article on this subject would be very appreciated.


----------



## Derren (Feb 26, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> I thought that the wizard with a sword was viable now?




Apperantly not. Otherwise WotC wouldn't make a special swordmage class for it. Likewise they apparently also have to make a special skirmisher class to cover non thief agile warriors unless ranger cover this niche. But then we are missing a archer class.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Keep in mind though, that the builds are only suggestions. You don't have to follow any of the suggestions and can explore other options.




Do you mean the Artful Dodger or Brutal Scoundrel options?


----------



## The_Fan (Feb 26, 2008)

I dunno, I'm a brutally honest person who has never shoplifted in his life, but I'm quick enough with my hands and good at distracting people that I regularly lift stuff from them and return it as a joke. I also find myself sneaking up on people accidentally. It's quite unnerving when you turn around and find yourself face to chest with a 6'4" guy who somehow managed to get right behind you without making a noise.

...yeah, I'm kinda creepy.

But seriously. If you're the type to play a rogue with max ranks in Use Rope and none in Disable Device, why the heck does it bother you that you now get explicit mechanical bonuses for following a "build"? You already have no problem making suboptimal characters, is the problem that they made it more obvious?


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Playing a rogue with the bow will be as viable as playing a wizard with a sword. Doable but not effective barring multiclassing. But that exactly the situation like it was in 3E. No improvment.




Erm no because playing an rogue required no multiclassing to be really effective with a short bow, or a long bow if elven. And in 3rd Ed even if you played a human rogue and multiclassed to pick up the longbow feat you could effectively use your rogue abilities with it from then on like Sneak Attack.

Now if you are playing a rogue and some how pick up the bow proficiency you can't actually use it.

Oh look.. I'll play an Elven Rogue...

*Elven Weapon Training:* You gain proficiency with the longbow and the shortbow. 

*Rogue Sneak attack* - hmm can't use it, still I could use my sling out to extreme range...   

*Rogue Powers* - nope, nope, nope, oh I can Tumble, nope, nope.... etc.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 26, 2008)

1) You also didn't mention multi-classing. Perhaps some combo of Ranger, Rogue, Fighter or even Warlord would fit your concept to a T.

2) It's a class-based system, not a make-any-concept-I-want-point-buy system. Always has been, always will be (as long as it's D&D). This implies that the classes actually mean something and define an archetype; which further implies that an infinite universe of archetypes isn't possible without an infinite number of classes. Between the choices of acceptance of that fact and an early aneurysm, I choose acceptance. I'm not your doctor (or anyone's doctor), but I suggest the same for everyone.

3) We still haven't see a complete list of feats and powers available to the Rogue. Proper feat/power selection may address several of your concerns.

But all of those arguments are applicable to all of the rants we have on EN World. You just shouldn't have such high blood pressure over a system you haven't seen in entirety yet and played a few times. Rant away at GenCon '08, if you must, once you've got a couple months of playtest under your belt, but until then there's no justification for this kind of excitement.

But lucky for you, I have an argument that's directly on point.

4) A playtester has already inferred that the Fighter has an agile, swashbucklery build option. 

So chill out.


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> But that isn't what we're actually getting.  What we're getting is classes that have a great deal of inescapable flavor.  And not just metagame flavor like feat names - this is highly visible in-game flavor.




Good. A class with a strong class identity is one that requires less explanation. Cf the 3E monk, which is in much the same boat as the 4E rogue. You do not go pure monk unless you want a _highly_ specialised character; instead, to create a more flexible and more useful build, you multiclass.



> * Skills - Stealth and Thievery is mandatory.  Just wanted to be a agile type who doesn't sneak around stealing things?  Too bad.
> * Weapons - Not only is the Rogue only proficient in a small set, but their powers are specifically limited to this exact set.  Want to play a thug who uses a club, or a sniper with a bow, or an infiltrator with unarmed strikes?




It will most likely be possible to play a thug with a club, or a sniper with a bow. These character concepts may very well involve levels of rogue. They will probably also involve levels of fighter, ranger, or whatever. The paradigm adopted here seems to be "multiclass early, multiclass often".

So yes, a pure rogue is going to be fairly narrowly defined (although, it seems, still quite useful to have around). That doesn't mean all characters with rogue levels, or all character concepts involving rogue levels, will be similarly narrow.



> * Ok, that's exaggeration.  But it does bring up a real point.  Since Rogues use these specific weapons, just have your guards stop anyone carrying those from entering - use magic to find the hidden stuff.  All your "disguised assassin" problems eliminated in one fell swoop.  Plus, Rogues are now useless in any kind of "prison break" scenario where there aren't a bunch of knives conveniently lying around.




These are both similarly contrived.


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Shhh, don't ask.
> That is a general 4E skill problem. Its impossible to not to be good. Ask the 20th level beduine water who never ahs seen a body of water before which was deeper than his knee high where he got his automatic +10 untrained ranks in swimming from.



 The answer to this question, of course, is not to worry about 20th level bedouin somethings-which-you-didn't-quite-type-properly.


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Character background wise how did your character become Trained in Thievery if he never stole anything in his life?




Characterwise, how did a 3E rogue without any ranks in Disable Device ever get Trapfinding? If you can answer this, just apply the same reasoning.


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

The limitation on sneak attack and some powers to particular ranged weapons bugs me most. I'm fine with limiting to "light blades" someone sneak attacking with a great axe never made huge sense. But why is a crossbow or a sling, more accurate than a longbow or shuriken?

That limitation seems unnecessary.


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> The limitation on sneak attack and some powers to particular ranged weapons bugs me most. I'm fine with limiting to "light blades" someone sneak attacking with a great axe never made huge sense. But why is a crossbow or a sling, more accurate than a longbow or shuriken?
> 
> That limitation seems unnecessary.



 That is most likely to serve as a point of differentiation between rogues and rangers. They both get to snipe, but one does it with a crossbow and the other does it with a bow.

I'd wait to see the rest of the system.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Feb 26, 2008)

devoblue said:
			
		

> It's probably a bit harsh to judge without seeing the ranger.




Actually, I was going to say it's probably a bit harsh to judge without seeing the entire rulebook....but, y'know..that never stopped the intertubes before!


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Characterwise, how did a 3E rogue without any ranks in Disable Device ever get Trapfinding? If you can answer this, just apply the same reasoning.




"Trapfinding" does actually make you any good at finding traps all it did was remove the cap, if you had no ranks (Search) you still would be useless. Skill Training does give you an ability.

Still it's the illogical restrictions (to a whole race) that bother me more than the illogical bonuses (to a limited number of builds).


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> "Trapfinding" does actually make you any good at finding traps all it did was remove the cap, if you had no ranks (Search) you still would be useless. Skill Training does give you an ability.




A useless ability. And since you have managed to live with a useless ability sitting on your character sheet taunting you all this time, I'm sure you can live with another useless ability in 4E.



> Still it's the illogical restrictions (to a whole race) that bother me more than the illogical bonuses (to a limited number of builds).




What racial restrictions?


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That is most likely to serve as a point of differentiation between rogues and rangers. They both get to snipe, but one does it with a crossbow and the other does it with a bow.




So Elves should play Rangers not Rogues? I thought we got rid of racial restrictions with 2nd Ed?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Erm no because playing an rogue required no multiclassing to be really effective with a short bow, or a long bow if elven. And in 3rd Ed even if you played a human rogue and multiclassed to pick up the longbow feat you could effectively use your rogue abilities with it from then on like Sneak Attack.
> 
> Now if you are playing a rogue and some how pick up the bow proficiency you can't actually use it.
> 
> ...



You can use the Bow. You can't combine it with the Rogue's powers (well, at least the list of powers that was given here). Why? Because Rogues rarely use bows. If you want to train in using a bow better, better choose a class that implies using a Bow often. A Rogue is not one of them. Maybe a Fighter is, probably a Ranger is. 

Likewise, a character who never used anyhting remotely connected to "Thievery" is probably not a Rogue in the first place. Or at least, not primarily a Rogue. 

Classes are not just names you can slap on your character. They imply what the character does. If a class doesn't do what you want your character does, it means you're using the wrong class. Compare the Rogue to another class, like the Wizard - a Elven Wizard is proficient with a bow. Do you expect him to cast his spells using a bow? You might like a class that ends up doing this, but it's not a Wizard. 


But the original topic: Yes, classes have a limited flexibility. Do they have less then advertised? Advertised by WotC - not that I know of. Advertised by posters? Probably. 
Have we even seen all the flexibility that's possible with a class - don't think so.



> Do you mean the Artful Dodger or Brutal Scoundrel options?



I mean the "Builds" described in the beginning of the Rogue article. Artful Dodger and Brutal Scoundrel are the Rogue Tactics, if I am not mistaken. The Builds are optional. I don't know if the Tactics are limited to the listed two, but obviously they are the only real thing you _have_ to decide on.


----------



## JosephK (Feb 26, 2008)

I find it quite problematic too.. Imo another omen of the apparent lack of class flexibility, is the "rogue weapon talent" part.. +1 to hit with daggers and a die-increase on shuriken. Any non-dagger wielding rogue will apparently be mechanically inferior to one who uses a dagger.. Isnt that problematic for a base class, that supposedly should be able to fill the shoes of various melee archtypes? (swashbuckling, footpad, assassin-in-training, etc, etc). 


The good news is that from reading the text, it doesnt seem to say you have to use the actual weapon for the powers/sneak attack.. Just says you have to be wielding one.. So with TWF you could hold a lightblade in your offhand and sneak attack and use powers with your club (brutish-footpad), broadsword, hammer/axe (dwarven rogue) or whatever 


I'll withhold final judgment though  Really, want to see how the multi-classing stuff works out.. Even if there is a feat called "use clubs as a weapon for your rogue powers" I still think it's a bad solution, having to spend feats on something like that. Also, I doubt the "rogue weapon talent" class ability, can be feat'ed.. And what about sneak attack? Another feat?


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> So Elves should play Rangers not Rogues?




There is nothing stopping an elf playing a rogue. Is this a trick question?


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> What racial restrictions?




Why give elves proficiency with longbows and shortbows and then say they can't use them with ANY rogue abilities?

Sure they can play rogues but they lose a racial benefit of being an elf.

It doesn't stop them but it is a big discouragement,  

Please come up with an in game reason a sling (bludgeoning), and crossbow (piercing) can sneak attack while a bow (piercing) can't.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> So Elves should play Rangers not Rogues? I thought we got rid of racial restrictions with 2nd Ed?



Elven shouldn't play Wizards, because otherwise their racial weapon profiency would be useless, since it can't be used with spells? (Which means the only class they could play is what - Rogue?)


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> So Elves should play Rangers not Rogues? I thought we got rid of racial restrictions with 2nd Ed?




It says that elves make good rangers _and _ rogues (and clerics), so we'll see.


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Elven shouldn't play Wizards, because otherwise their racial weapon profiency would be useless, since it can't be used with spells? (Which means the only class they could play is what - Rogue?)




Hardly a fair comparison.

I'm asking why a martial weapon can't be used with a martial class ability, and martial powers, that other martial weapons can be used with.

It's really not the same as trying to use a martial weapon with arcane powers and class abilities.


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Why give elves proficiency with longbows and shortbows and then say they can't use them with ANY rogue abilities?




Because they just happen not to synergise well. Life is tough.



> Sure they can play rogues but they lose a racial benefit of being an elf.
> 
> It doesn't stop them but it is a big discouragement,




Races being better suited to some classes than others has been part of D&D for a long, long time. Just like how in 3E, you'll see lots more dwarf fighters and clerics than dwarf sorcerers.




> Please come up with an in game reason a sling (bludgeoning), and crossbow (piercing) can sneak attack while a bow (piercing) can't.




You'll have to go to the Dragonsfoot grognards for that one, I'm afraid!


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Hardly a fair comparison.
> 
> I'm asking why a martial weapon can't be used with a martial class ability, and martial powers, that other martial weapons can be used with.




Let's not get carried away with labels that have no actual in-game significance, yes?


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 26, 2008)

Isn't it obvious that Eladrins (not Elves) will make good wizard?


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> It says that elves make good rangers _and _ rogues (and clerics), so we'll see.




Probably down to the +2 Dex and +2 Wis which aid most of their class skills and their powers.


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Probably down to the +2 Dex and +2 Wis which aid most of their class skills and their powers.



 See? You're starting to solve the problems already!


----------



## devoblue (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> So Elves should play Rangers not Rogues? I thought we got rid of racial restrictions with 2nd Ed?




You say that like its a bad thing?  Should all races be balanced with all classes?  3e had a whole lot of them anyway, like half-orc isn't supposed to play a wizard, etc.


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Let's not get carried away with labels that have no actual in-game significance, yes?




If they hand made the restriction hand crossbows, and allowed shuriken then perhaps I could get the reason for the restriction as it needs to be an easily concealable weapon. But you could still use a heavy crossbow but not a shortbow? You can't use a sap or light club, but you can a sling? Just seems arbitrary and illogical.

It's not all rogue weapons, which would have made some sense.

It's not even all concealable weapons, which could have made some sense.

It's not all piercing weapons, which might have made sense.

It's not all weapons which would have maintained the status quo.

It just seems a weird list for no particular reason, other than to limit character options. That's the sort of thing I thought went away with 2nd Ed.


----------



## Pale Jackal (Feb 26, 2008)

JosephK said:
			
		

> Even if there is a feat called "use clubs as a weapon for your rogue powers" I still think it's a bad solution, having to spend feats on something like that. Also, I doubt the "rogue weapon talent" class ability, can be feat'ed.. And what about sneak attack? Another feat?




Why?  If it gives your rogue a feat-worthy mechanical advantage under the new rule set... then why not?  It allows you your concept, and keeps the game balanced.


----------



## MaelStorm (Feb 26, 2008)

Halfling should make good Rogue


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

In any case, we'll see full stats for the fighter at least at D&D XP, I'm sure. That might help answer questions on how easy it is to create a <100% ninja rogue.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> In any case, we'll see full stats for the fighter at least at D&D XP, I'm sure. That might help answer questions on how easy it is to create a <100% ninja rogue.



But will it enlighten us on how to create a *>*100% ninja rogue?  _That's_ what I want to know. 

Mmmmm ninja.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## JosephK (Feb 26, 2008)

Pale Jackal said:
			
		

> Why?  If it gives your rogue a feat-worthy mechanical advantage under the new rule set... then why not?  It allows you your concept, and keeps the game balanced.





Unless the club has been transformed into a mighty weapon of DOOM(tm) in this edition, I cant think of any mechanical advantage it would have over a light blade. Nor a hammer or handaxe (longtime favorite of dwarven rogues everywhere).. It's mainly a fluff thing really, and it seems very arbitrary and nonsensical to disallow shortbows or clubs from sneak attack. Having to spend a feat on a using a club for sneak attack (possibly another on using rogue powers), seems pretty silly, considering it's mainly about wanting to play a slightly different style of rogue, than the pigeon-hole one presented in the write-up.


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> *>*100% ninja




Now I want that on a T-shirt.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Now I want that on a T-shirt.




/agree

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 26, 2008)

The_Fan said:
			
		

> I dunno, I'm a brutally honest person who has never shoplifted in his life, but I'm quick enough with my hands and good at distracting people that I regularly lift stuff from them and return it as a joke. I also find myself sneaking up on people accidentally.




That concept is rendered simply by the 3e idea that each skill has a key ability score. Never "practiced" stealing? To a certain extent you can do it pretty well just by using your dexterity. But potentially you will never be Arsene Lupin just because of a high Dex. It's a system that rewards dedication into something, rather than just finding yourself at level 30th being a top-notch thief, or cook, or athlete.

However I understand the reason why they made skills climb up even without you spending points. It's the "avoid non-fun situations". And I understand the reason why they make some skills automatic: lots of gamers simply think that every Rogue must be stealthy & good at stealing, the Wizard must be also a sage, the Fighter must be an athlete. It makes sense, as long as you don't want to stray too far from cliches (which personally sometimes I do).


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 26, 2008)

Er, wasn't Power Attack also limited by weapon?


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 26, 2008)

I think it's quite clear that the from what we've seen of 4e, and the 4e rogue, that the classes appear constrained in some way along the lines discussed in this thread. I'm wondering if this isn't a deliberate attempt which would allow the multiclassing system to be used more proficiently. As hong mentioned, if you want something a class doesn't give you, multiclass. I think we'll get a much clearer picture on the limitations of each class when we see how the multiclassing works and indeed the other classes.

Pinotage


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 26, 2008)

The issue with "forcing" thievery on people is great from the perspective of a person who plays in organized play.  I've joined too many tables where we had a rogue only to find out in the middle of the adventure he wasn't "that kind of rogue".  Ugh.  I understand the desire to make non-archetypes and different archetypes, but in organized play settings, it can be deadly to the other party members.  In home games, just make it a pick 6, but in organized play I am ever so thankful for the mandate.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 26, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Er, wasn't Power Attack also limited by weapon?




You just couldn't PA with a light weapon.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Because they just happen not to synergise well. Life is tough.




That's what I used to say to those that criticised 3e multiclassing. Not all classes synergize perfectly, not every single build is equally effective.

But here people are criticising the fact that there are indeed new restrictions on the applicability of sneak attack. It just doesn't pair well with the advertising of 4e. Maybe it's just 1 sad design choice in the whole game, but certainly it doesn't look promising to see it in the 1st class previewed...


----------



## FourthBear (Feb 26, 2008)

While the rogue class featured may have several options mandatory (Stealth and Thievery) and  possibly have more weapon restrictions, I believe it will still be overall more flexible than the 3.5e rogue.  I think this flexibility will come from the ability to customize your character with power and feat choices, in particular the Class Training feats which will allow your rogue to dip into other classes' abilities without having to multiclass (and therefore gain abilities and baggage you didn't ask for).  The two featured restrictions in the rogue writeup do appear to be  intended to emphasize and focus the class around a certain class of abilities and weapons.  It seems to me that the issue with the mandatory skills will be fairly trivial to get around, as others said, just make it pick six instead of pick four+S+T.  The small weapon list I'll have to see the weapon classes and rules to make up my mind about.  Even if they are quite restrictive, I don't think it overcomes the increased flexibility in 4e from the increased number of power and feat choices.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 26, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> You just couldn't PA with a light weapon.




Different between 3.0 and 3.5 anyway.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 26, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> The issue with "forcing" thievery on people is great from the perspective of a person who plays in organized play.  I've joined too many tables where we had a rogue only to find out in the middle of the adventure he wasn't "that kind of rogue".  Ugh.  I understand the desire to make non-archetypes and different archetypes, but in organized play settings, it can be deadly to the other party members.  In home games, just make it a pick 6, but in organized play I am ever so thankful for the mandate.




At least some core things in a class should be "forced", otherwise we should better play a class-less system.

I like playing against-cliches characters sometimes, but I guess that if this is a rare occurrence, it can be agreed between the DM and the player to make some variation on the class (perhaps with a partial compensation for something you give up).

So what should all Rogue have in common? A minimum of stealth, a minimum of thievery and dirty fighting ability (sneak attack) sounds reasonable to me.

Less reasonable the weapon limitations.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 26, 2008)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Less reasonable the weapon limitations.



The reasonableness of the weapon limitations is yet to be fully revealed though.  We don't know the cost of adding more weapon proficiencies or adding weapons to the "can use with sneak attack list".  It might very well be too costly or restrictive (requiring multiple feats and multiclassing or just impossible).  It might also be as simple as 1 feat or utility power.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Pale Jackal (Feb 26, 2008)

JosephK said:
			
		

> Unless the club has been transformed into a mighty weapon of DOOM(tm) in this edition, I cant think of any mechanical advantage it would have over a light blade. Nor a hammer or handaxe (longtime favorite of dwarven rogues everywhere).. It's mainly a fluff thing really, and it seems very arbitrary and nonsensical to disallow shortbows or clubs from sneak attack. Having to spend a feat on a using a club for sneak attack (possibly another on using rogue powers), seems pretty silly, considering it's mainly about wanting to play a slightly different style of rogue, than the pigeon-hole one presented in the write-up.




I somewhat agree with you: there's no reason a rogue shouldn't be able to use a club, assuming it doesn't give a mechanical advantage.  Then again, a club might fall under "warhammer" or "mace"... should a warrior who's good at bludgeoning opponents be unable to use his special abilities with a club?  If a club-warrior and a rogue can use a club, perhaps there's room for abuse there?

Alternately, you can always say you wield a club but you're actually wielding a dagger.

These solutions are suboptimal (or there's a good reason for the RAW... and I can always say your rogue can wield a club, as long as he's not using club-warrior abilities), but if these are the worst things I come across in 4E and the combat/whatever is "significantly" improved, I call that a win.


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> You just couldn't PA with a light weapon.




That sort of broad restriction makes more sense than the arbitrary list they have for sneak attack. If they have just restricted it to light blades, and had no ranged weapons I'd have been happier I think, at least it would make some sort of sense.

It isn't restrictions I against, it's a class system after all, it's arbitrary ones that make no sense, game balance and/or flavour wise.


----------



## devoblue (Feb 26, 2008)

I'm mostly happy with the weapon limitations for rogues and sneak attack.  The only one I struggle with is sneak attacking with a sling.


----------



## Engilbrand (Feb 26, 2008)

Allow me to say something again. Just because your "CHARACTER SHEET" says Thievery +9, doesn't mean that you have to use it. The sheet is not every thing about your character. Sure, the rules say that you have that, but that's something outside of the game. You don't need your character to play that. A Fighter can call himself a Knight or a Paladin. A Sorceror can call himself a Wizard. It doesn't matter. If you don't want your character to have any ability to steal stuff, then don't play him with the ability to steal stuff. Ignore what's on the sheet. Or, do the alternative and complain that your character is good at something that you don't want him to be good at, but use the skill anyway.


----------



## wedgeski (Feb 26, 2008)

devoblue said:
			
		

> I'm mostly happy with the weapon limitations for rogues and sneak attack.  The only one I struggle with is sneak attacking with a sling.



Well I think we can all probably think of at least *one* myth where the villain was downed by one shot from a sling.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 26, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> The reasonableness of the weapon limitations is yet to be fully revealed though.  We don't know the cost of adding more weapon proficiencies or adding weapons to the "can use with sneak attack list".  It might very well be too costly or restrictive (requiring multiple feats and multiclassing or just impossible).  It might also be as simple as 1 feat or utility power.
> 
> Thaumaturge.




True. But in that case they've taken the wrong path with regard to editing the book / writing the rules. 

It's clear that sneak attack now works only with some weapons, ok.

Mentioning the list here will only confuse people as soon as additional books introduce new weapons, each of which have anyway to be specified whether can sneak attack or not.

Much better would have been to allow sneak attack to work with all weapon of a certain _group_. That's better, because it will be automatically clear for every weapon in further books.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 26, 2008)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> Well I think we can all probably think of at least *one* myth where the villain was downed by one shot from a sling.




Hopefully the sling won't suck ass this time around.


----------



## devoblue (Feb 26, 2008)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> Well I think we can all probably think of at least *one* myth where the villain was downed by one shot from a sling.



Scoring a crit and sneak attacking are not the same thing.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 26, 2008)

And many where a villain was felled with a bow. 

Hopefully there's something we're still missing....like some kind of extra weapon proficiencies gained from race? 

Maybe weapons that can be used without proficiency (such as club)?


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 26, 2008)

I'm probably too deep into this thread to have much hope of my post being read, but...



> * Skills - Stealth and Thievery is mandatory.  Just wanted to be a agile type who doesn't sneak around stealing things?  Too bad.



 I'll give you Thievery, that should probably have been recommended rather than automatic. As a DM I would likely let someone who wanted to use the class more as a skirmisher than a thief choose another skill instead. Stealth makes sense enough to me. The lightly armed and armor guy is better able to sneak around? I buy it.



> * Weapons - Not only is the Rogue only proficient in a small set, but their powers are specifically limited to this exact set.  Want to play a thug who uses a club, or a sniper with a bow, or an infiltrator with unarmed strikes?  Nope, you must carry a dagger and wear a black hooded cloak.  And lurk in the shadows, even in your own house.



 I think your jumping way too soon here. For all we know all character classes are automatically proficient in simple weapons, or simple weapons simply don't require proficiency to use. Perhaps to build a better skirmisher you need to take the warrior training feat which might give you access to a number of weapons/armor proficiencies from the warrior class (I'm betting the training feats also let you alternatively select from the other class' at will and per encounter abilities.)




> And I haven't mentioned houseruling either.



How can we houserule when we don't have the actual rules yet?


----------



## tuffnoogies (Feb 26, 2008)

Ditto.  The "Sneak Attack" Ampersand column is the first thing I've seen that really dampens my enthusiasm for 4e.  As I was reading it, I kept thinking they should change the name back to "Thief."

R&C specifically states that rogues will be able to use rapiers and will have more of swashbuckler feel.  I guess they decided to nix that.  That's exactly the opposite of what I would have done.

Hopefully, we're seeing things way out of context (which wouldn't surprise me too much the way they're totally bungling the whole marketing thing) and thing's be ok when we have the complete ruleset.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 26, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> Hopefully the sling won't suck ass this time around.




Did it suck before?

For a Fighter-type yes.

For other characters, like monks, druids, clerics and mages, not that much.

In fact you just don't expect fighters to fight with slings, when they can better use bows.

I don't think there's any risk of that, but I have to say that a game where a sling is as good as a bow... sucks ass!


----------



## tuffnoogies (Feb 26, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> I think all of our worries will be answered once we learn more on the multiclassing or class training options. An Ampersand article on this subject would be very appreciated.




No kidding.  And we'll probably get one the last week of May just before the books hit the shelves and it's way too late to change anything the actual customers don't like.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 26, 2008)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Did it suck before?
> 
> For a Fighter-type yes.
> 
> For other characters, like monks, druids, clerics and mages, not that much.




Very much I would say, all of those are better off with a crossbow, or throwing a carrot…


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 26, 2008)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> True. But in that case they've taken the wrong path with regard to editing the book / writing the rules.
> 
> It's clear that sneak attack now works only with some weapons, ok.
> 
> ...




Hmm?



> Sneak Attack
> Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a *light blade*, a crossbow, or a sling, your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases



.

Reading this, doesn't this do what you're saying? Looking at it, I would assume any future weapon that falls under the LIGHT category is available to be used.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (Feb 26, 2008)

I'm hoping there'll be a baseline of weapons that everyone's proficient in, like 3E's simple weapons, or each class gets a selection of chosen proficiencies in addition to their standard proficiencies.


----------



## Patlin (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Oh look.. I'll play an Elven Rogue...
> 
> *Elven Weapon Training:* You gain proficiency with the longbow and the shortbow.
> 
> ...




This could be addressed by feats.  Maybe the backstabber feat they mention, even.

Theoretical Feat
Benefit: Treat any one handed melee weapon as if it were a light blade for your rogue powers and class abilities.  Treat bows as crossbows for your rogue powers and class abilities.

I sure hope so anyway... it's be crazy if the Elven Rogue couldn't use the longbow effectively.  Entirely possible, but crazy.


----------



## Stormtower (Feb 26, 2008)

I like the 4E rogue writeup.  Trying to put my finger on why 4E's execution of class roles (that we have seen thus far) reminds me of a very mature, sophisticated version of BECMI/RC.

...I'm not sure I have the words to describe it.  But the rogue feels like it's returning to its "Thief" roots, and I like it.  I'll see how it plays on Thursday at DDXP (hope to meet some of you fellow ENWorlders in person there!).  I'm a sucker for 3.5E rogues despite their occasionally limited utility in combat.

small rant coming: I was one of the anti-4E folks posting after GenCon, largely because I disliked the framing of 4E vs. my beloved 3.5E and felt it was too soon for a new edition.  However, I am now serene and placid about it because 3.5E ain't goin' nowhere as long as some of us carry its torch for home campaigns.  3.5E is the game I want for nearly limitless PC options and gritty, deadly combat.  4E's tone and flavor is a significant departure from that style, and IMO that's not a bad thing... it's just different.

When I came out of my shell and became active in the MD/DC area as a gamer, I deliberately set out to improve my DM'ing by trying different styles of play within 3.5E (hardcore tactical dungeon crawl vs. strong narrative/story vs. hybrid tactical/RP) and I found the system was flexible enough to handle those divergent styles.  So I'll embrace the differences in 4E as just another "style" of D&D in which to run.  

The tightening of class abilities and roles was a stated design goal for 4E, and that's not a bad thing IMO.  If 4E can truly make me feel like I'm playing a shinier and more mature version of Basic D&D, it'll grab me as a customer.  Personally, the rogue writeup - perceived lack of flexibility and all - seems to do that.

We shall see what the weekend holds.


----------



## Mad Mac (Feb 26, 2008)

> R&C specifically states that rogues will be able to use rapiers and will have more of swashbuckler feel. I guess they decided to nix that. That's exactly the opposite of what I would have done.




  Or they made Rapiers an "Exotic" weapon that requires a feat. This seems supported by the DI screens which has it on a list of "Superior" weapons.  It's pretty easy to see Rapiers as fitting into the light blades catagory.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 26, 2008)

Stormtower said:
			
		

> 4E as just another "style" of D&D in which to run.




This is key.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 26, 2008)

We also don't know what proficiency actually means.

If you're non-proficient in a weapon, what penalties (if any) do you take?


----------



## withak (Feb 26, 2008)

tuffnoogies said:
			
		

> No kidding.  And we'll probably get one the last week of May just before the books hit the shelves and it's way too late to change anything the actual customers don't like.



It's already way too late for that, anyway.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 26, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Reading this, doesn't this do what you're saying? Looking at it, I would assume any future weapon that falls under the LIGHT category is available to be used.




That's ok, and I think I noticed now that they just say "crossbow" which is probably a group and not a single weapon.

Still, no reason to really exclude the bows and the spears IMHO.


----------



## jaer (Feb 26, 2008)

JosephK said:
			
		

> I'll withhold final judgment though  Really, want to see how the multi-classing stuff works out.. Even if there is a feat called "use clubs as a weapon for your rogue powers" I still think it's a bad solution, having to spend feats on something like that. Also, I doubt the "rogue weapon talent" class ability, can be feat'ed.. And what about sneak attack? Another feat?




Actually, I think that is the perfect solution.  Feats are now meant to customize your classes.

Rogue A is a dagger user.  He's happy with the light blades and and the x-bows he as learned to use in the city streaks.  He spends his feats and abilities improving his stealthiness and the like.

Rogue B does not like being limited to daggers and light blades.  He's a street thug, and thus has learned to use a slightly wider range of melee weapondry.  He spends takes strength-based combat powers and spends his feats on expanding his roguish weapon abilities (and now light maces can be used for any of his abilities as well).  We don't know the mechanical difference between a light blade and a light mace...it could very well be large enough to require the restriction.

Rogue C is an elf, good a sniping with a bow (multi-class ranger).  He spends some training (i.e., a feat) to use his archery skills in conjunction with his natural bow abilities and his ranger levels.  Again a bow might be significantly better than a x-bow in 4e, hence the need for a rogue to take a feat to use his rogue-powers with them.

Rogue A, more stealth.  Rogue B can use maces with his rogue powers.  Rogue C can use bows with his rogue powers.  That is exactly what feats are meant to do in my opinion: customize your character beyond the ability choices.  I hope they do supply a couple feats to let rogues use their abilities with other weapons.



			
				IceFracttal said:
			
		

> * Skills - Stealth and Thievery is mandatory. Just wanted to be a agile type who doesn't sneak around stealing things? Too bad.




The preview says "Trained Skills: Stealth and Thievery plus four others."  These skills aren't mandatory.  They are FREE.  You don't want your rogue to sneak around or be thievey, just decide you don't want them as trained skills and there you go.  Free things can be declined.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 26, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> 1) As there are two builds for the rogue, I suspect there will two builds for the ranger – ranged or TWF.




This would make me sad.  Rangers excelling in archery makes some sense.  Rangers having some propensity for TWF over light weapons, sword and board, or big freakin' axes goes beyond strange and well into absurd.

Can someone please give me an even remotely plausible excuse way a wilderness survivalist would have any greater inclination towards TWF?  And "'cause the rules say so" doesn't count.


----------



## TwoSix (Feb 26, 2008)

Patlin said:
			
		

> I sure hope so anyway... it's be crazy if the Elven Rogue couldn't use the longbow effectively.  Entirely possible, but crazy.




When did "use longbow effectively" become "use all your class powers with the weapon"?  Is an elven warlord or cleric also broken?


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Feb 26, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> * Weapons - Not only is the Rogue only proficient in a small set, but their powers are specifically limited to this exact set.  Want to play a thug who uses a club, or a sniper with a bow, or an infiltrator with unarmed strikes?  Nope, you must carry a dagger and wear a black hooded cloak.  And lurk in the shadows, even in your own house.




You mean a +1 to using daggers is a rule that if you play a rogue, you MUST carry a dagger?  :\ 

I'm sorry, but having a +1 to using a dagger is not a set-in-stone requirement that you use one, and nothing else. 

In fact, I'm not trying to be confrontational, but your statement appears to fall into the category of "complete misinterpretation of something fairly obvious, in order to rag on 4e." It's like saying "fighters in 3e have heavy armor proficiency, so they're forcing you to buy plate armor at level 1 when you can't afford to  buy it." It's a correct observation, IMO, but an extremely exaggerated and distorted conclusion.

In short, rogues have a +1 with daggers. Big deal. If you want to use a club, pick up a club and use it. Appears to be a complete non-issue to me.


----------



## jaer (Feb 26, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> This would make me sad.  Rangers excelling in archery makes some sense.  Rangers having some propensity for TWF over light weapons, sword and board, or big freakin' axes goes beyond strange and well into absurd.
> 
> Can someone please give me an even remotely plausible excuse way a wilderness survivalist would have any greater inclination towards TWF?  And "'cause the rules say so" doesn't count.




Because you cannot effectively swing a two-handed weapon in deep brush or with low-hanging branches around, and shields really just get in the way, always banging off of branches (and make quite a lot of noise, scaring off game).

Two smaller weapons is a much more effective way to fight in these sort of environments (especially when a bear grabs you), and when one is used to darting about (from running through the wilderness, dodging shrubs and branches) one is better trained for quick strikes and deft movement over blocking with a shield or slamming around a large weapon.

Take that for what you will.  I know when I go camping, I'm more likely to take a small hatchet and a decent knife over an axe and a sword.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Feb 26, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> We also don't know what proficiency actually means.
> 
> If you're non-proficient in a weapon, what penalties (if any) do you take?




None. They've already stated, IIRC, that proficiency now equals a bonus, rather than non-proficiency equalling a penalty. 

And furthermore, everyone is saying "there are only two builds for rogue!!!!!" -- when it explicitly states in this preview's disclaimer that the builds shown are SAMPLES that are included for new players and that you can build your rogue however you want. It says that in plain black and white -- go back and read the article before you claim that the game only allows these two builds, please, because if you state that you're going to be forced to pick one of these two builds, then you're objectively and demonstrably wrong.

It's like there are sample starting characters in the 3e PHB. There are sample feat lists in the 3.5e PHBII. YOu're not forced by the rules to play them, either. 4e is no different. They give you sample builds so that you get the hang of it if you don't know what the heck you're doing.

Either many people are skimming over the text way to fast, or there's a lot of wilfull misinterpretation going on so that people can justify their "4e sucks no matter what they do" stance.  There are aspects of 4e that I personally don't like the sound of, but there are also a lot that I do, and making up problems that aren't there really isn't helping any kind of rational discussion about any issues that might really exist.


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> When did "use longbow effectively" become "use all your class powers with the weapon"?




Since 3rd Ed when they got rid of arbitrary restrictions, they had in 2nd Ed.



> Is an elven cleric also broken?




No, don't worry he'll be fixed buy cleric powers only working with bludgeoning weapons, because drawing blood is evil.


----------



## Gargoyle (Feb 26, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> Sorry about the rant, but what I'm seeing is a mechanically-sound and promising class that's been severely handicapped by a narrow enforced flavor with visible in-game effects, for no good reason.




I believe the classes are going to all be quite focused because:

- It gives them a stronger identity.  All 4e fighters will have heavy armor and specialize in a weapon.  The guy wearing the plate mail who is really good with that axe is probably a fighter.   
- It opens up room for many more core classes.  3e had a proliferation of prestige classes, and I believe 4e will have a proliferation of core classes.  If the classes are well designed, I'm ok with this.  If you want to play a monk or a swashbuckler, or whatever you will have to wait, homebrew it, or make do with the options in the first PHB for a while.  But eventually it will be very nice because the fighter won't be a better swashbuckler than a swashbuckler.  

I think it's a good strategy, because there will be splatbooks, even if WotC doesn't make them, so I think it's good to leave some room for them and give the "core" classes a stronger identity.


----------



## Bagpuss (Feb 26, 2008)

out of interest I just noticed on the thread about new pictures of the character visualiser, that the Rapier is listed.

It's in the Superior Melee Weapons category along with the "sword, short"; Bastard Sword, Katana and Chain, spiked.

There is also a Military Melee Weapons category and a Simple Melee Weapons Category, and the same three for ranged weapons.

short sword is exotic?


----------



## Gargoyle (Feb 26, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> This would make me sad.  Rangers excelling in archery makes some sense.  Rangers having some propensity for TWF over light weapons, sword and board, or big freakin' axes goes beyond strange and well into absurd.
> 
> Can someone please give me an even remotely plausible excuse way a wilderness survivalist would have any greater inclination towards TWF?  And "'cause the rules say so" doesn't count.




I can't.  Your reasoning is perfectly logical.

But somehow TWF rangers don't bother me.  Call me a Drizzt loving fanboy, but I guess I think TWF is cool, and somehow suites the style of a D&D ranger.  Maybe the picture of a dual-wielding ranger has been stuck in my head so long that it's become iconic to me, sort of fitting in with images of beholders, dragons, magic missles and other D&D isms, even if it hasn't always been around.  My ranger players seem to like it too.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 26, 2008)

What Gargoyle said. Allowing players to build every character imaginable with the core rules is a really bad business strategy.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

1) I can understand complaining about free abilities tying your character to fluff you do not want, but not when the free ability is so small as being automatically trained in Thievery.  A +5 bonus to one skill is not a character straitjacket.

2) You can't auto detect rogues by looking for people with daggers.  Do your Fighter characters not carry backup daggers?  When they're walking around in a city out of armor so they can shop, do they not have daggers with them?  For that matter, don't your Wizards carry backup daggers?  I thought everyone carried a backup dagger.  I thought this was standard issue adventurer gear.  Sure, the Fighter's special attacks might not work with a dagger.  But so what?  First, it makes sense that a dagger and a greatsword require different training.  But more importantly, from a gamist perspective, that fighter has a big attack bonus, a good strength score, and a pile of hit points.  If he's stuck using just a dagger for roleplaying reasons, he should be just fine.

3) A Rogue with a dagger is not objectively better than a rogue using another weapon, even though Rogues get +1 attack roll with a dagger.  This seems pretty clearly designed to improve the viability of the dagger so that it isn't automatically overshadowed by the shortsword.  Right now, in 3e, a dagger isn't a great choice as a primary weapon because the Rogue can already use the larger, more damaging shortsword.  The Rogue Weapon rule provides some equality here, making the shortsword more damaging but the dagger more accurate.

4) Finally, as an overall point, it is likely that a great deal of variety will be provided by the class powers selections.  You can't leave these out of your consideration, as they're the way you customize a class.  Arguing that the rogue is too restrictive while not considering all the different tactical options provided by power choices is like arguing that the 3e Fighter is too restrictive while ignoring the existence of feats.  Of COURSE its restrictive, if you leave out the greatest source of variety.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 26, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but having a +1 to using a dagger is not a set-in-stone requirement that you use one, and nothing else.



It looks to me that it's there to give rogue players a choice between higher accuracy with a dagger, or higher damage with a short sword.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 26, 2008)

A Rogue needs to have Stealth and Thievery because without it, he sucks.  He is not an effective character without those skills, and I imagine you'll find that out once you crack open the first module.  So why not give it to them for free?  

I think, if you have a class based around an idea (ie. Stealth and Thievery), someone new to the game shouldn't be able to completely avoid that option just because they don't know the rules.


----------



## outsider (Feb 26, 2008)

Stormtower said:
			
		

> I like the 4E rogue writeup.  Trying to put my finger on why 4E's execution of class roles (that we have seen thus far) reminds me of a very mature, sophisticated version of BECMI/RC.
> 
> ...I'm not sure I have the words to describe it.  But the rogue feels like it's returning to its "Thief" roots, and I like it.




I agree with you on this one.  I like my classes having some flavor to them.  3e rogues were way too generic.  In practice I didn't mind much, because I could easily create the "thief" characters I wanted with it.  I think it was a bit of a disservice to the game though.  Classes(especially the base 4), should be iconic and flavorful, not generic "maybe your rogue isn't a rogue at all, but a diplomat!" style frameworks.  I'm really happy to see the direction WotC is going with classes and roles in 4e.  It's one of the areas 3e lost a bit from earlier editions, and I'm glad to see it coming back.


----------



## Ulthwithian (Feb 26, 2008)

Bean: I believe when people say 'only two builds', I believe they're referring to the tactic options (Artful Dodger and Brutal Scoundrel).  However, what I don't understand is why people think that a Swashbuckling Rogue won't be supported.  From the column,

Riposte Strike
Sly Flourish
Trick Strike

are all names of powers that a Rogue can get _at first level_ that all seem to work with the idea of swashbuckling.  I see no reason to believe that there is not enough support for a swashbuckling rogue to work.  What I do see is that the powers that WotC chose to show us seem to work better with a Brutal Scoundrel Rogue than an Artful Dodger Rogue.  This is a rather significant difference.

Bag: Arbitrary distinctions are what you make of them, really.  What is not seen as arbitrary to you can seem to be quite arbitrary to others.  Now, do I believe that the list of weapons that a Rogue can Sneak Attack with seems a bit short?  Rather, yes.  Do I believe that a Rogue should be allowed to Sneak Attack with any weapon whatsoever?  No.  The secret here is to find the happy medium between flavor balance and play balance.  And, really, without seeing the whole package, it would be difficult to argue one way or the other as to whether that happy medium is there.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 26, 2008)

outsider said:
			
		

> "maybe your rogue isn't a rogue at all, but a diplomat!"



A diplomat who's really good at sneaky fighting and disarming traps.


----------



## DandD (Feb 26, 2008)

I do wonder, can a Rogue player take both 'rogue tactics' eventually? I mean, I wouldn't limit myself to being only an artful dodger or a brutal scoundrel, I would take both at 1st level, or eventually have both at a later level. If I couldn't have them both, what would be the reason? Or what if I multi-class my character later to rogue, do I even get one of these two 'tactics'? 

I hope that they won't expect us to plan the character in advance, like they did with all those Prestige Classes. 

Of course, one has to consider that we don't know how multi-classing works.


----------



## outsider (Feb 26, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> A diplomat who's really good at sneaky fighting and disarming traps.




Sneaky fighting yes, disarming traps not so much.  If you didn't take Disable Device, the trapfinding ability did absolutely nothing, and might as well have not existed.


----------



## DandD (Feb 26, 2008)

Well, perhaps the diplomat always has to evade traps that sprang upon him when he went to bed. 
Like, poisoned needles falling from the ceiling when you want to read a book, write a report home or just dining. 
Which could explain the trapfinding ability... Somehow... Hehehe...


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Feb 26, 2008)

outsider said:
			
		

> Sneaky fighting yes, disarming traps not so much.  If you didn't take Disable Device, the trapfinding ability did absolutely nothing, and might as well have not existed.



You get Trap Sense either way.  Also Evasion and Uncanny Dodge.  Apparently you're a diplomat and an experienced tumbler... until you actually try to Tumble, at least.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

I never got why Rogues had to be the diplomats.  What does being a diplomat have to do with being a rogue?

Look at the character class.  Has it got Diplomacy?  Great!  You're a diplomat!  Someone might ask you "But why should a Diplomat be able to smite evil or summon a celestial horse?"  But I think that person is clearly missing the point.

If the goal were to make sure that Diplomats had only skills related to being a Diplomat, we'd force them to be Experts.


----------



## outsider (Feb 26, 2008)

Evasion, uncanny dodge, and trap sense can all easily be attributed to either luck or survival instinct, rather than training.  You wouldn't need to be able to perform a cartwheel to do any of them.

At any rate, I'm not going to continue arguing in favor of the genericness of the 3e rogue, as it wasn't something I liked.  Every D&D rogue should be able to open locks, disarm traps, and sneak around.  It's part of the class identity.  3e pretended that it didn't have to be, but the game assumed you bought those skills anyways, basically giving you the illusion of choice.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 26, 2008)

devoblue said:
			
		

> You say that like its a bad thing?  Should all races be balanced with all classes?  3e had a whole lot of them anyway, like half-orc isn't supposed to play a wizard, etc.




And yet I've seen a fair number of kick-butt half-orc wizards. Just because the rules don't support min-maxing doesn't mean you can't make the character.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 26, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> A Rogue needs to have Stealth and Thievery because without it, he sucks.  He is not an effective character without those skills, and I imagine you'll find that out once you crack open the first module.  So why not give it to them for free?
> 
> I think, if you have a class based around an idea (ie. Stealth and Thievery), someone new to the game shouldn't be able to completely avoid that option just because they don't know the rules.



Not he sucks. The party sucks without a Rogue with Stealth and Thievery. And that's why the 4E Rogue has these skills per default. 

Basically, this is the first example to give a class a fixed "out-of-combat"-role. Whatever a Rogue does else, he is a good striker, and a sneaky thief. Some Rogues might focus on these aspects, others might not, but you're always guaranteed to be good at this stuff.


----------



## Jackelope King (Feb 26, 2008)

I may have missed it earlier in this thread, but has anyone considered that the weapon proficiencies we see might mean that UA-style Weapon Groups are in (possibly replacing Simple/Martial/Exotic), so the weapons list may be much broader than it seems at first glance? I don't like the limitations either, but it's a possibility.


----------



## Derren (Feb 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Not he sucks. The party sucks without a Rogue with Stealth and Thievery. And that's why the 4E Rogue has these skills per default.




Unless all parties must now have a rogue this is not a real argument. If classes without a rogue are possible then classes with a rogue without thievery training are also possible.


----------



## JosephK (Feb 26, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> Actually, I think that is the perfect solution.  Feats are now meant to customize your classes.
> 
> Rogue A is a dagger user.  He's happy with the light blades and and the x-bows he as learned to use in the city streaks.  He spends his feats and abilities improving his stealthiness and the like.
> 
> ...




I still think it's a poor choice and an arbitrary restriction that doesnt really serve any purpose other than making roles, archetypes, etc, that arent completely cookie-cutter pigeon-hole rogue mechanically inferior, in comparison with standard dagger 'n shuriken rogue. 

Even *if* we assume that there'll be feats to allow you to sneak attack with hammers and axes, as a dwarven rogue, he'll still have to bleed atleast one feat on them. 

To me, it doesnt seem like this restriction has anything to do with customizing my character by feats, but rather its inherently limited design punishes me for thematically going even *slightly* (like using a club) outside the fixed "standard rogue" template.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 26, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Characterwise, how did a 3E rogue without any ranks in Disable Device ever get Trapfinding? If you can answer this, just apply the same reasoning.




Hey, I've had lots of characters w/out Disable Device have NO problem finding traps.

Walk walk walk KABOOM ow ow ow "Hey guys, I found a trap!"


----------



## Lizard (Feb 26, 2008)

Bagpuss said:
			
		

> Why give elves proficiency with longbows and shortbows and then say they can't use them with ANY rogue abilities?
> .




Uh...have we seen all rogue and/or elf abilities?

Are we certain there are no rogue abilities which can be used with a bow? Or no elf abilities which are "You may use a longbow instead of a crossbow for any bow-related ability"?

Some of the criticisms in this thread are spot-on, and some of WOTC defenders are reaching. OTOH, assumptions that we've seen all there is to see are fairly spurious, akin to seeing "Burning hands" and "Fireball" and concluding that there are no ice spells in the game.


----------



## tsadkiel (Feb 26, 2008)

I suspect, based on absolutely no evidence, that many of the "stealth doesn't fit my concept!" rogues will be better represented by the warlord class.

Did I mention my complete lack of evidence?


----------



## rkanodia (Feb 26, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Uh...have we seen all rogue and/or elf abilities?
> 
> Are we certain there are no rogue abilities which can be used with a bow? Or no elf abilities which are "You may use a longbow instead of a crossbow for any bow-related ability"?
> 
> Some of the criticisms in this thread are spot-on, and some of WOTC defenders are reaching. OTOH, assumptions that we've seen all there is to see are fairly spurious, akin to seeing "Burning hands" and "Fireball" and concluding that there are no ice spells in the game.



I hope that you're right about this.  So far, the weapon restrictions on Rogue abilities seem like they severely undercut the promise of flexible, useful multiclassing.  "Cool, I took a level of Rogue, now I can slide people around the battlefield, and all I have to do is, uh, put away my greatsword, then draw a dagger (crap - I'm going to have to start carrying a magical DAGGER, too, or I'll be taking a hit penalty), then use Positioning Strike, and then switch back to my greatsword so that all my studly Fighter powers are available.  Awesome?"


----------



## Puggins (Feb 26, 2008)

In all honesty, how many rogues has everyone played in 3.x that didn't have Hide and Move Silently maxxed out?  Sure, such characters exist, but they're in a rather small minority.  In other words, for people that really want to play a Dwarven Trap Expert, the rogue is not the greatest fit.  But hell, the 3.x rogue was just as bad a fit- why the hell does a trap expert have sneak attack if he doesn't know a thing about stealth?  Ergo- wait for a more appropriate class to come down the pipeline in order to get a 100% fit, or deal with a 70% fit, or do a bit of retrofitting (Mearls said such a thing willl be simple).

The weapon proficiencies don't bother me, though I wish the sap had been included.  The list of weapons is perfectly appropriate for a character who is looking to end the combat as quickly as possible and has very little actual weapons training.  The rapier, for those not familiar with it, requires extensive training to use correctly, and is utterly impractical in the context of ambushes.

And making razor-precise attacks with a shuriken, sling or long bow?  Err.... no.  At least not in the middle of combat.

Personally I would have liked to see a couple weapons added, but the list as-is makes perfect sense.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 26, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> I think, if you have a class based around an idea (ie. Stealth and Thievery), someone new to the game shouldn't be able to completely avoid that option just because they don't know the rules.




But someone experienced in the game *should*.

What's wrong with this?

"Pick 6 skills to be Trained in. It is *strongly* recommended that rogues pick Stealth and Theivery, as few rogues as untrained in even one of these skills, and very, very, few untrained in both. Without these skills, a rogue will not be able to do many of the things expected of him in common game situations. If you wish to play a rogue without either or both of these skills, you can -- the rules won't stop you -- but be sure to discuss your choice with your DM and your fellow players."

Is that so hard?

I suspect it's how 99% of games will be houseruled, anyway.


----------



## Wulfram (Feb 26, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Not he sucks. The party sucks without a Rogue with Stealth and Thievery. And that's why the 4E Rogue has these skills per default.




But the party is supposed to be able to use a Ranger as it's striker, so Thievery can't be a necessary skill to the party unless it's also required of the Ranger, which would be silly. 



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> never got why Rogues had to be the diplomats. What does being a diplomat have to do with being a rogue?
> 
> Look at the character class. Has it got Diplomacy? Great! You're a diplomat! Someone might ask you "But why should a Diplomat be able to smite evil or summon a celestial horse?" But I think that person is clearly missing the point.
> 
> If the goal were to make sure that Diplomats had only skills related to being a Diplomat, we'd force them to be Experts.




Diplomats should really have Bluff, Sense Motive and Intimidate in addition to diplomacy, while things like Gather Information and Forgery (mostly as a defence) are potentially appropriate too.  Which really leaves you with Rogue, Bard - though the silly lawful requirement gets in the way - or, as you mention, expert, as your choices.


----------



## Mortellan (Feb 26, 2008)

This is shaping up to be the most houseruled Core book ever!

I agree with the OP.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

JosephK said:
			
		

> Even *if* we assume that there'll be feats to allow you to sneak attack with hammers and axes, as a dwarven rogue, he'll still have to bleed atleast one feat on them.



This is only a problem if the weapons in question aren't better than the weapons the rogue starts with.  Right now, the rogue has a hand crossbow, a sling, and a shuriken for ranged attacks.  This suggests that a rogue's ranged attacks tend to be short range and low damage.  If the use of a bow is a worthwhile upgrade above that, it is fair to charge a feat for it.  The same is true for the use of a mace.

The only thing I'm missing is a way to club a guard unconscious from behind.  But you know what?  That doesn't have to be represented by unarmed fighting or by the use of a sap.  It could be an at will power just as easily.  Someone can know how to cold cock someone without having full unarmed combat skills.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 26, 2008)

rkanodia said:
			
		

> I hope that you're right about this.  So far, the weapon restrictions on Rogue abilities seem like they severely undercut the promise of flexible, useful multiclassing.  "Cool, I took a level of Rogue, now I can slide people around the battlefield, and all I have to do is, uh, put away my greatsword, then draw a dagger (crap - I'm going to have to start carrying a magical DAGGER, too, or I'll be taking a hit penalty), then use Positioning Strike, and then switch back to my greatsword so that all my studly Fighter powers are available.  Awesome?"




Yeah, I'm not sure why you need to be wielding a light blade to trick a foe into moving, but, then again, Positioning Strike is head-go-all-splodey in soooo many different ways (If I'm fighting a giant slug with a move of 1 square, I can magically make it move 4 squares because I'm highly charismatic? The FRACK?), that I have to agree with other people who have basically said "You will not have fun in 4e if you think too much".)

Now, maybe there's rules elsewhere in the game which say things like:

"No power which forces an opponent to move can make it move more than its normal movement in round"
"All forced-movement powers produce one less square of movement for each difference in size between the attacker and the defender if the attacker is smaller"

And so on which fix a lot of these problems. But if there aren't, 4e combat is not going to be cinematic and exciting -- it's going to be gut-bustingly silly, and I really don't think that's what they're going for. On the plus side, Rich Burlew will have material for years...


----------



## helium3 (Feb 26, 2008)

Engilbrand said:
			
		

> Allow me to say something again. Just because your "CHARACTER SHEET" says Thievery +9, doesn't mean that you have to use it. The sheet is not every thing about your character. Sure, the rules say that you have that, but that's something outside of the game. You don't need your character to play that. A Fighter can call himself a Knight or a Paladin. A Sorceror can call himself a Wizard. It doesn't matter. If you don't want your character to have any ability to steal stuff, then don't play him with the ability to steal stuff. Ignore what's on the sheet. Or, do the alternative and complain that your character is good at something that you don't want him to be good at, but use the skill anyway.




*nod* I totally had a fighter that called himself a paladin in my last game, and his holy smites totally kicked butt . . . it was just too bad that the monsters refused to play along.

Look, your post really doesn't add anything beyond "you're wrong and should just get over it." Heck, most of the posts opposed to the OP's premise have failed to address the point and pretty much say exactly what you do.

The point being that, unless there's a giant chunk of the Rogue entry that's missing from the Ampersand article, Rogues are constrained very tightly to a very narrow definition of what it means to be a "Rogue."

Has there been false advertising on the part of WotC about how flexible 4E is going to be? Personally, I don't think so. They've been very clear that one of the major drivers of the new edition is to simplify play (particularly high level) and reduce the "wonkyness" of the system. The ONLY way to do this is to reduce the complexity of what the mechanics are trying to represent. Thus each class becomes much more narrowly defined figuring out how to create a "builds" with unexpected synergies is now far more difficult.

Now, if there's anyone that's been engaging in false advertising (unwittingly, I might add) it's the reflexively pro 4E posters here who are so excited about the new edition that they've spun all manner of fantasies into being about what this new system is and is not going to be capable of doing.

It'll be interesting to see what people aspects of 4E people are complaining about in a year, but I'm willing to bet that one of the major complaints will be the lack of flexibility and the similarity of class powers once you've played long enough to get a feel for what they all basically do.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Feb 26, 2008)

JosephK said:
			
		

> I still think it's a poor choice and an arbitrary restriction that doesnt really serve any purpose other than making roles, archetypes, etc, that arent completely cookie-cutter pigeon-hole rogue mechanically inferior, in comparison with standard dagger 'n shuriken rogue.
> 
> To me, it doesnt seem like this restriction has anything to do with customizing my character by feats, but rather its inherently limited design punishes me for thematically going even *slightly* (like using a club) outside the fixed "standard rogue" template.




You do realize that it's a bit easier to stab someone sneakily with a dagger than to smack them with a club, right? I mean, a dagger can be hidden a lot more easily, it's faster, and it needs a LOT less room to use. 

And simultaneously, I don't think that spending one feat in 30 levels in order to use a (logically less effective) weapon for sneak attacks is going to totally cripple your character compared to these supposed 'template' rogues. If this is a template, then it seems like a very loose and flexible one to me.


----------



## Henry (Feb 26, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> But someone experienced in the game *should*.




Someone experienced with the game *will*, no question. They'll be houseruling this stuff up and down the block, because they've done it more than once by that time. I wouldn't mind the choice being there, but thinking about it, I can't even word an optional choice, however, in a way that doesn't sound awkward to me. Your example would be a bit too wordy to me, but not to say someone couldn't come up with a proper way to do it with a minimum of confusion.


----------



## Derren (Feb 26, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Someone experienced with the game *will*, no question. They'll be houseruling this stuff up and down the block, because they've done it more than once by that time.




A book shouldn't be written with the assumption that everyone will houserule it anyway. When you need to houserule then the rules are bad.


----------



## JosephK (Feb 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> This is only a problem if the weapons in question aren't better than the weapons the rogue starts with.  Right now, the rogue has a hand crossbow, a sling, and a shuriken for ranged attacks.  This suggests that a rogue's ranged attacks tend to be short range and low damage.  If the use of a bow is a worthwhile upgrade above that, it is fair to charge a feat for it.  The same is true for the use of a mace.
> 
> The only thing I'm missing is a way to club a guard unconscious from behind.  But you know what?  That doesn't have to be represented by unarmed fighting or by the use of a sap.  It could be an at will power just as easily.  Someone can know how to cold cock someone without having full unarmed combat skills.




Depends on what you consider a worthwhile upgrade I guess.. I cant imagine handaxes or clubs being much better than whatever the category "light blades" contain. Even *if* we're talking about going from 1d6 to 1d8 with my weapon (which seems unlikely shortswords to clubs), it hardly seems a big enough deal (even with the reduced HP of 4e) to bother with a feat for. My dwarven rogue* will just have to get used to using a dagger I guess. What strikes me as annoying is that the design itself just feels very forced and very limiting, especially in the parts the rogue doesnt choose himself, and as such arent customizable... Such as no sneak attack with clubs, only weapon bonus with daggers. Ontop of that, from looking at this write-up, the same goes for all the rogue powers (except tumble), but that could just be a coincidence, I guess.

Just for the record, I'm not vehemently against anything 4e.. On the contrary I like almost everything I've seen so far, and will be buying the edition, and converting my campaign, as soon as it hits the stores. 





*The dwarven rogue may or may not actually exist, and may or may not just be one example on why I think the weapon limitations seem overly strict (just like my club wielding footpad).


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 26, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When you need to houserule then the rules are bad.




Which would mean 3rd Ed had bad rules for many, many people.


----------



## Henry (Feb 26, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> A book shouldn't be written with the assumption that everyone will houserule it anyway. When you need to houserule then the rules are bad.




I disagree with the premise that you'd *need* to houserule a game if it came out and was a complete game. If it's still possible to run a really savvy rogue who doesn't open a single lock all campaign long, then the question of houseruling only comes in where you want the rules to fit your style better -  And I'd hardly call that "bad rules," because I'd be calling every RPG ever created "bad rules." I can't build a Rogue who has never picked up a dagger in 3e as it is, because he's proficient automatically, and I can't build a 1e Thief who was terrible at climbing walls.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Feb 26, 2008)

Is it not possible that there will be racial proficiencies - that all characters of a given race are proficient in weapons x,y, & z?  Is it not also possible that, said racial proficiencies allow racial weapons to be used with certain class abilities?

just thinking out loud. . .


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 26, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> It'll be interesting to see what people aspects of 4E people are complaining about in a year, but I'm willing to bet that one of the major complaints will be the lack of flexibility and the similarity of class powers once you've played long enough to get a feel for what they all basically do.




I betcha the complaints in a year are totally different than anything anyone is complaining about now.


----------



## JosephK (Feb 26, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> Is it not possible that there will be racial proficiencies - that all characters of a given race are proficient in weapons x,y, & z?  Is it not also possible that, said racial proficiencies allow racial weapons to be used with certain class abilities?
> 
> just thinking out loud. . .




I hope so, the restrictions would make alot more sense if that is the case.. Especially if there also is a universal weapon proficiency with simple weapons (clubs, and so forth) so they also can be used with powers and class abilities.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> The point being that, unless there's a giant chunk of the Rogue entry that's missing from the Ampersand article, Rogues are constrained very tightly to a very narrow definition of what it means to be a "Rogue."
> 
> Has there been false advertising on the part of WotC about how flexible 4E is going to be? Personally, I don't think so. They've been very clear that one of the major drivers of the new edition is to simplify play (particularly high level) and reduce the "wonkyness" of the system. The ONLY way to do this is to reduce the complexity of what the mechanics are trying to represent. Thus each class becomes much more narrowly defined figuring out how to create a "builds" with unexpected synergies is now far more difficult.
> 
> ...




YES.

1) The Rogue being narrowly defined isn't a bug, it's a feature they specifically tried to implement for speed and clarity's sake. Whether or not it's a good goal is probably up to debate, but they intended it to be defined narrowly, and so it is.

2) This means that, yes, if you want an agile non-thiefy combatant, you won't be using the Rogue. Similarly, if you want Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, or a Devilish Manipulator archetype, you won't be using the Rogue. If you want a special-ops Intelligence officer, you won't be using the Rogue. The Roue will be incompatible with a lot of archetypes it previously was compatible with. In exchange, it will do the "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" thing REALLY well.

3) Some of 4e's descisions will have "unfortunate side effects," and the complete inability of some enthusiasts to realize this and to insist on critics to "just house rule it!" or "no one's MAKING you use it!" misses the entire freaking point of the criticism to begin with: that the poster disagrees with what they percieve the designers as doing.


----------



## Steely Dan (Feb 26, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I betcha the complaints in a year are totally different than anything anyone is complaining about now.




Very prophetic, and I agree.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 2) This means that, yes, if you want an agile non-thiefy combatant, you won't be using the Rogue. Similarly, if you want Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, or a Devilish Manipulator archetype, you won't be using the Rogue. If you want a special-ops Intelligence officer, you won't be using the Rogue. The Roue will be incompatible with a lot of archetypes it previously was compatible with. In exchange, it will do the "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" thing REALLY well.




Again, this doesn't appear to be the case. Seeing this out of the preview is, IMO, a case of seeing what you want to see and disregarding all other evidence. They OPENLY STATE in the article that the given builds are samples, nothing else, and you can pick your options to build the character you want to build. They OPENLY STATE THAT YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE SAMPLE BUILDS THAT THEY SHOW.

Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

You surely don't believe that the abilities shown in the preview are the ONLY abilities open to a rogue for an entire 30 levels? If that's the case, then the edition has failed on a lot more than trying to narrowly define roles -- it's failed to provide more than 4 or 5 abilities for 30 levels.

I personally feel that there are probably more abilities, and you'll be able to tinker to your heart's content. 

It's more accurate to say that the SHOWN abilities are incompatible with CERTAIN rogue archetypes. That doesn't mean that these are the ONLY abilities for rogues that exist, ever, anywhere.


----------



## DandD (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> YES.
> 
> 1) The Rogue being narrowly defined isn't a bug, it's a feature they specifically tried to implement for speed and clarity's sake. Whether or not it's a good goal is probably up to debate, but they intended it to be defined narrowly, and so it is.
> 
> ...



 Not that I would want to, but if the rogue is possibly becoming a "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" (we only know some things, after all), then wouldn't it make more sense to call it Thief instead of the more 'generic' Rogue who seems to try to  encompass other archetypes?


----------



## Derren (Feb 26, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Not that I would want to, but if the rogue is possibly becoming a "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" (we only know some things, after all), then wouldn't it make more sense to call it Thief instead of the more 'generic' Rogue who seems to try to  encompass other archetypes?




After all the complains about the warlord I don't think WotC had much interest in renaming the rogue "thief" if if thats all what the rogue is.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Feb 26, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Not that I would want to, but if the rogue is possibly becoming a "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" (we only know some things, after all), then wouldn't it make more sense to call it Thief instead of the more 'generic' Rogue who seems to try to  encompass other archetypes?





Again, see my post above. 

The existence of certain rogue abilities in this preview does NOT, logically, prevent the existence of other rogue abilities which allow the creation of other archetypes.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 26, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?




Because of the part where the Rogue Tactics are matched 1-for-1 with the builds, and where many of the powers explicitly favor one Tactic over another.

If the 'suggested builds' were Sneaky Rogue and Stabby Rogue, and the Tactics were Strength-based and Agility-based, you'd have a good argument. But as it is, you have "Strong rogue and agile rogue" as builds, and, look! Your tactics choice, probably the most important you make at 1st level (since it will define you for 30 levels), is ALSO Strength or Agility! What an amazing coincidence...

If this isn't mirrored in the other classes, then, yeah, it is a coincidence, or at least an unintended side effect of the design process. If it is so mirrored, then I have to say "Builds are optional only to the extent you want to cripple your character".


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

> Again, this doesn't appear to be the case. Seeing this out of the preview is, IMO, a case of seeing what you want to see and disregarding all other evidence. They OPENLY STATE in the article that the given builds are samples, nothing else, and you can pick your options to build the character you want to build. They OPENLY STATE THAT YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE SAMPLE BUILDS THAT THEY SHOW.
> 
> Why is this such a difficult concept to grasp?




It's not hard to grasp, it just doesn't fix the problem.

A) The complaint isn't directly about builds. It's about a class that appears inflexible. This is a bigger issue than "build."
B) The abilities in the preview, and the text surrounding the rogue, all suggest "sneaky mobile sneak-attacker." All rogues have Sneak Attack. All rogues have Thievery and Stealth. All rogues are proficient in a limited selection of items that can be used with their abilities.
C) Nothing about the preview has abilities that are outside of this archetype. This matches with previous designer statements about focusing and streamlining the classes, so it's fairly well-supported that this is intentional: that the new rogue will expressly limit the kinds of characters you can build with it more than 3e did. Part of this reason seems to be that in building a 3e rogue, you could make sub-optimal choices that would ruin your fun down the line without really knowing it. 

The big problem seems to be in that people *liked* the flexibility of the 3e rogue, and wanted to see that continue into 4e. It didn't, judging from the preview.

If you think I'm reading into this something other than what is implied, feel free to show me where the preview says a Rogue doesn't have to have Thievery and Stealth or that a Rogue can choose a club for a weapon, or where it previews an ability that allows the Rogue to serve as a master of logic and planning, or trechary and manipulation of others.

I see a rogue that is narrowly focused, and I do believe that was the POINT. The people clammoring for Sherlock Holmes might have to wait for a different splat-class, or mix-and-multiclass as was pointed out earlier in the thread.

So to say it in caps: THE LIMITATIONS OF THE ROGUE GO FAR BEYOND ANY OF THIS "BUILD" NONSENSE, SO STOP BRINGING UP THE FACT THAT THE "BUILD" IS OPTIONAL. IT IS IRRELEVANT. THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM.

THANK YOU.



> The existence of certain rogue abilities in this preview does NOT, logically, prevent the existence of other rogue abilities which allow the creation of other archetypes.




Nope, but unless you can point to abilities that allow the creation of other archetypes, you're spouting rainbows from your behindus, building castles on sand, daydreaming of a day that isn't here, counting chickens before they hatch, and otherwise making a claim that isn't based on ANY evidence, and is, in fact, directly contradicted by most of the evidence we've seen so far (the rogue seems narrowly focused, and that narrowly focused core classes were something the designers probably shot for).


----------



## Derren (Feb 26, 2008)

Carnivorous_Bean said:
			
		

> Again, this doesn't appear to be the case. Seeing this out of the preview is, IMO, a case of seeing what you want to see and disregarding all other evidence. They OPENLY STATE in the article that the given builds are samples, nothing else, and you can pick your options to build the character you want to build. They OPENLY STATE THAT YOU ARE NOT OBLIGED TO CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER OF THE SAMPLE BUILDS THAT THEY SHOW.




See lizards post. The builds may be optional, the tactics are not. And surprisingly only 2 tactics exist which surprisingly match with the proposed builds.
Of course you can take a tactic and all the powers from the other tactic but then yoou are crippling itself.
If you want a strong rogue you have to take one of those builds.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 26, 2008)

I think the rogue seems more restrictive because designers have said that you should get everything you need to fulfill your role with your class.  One of the things rogues need, in my opinion, is the ability to open locks and disable traps.  I've played with 3e rogues that avoided those skills, but in the end it was kind of an annoyance for everyone else, because someone has to take those skills, and rogues are designed for them.

After all, rogues got trapfinding in 3rd edition no matter what they do, why not the skill to go along with it?  It makes just as much sense.

Let's face it:

rogue      /roʊg/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[rohg] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, rogued, ro·guing, adjective
–noun
1.	a *dishonest*, knavish person; *scoundrel*.
2.	a playfully *mischievous* person; scamp: The youngest boys are little rogues.
3.	a *tramp* or *vagabond*.

I really don't have any problem with the 4e rogue living up to these expectations.

And as for why you can't sneak attack with a bow, but you can with a crossbow, I *think* the reason is that crossbows are "sneaky" and easier to conceal in a cloak, and a shortbow or longbow are large weapons of hunting and war.  If you imagine a sneaky cutpurse in a darkened alley coming around the corner to shoot an unsuspecting person in the back, which makes more sense for this image: the rogue drawing a bow that is 5 and a half feet long, requiring him to stand at his full height, with a loud twang as the arrow is released, or he pulls out a crossbow from inside his cloak, and points it at his target, barely moving a muscle, and resounds with a slightly audible "thwip"?

I will say that I hope there are feats that will allow rogues to expand on the weapon list allowed for sneak attacks.  There are a few weapons that seem missing, but we will have to see once the game is released...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

> Not that I would want to, but if the rogue is possibly becoming a "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" (we only know some things, after all), then wouldn't it make more sense to call it Thief instead of the more 'generic' Rogue who seems to try to encompass other archetypes?




Hey, I'd be down for it. But I think this is one "legacy issue" that mostly passed over their head. 

I mean, naming stuff is *not* this team's strong suit, overall. And "thief" probably wouldn't be as accurate as "Shadowblade" or "Assassin" or "Ninja," so it'd still have problems.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 26, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> Because you cannot effectively swing a two-handed weapon in deep brush or with low-hanging branches around, and shields really just get in the way, always banging off of branches (and make quite a lot of noise, scaring off game).
> 
> Two smaller weapons is a much more effective way to fight in these sort of environments (especially when a bear grabs you), and when one is used to darting about (from running through the wilderness, dodging shrubs and branches) one is better trained for quick strikes and deft movement over blocking with a shield or slamming around a large weapon.
> 
> Take that for what you will.  I know when I go camping, I'm more likely to take a small hatchet and a decent knife over an axe and a sword.



That's all well and good, and I agree that the big axe or shield aren't the best choice for woods, though they might be great for a desert, arctic, or savanna ranger.

Your point really doesn't justify TWF.  It just justifies the use of light and one-handed weapons.  Really, I'd say that rough terrain would more encourage keeping one hand free than filling both with weapons.

Edit:  I wouldn't say that it bothers me that rangers can be good at TWF.  It bothers me that a woodsy survivalist is given a shove in that specific direction.  In 2e and 3.0, archery wasn't even an option -- TWF was just a given.  If they have a more exhaustive list of "pick a preferred style and get a bonus", I'll be tickled because having rangers with a combat focus makes sense -- they are almost as good as a fighter, within a narrow band.  I'd just prefer that the list includes archery, TWF, einhander, thrown, staves, and unarmed; or something similar.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> B) The abilities in the preview, and the text surrounding the rogue, all suggest "sneaky mobile sneak-attacker." All rogues have Sneak Attack. All rogues have Thievery and Stealth. All rogues are proficient in a limited selection of items that can be used with their abilities.
> C) Nothing about the preview has abilities that are outside of this archetype. This matches with previous designer statements about focusing and streamlining the classes, so it's fairly well-supported that this is intentional: that the new rogue will expressly limit the kinds of characters you can build with it more than 3e did. Part of this reason seems to be that in building a 3e rogue, you could make sub-optimal choices that would ruin your fun down the line without really knowing it.




B) The 3e rogue was this also.  All rogues had sneak attack.  all rogues had trapsense.  All rogues were limited in the kinds of weapons that they could sneak attack with, without application of feats, like point-blank shot.  

C) It's a preview.


----------



## JosephK (Feb 26, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> That's all well and good, and I agree that the big axe or shield aren't the best choice for woods, though they might be great for a desert, arctic, or savanna ranger.




Well, if the ranger write-up follows the rogue one.. Chances there wont be any artic, desert or savanna ranger  It'll be the woodsman with animal companion, two weapon fighting and bow, or use feats and multiclass into fighter, if you want stuff that falls ever so slightly outside the norm for 'core' ranger


----------



## tuffnoogies (Feb 26, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> Can someone please give me an even remotely plausible excuse way a wilderness survivalist would have any greater inclination towards TWF?  And "'cause the rules say so" doesn't count.




Cuz Drizzt says so?


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 26, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> But someone experienced in the game *should*.
> 
> What's wrong with this?
> 
> "Pick 6 skills to be Trained in. It is *strongly* recommended that rogues pick Stealth and Theivery, as few rogues as untrained in even one of these skills, and very, very, few untrained in both. Without these skills, a rogue will not be able to do many of the things expected of him in common game situations. If you wish to play a rogue without either or both of these skills, you can -- the rules won't stop you -- but be sure to discuss your choice with your DM and your fellow players."




It's long.

It's confusing.

You can get around it by just giving those skills away for free.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Is that so hard?
> 
> I suspect it's how 99% of games will be houseruled, anyway.




No.  Probably why it will be a popular house rule among the more experienced crowd.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 2) This means that, yes, if you want an agile non-thiefy combatant, you won't be using the Rogue. Similarly, if you want Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, or a Devilish Manipulator archetype, you won't be using the Rogue. If you want a special-ops Intelligence officer, you won't be using the Rogue. The Roue will be incompatible with a lot of archetypes it previously was compatible with. In exchange, it will do the "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" thing REALLY well.



I'm just going to address this one point.

Sherlock Holmes: In 3e, this was a rogue with an intelligence bonus, and ranks in Search, Spot, Listen, a bunch of knowledge skills, and some obscure feats usually from Dragon Magazine.  What makes you think this will not be possible in 4e?  Is a rogue trained in Insight, Perception, and Streetwise somehow inadequate in comparison to the 3e version?

Indiana Jones: In 3e, this was a rogue with a whip, which was an exotic weapon that required a feat to use.  He probably also had agility skills and one knowledge skill.  What makes this not work in 4e?  Is a rogue with the 4e equivalent of "Weapon Proficiency: Whip", and training in Agility, Acrobatics and Perception not enough?  What more would be necessary that isn't likely to be available?

Devilish Manipulator: Again, if this were a rogue, it would be a rogue with a charisma score and a bunch of social skills.  What makes this not possible in 4e?  Wouldn't a rogue with a good charisma score, and training in Bluff, Insight, Intimidate, Perception and/or Streetwise be pretty darn close?  The only thing missing is Diplomacy.

As a dedicated promoter of the swashbuckler, I am willing to believe that there will be fewer choices in 4e.  But these examples seem really weak.

Is the underlying reasoning something like, "My vision of Sherlock Holmes doesn't included crafty combat tactics, so I'm mad that I'm being given them?"  I'm getting that vibe.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 26, 2008)

tuffnoogies said:
			
		

> Cuz Drizzt says so?




Drizzt is ambidextrous because he's a drow.  The ranger ability is redundant and wasted.


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 26, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> A book shouldn't be written with the assumption that everyone will houserule it anyway. When you need to houserule then the rules are bad.




A game shouldn't be written assuming everyone already knows how to play it.  When you need to have years of experience in order to play the game, the rules are bad.

Assuming people will houserule it once they get some experience and develop a style _different from what the game supports?_  That's not a bad thing.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

> B) The 3e rogue was this also. All rogues had sneak attack. all rogues had trapsense. All rogues were limited in the kinds of weapons that they could sneak attack with, without application of feats, like point-blank shot.




Sure, but this is about 4e and how it's rogue isn't flexible.

If we want to compare, we still have 3e's rogue not having any required skills, and having a broader selection of weapons, and more opportunities for a sneak attack.

4e's "fix" seems to be to MORE narrowly focus the rogue.

I'm sure that not everyone is happy with that fix.



> C) It's a preview.




So what? It's incomplete, but that doesn't mean it won't be judged on what it is now. What it is now looks limited. If the final rogue is broadly similar (and it wouldn't be much of a preview if it wasn't), the final rogue will be limited. 

Or you could point me to a place where the preview or the designers contradict anything that the preview or the designers imply, and I'd gladly admit that there's a question.

But with the designers trying to focus the classes more and the rogue seeming to be more focused, the preview is in line with everything we've been told and doesn't imply that the rogue will somehow be magically immensely more flexible in the final.

It's not proof, but it is evidence.


----------



## Patlin (Feb 26, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> In all honesty, how many rogues has everyone played in 3.x that didn't have Hide and Move Silently maxxed out?  Sure, such characters exist, but they're in a rather small minority.  In other words, for people that really want to play a Dwarven Trap Expert, the rogue is not the greatest fit.  But hell, the 3.x rogue was just as bad a fit- why the hell does a trap expert have sneak attack if he doesn't know a thing about stealth?  Ergo- wait for a more appropriate class to come down the pipeline in order to get a 100% fit, or deal with a 70% fit, or do a bit of retrofitting (Mearls said such a thing willl be simple).




I can recall playing two rogues in third edition, though there might be a character or two I'm forgetting.  The first one was a longbow using elven rogue.  The second one was an Arcane Trickster.  The latter had no ranks in hide and move silently at all... he was all about finding and disarming traps, and had no interest in scouting out ahead of the party.

Of course, in 3.x Intelligence was a viable secondary stat (or even a principal stat for those most concerned with skills and traps) for a rogue, and you could sneak attack with spells.  That sort of character doesn't seem like it will be viable in 4e out of the box, unless there is a paragon path for it.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

> I'm just going to address this one point.




Well, it's a point about Archetype, so there's going to be a lot of fiddly disagreements. But keep in mind that the Archetype is more reinforced by how it *feels in play* than with any fiddly bits. The 3e rogue could feel like Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, and a Devilish Manipulator. The 4e rogue doesn't seem like it will be able to feel like those archetypes (and others) as strongly.

With that "massively subjective" disclaimer, let's dive in.



> Sherlock Holmes: In 3e, this was a rogue with an intelligence bonus, and ranks in Search, Spot, Listen, a bunch of knowledge skills, and some obscure feats usually from Dragon Magazine. What makes you think this will not be possible in 4e? Is a rogue trained in Insight, Perception, and Streetwise somehow inadequate in comparison to the 3e version?




In 3e, a rogue was defined in many ways by their massive quantity of skills and which ones they chose to focus on. 4e cuts down on the number of skills, and narrows them to be "adventurer-relevant-only" skills. 

Sherlock Holmes was a master of trivia, perception, and logic. Search, Spot, Listen, a bunch of Knowledge skills, maybe even a level of Bard or "some obscure feat" for Bardic Knowledge. Gather Information, Diplomacy, Intimidation. This is D&D, so maybe some levels of cleric or wizard to get some divination spells, to boot (how well this archetype performed in combat probably doesn't matter, a lot of these decisions would fall into 3e's infamous multiclassing traps). A high Intelligence is his defining trait, and he uses it.

The skills might work okay, though they'll be more limited. Still possibly possible, just less satisfying. When I see a Sherlock Holmes character, I want to see a plethora of skills, and I want to be able to use them in nifty ways to help my character solve mysteries. 

The big fall-down here for 4e comes in the rogue abilities. Look at 'em. Do ANY of those look like something an early-20th-Century detective would be doing? Holmes wasn't an acrobat, he wasn't athletic, he didn't feint and weave and dodge. We'll need some accomodation because "this is D&D," and it's an action-packed game, not really a mystery game, but there's not even a nod to Sherlock. 

Now, maybe in 4e he'll be better represented by a cleric or a wizard (lore and divinations and all that). So the archetype could still be there, it just wouldn't be for the rogue.



> Indiana Jones: In 3e, this was a rogue with a whip, which was an exotic weapon that required a feat to use. He probably also had agility skills and one knowledge skill. What makes this not work in 4e? Is a rogue with the 4e equivalent of "Weapon Proficiency: Whip", and training in Agility, Acrobatics and Perception not enough? What more would be necessary that isn't likely to be available?




Indiana might work better than most of the others, actually. Mobility and tricky combat works for him, and he was charismatic, and he doesn't need the preponderance of knowledge that a Sherlock character would need.

I'll cede Indiana is probably still a good rogue archetype (though part of this does depend on how 4e manages to fix the whip! )



> Devilish Manipulator: Again, if this were a rogue, it would be a rogue with a charisma score and a bunch of social skills. What makes this not possible in 4e? Wouldn't a rogue with a good charisma score, and training in Bluff, Insight, Intimidate, Perception and/or Streetwise be pretty darn close? The only thing missing is Diplomacy.




Again, the point is that there's no rogue abilities related to the archetype. The skills might be fine, though I don't know how he's going to forge contracts and make it all "legal on the surface," as the archetype is drawn. He doesn't have favors he can call in, contacts he can make, no abilities to decieve with clever wordplay or to gain help from unwilling adversaries.

Now, maybe in 4e this would be better represented by the Warlock. The archetype is still there, it just also has curses and whatnot. It's not for the rogue.



> As a dedicated promoter of the swashbuckler, I am willing to believe that there will be fewer choices in 4e. But these examples seem really weak.




Well, they were off-the-cuff. The general idea is that the rogue will be more narrowly focused in 4e. The designers definately think this is a good idea. I trust them on this, but it does mean that some valid archetypes will be bumped around or abandoned (the Swashbuckler is another one that seems like it'll fall through the cracks).



> Is the underlying reasoning something like, "My vision of Sherlock Holmes doesn't included crafty combat tactics, so I'm mad that I'm being given them?" I'm getting that vibe.




Tsk, tsk, ascribing motives.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> <snip>
> The big fall-down here for 4e comes in the rogue abilities. Look at 'em. Do ANY of those look like something an early-20th-Century detective would be doing?
> <snip>
> Again, the point is that there's no rogue abilities related to the archetype.
> <snip>



There are 6 powers listed in the article.  I think it's safe to assume there will be a couple more in the PHB.  Therefore, I don't think it is yet safe to assume what powers and abilities are not in the PHB.  We just don't know enough.  It would be like looking at the upper left section of the Mona Lisa and assuming there are no people in the picture.  There might be, but there might not be.  There is a dearth of information still.


----------



## Mortellan (Feb 26, 2008)

Heh, unlike the Mona Lisa example that article is not 1/6 of the PHB rogue information. I would guess its over 1/2 easily. Anyhoo, for all the forum emphasis on this preview, my thought is 'did they really playtest this stuff?'


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Sherlock Holmes was a master of trivia, perception, and logic. Search, Spot, Listen, a bunch of Knowledge skills, maybe even a level of Bard or "some obscure feat" for Bardic Knowledge. Gather Information, Diplomacy, Intimidation. This is D&D, so maybe some levels of cleric or wizard to get some divination spells, to boot (how well this archetype performed in combat probably doesn't matter, a lot of these decisions would fall into 3e's infamous multiclassing traps). A high Intelligence is his defining trait, and he uses it.
> 
> The skills might work okay, though they'll be more limited. Still possibly possible, just less satisfying. When I see a Sherlock Holmes character, I want to see a plethora of skills, and I want to be able to use them in nifty ways to help my character solve mysteries.



Why?  You listed Search, Spot, Listen, Knowledge, Gather Information, Diplomacy, Intimidation.  Personally I'm not sure that Diplomacy was really one of Holmes' skills, but we'll go with this list.  Spot and Listen appear to be Perception.  Search is probably Perception as well, or if not, Insight.  Gather Information is probably Streetwise.  Intimidate is already there.  So you train in 4 skills, and you're covered with the core Holmes abilities.

That leaves Diplomacy, which I think is questionably relevant, and the Knowledge skills.  I have no idea how Knowledge skills are going to be handled in 4e, so this one is up in the air.  It also leaves the viability of Intelligence as a stat.  As it stands, we have no idea what Intelligence does for a non wizard, at all.  I assume it does _something_ useful.  I'll give you this- if Intelligence is of no benefit to a non spellcasting character, then yes, Holmes as an archetype is significantly weakened.  But personally, I suspect there will be some benefit of some kind.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The big fall-down here for 4e comes in the rogue abilities. Look at 'em. Do ANY of those look like something an early-20th-Century detective would be doing? Holmes wasn't an acrobat, he wasn't athletic, he didn't feint and weave and dodge. We'll need some accomodation because "this is D&D," and it's an action-packed game, not really a mystery game, but there's not even a nod to Sherlock.



Holmes was in a detective story, not a story of medieval fantasy combat.  You're right that there has to be SOME accommodation.  What would be a particularly Sherlock Holmes-ish way of killing orcs?  Seems to me that using one's powers of perception to slip a dagger right between the plates of their armor is a pretty good option.  Is there a better one?  It seems like this is just the usual problem of taking a character from one genre (non violent detective work) to another(medieval style fantasy).


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 26, 2008)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> Heh, unlike the Mona Lisa example that article is not 1/6 of the PHB rogue information. I would guess its over 1/2 easily.



Sure.  It is most of the basic information.  But do you think there are only going to be 12 powers total for the rogue in the PHB?  That seems really small.  36 seems closer to what it would be.  That would give a power a level, plus a few extras.  Maybe the article is the whole ball of wax, but I doubt it.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 26, 2008)

So to be fair, the clip of the Mona Lisa should probably be more like this.  It gives us an idea of the overall picture, but leaves out quite a bit.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## wherwrthal (Feb 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Holmes was in a detective story, not a story of medieval fantasy combat.  You're right that there has to be SOME accommodation.  What would be a particularly Sherlock Holmes-ish way of killing orcs?  Seems to me that using one's powers of perception to slip a dagger right between the plates of their armor is a pretty good option.  Is there a better one?  It seems like this is just the usual problem of taking a character from one genre (non violent detective work) to another(medieval style fantasy).




Watson: I say Holmes, is that a Gnomish Hook Hammer hanging from under his left armpit?

Holmes: Of course it is Watson, that means it can only be...


----------



## Mortellan (Feb 26, 2008)

I'm thinking it'll fall somewhere between 12 and 36. In SWS for comparison the Scoundrel has 17 total powers to choose from in the talent trees. Space is a consideration.


----------



## Propheous_D (Feb 26, 2008)

I think that making Rogues Take a class skill of Thievery is a logical thing and it makes sense. You don't have to put points in it from my understanding its just a class skill for the rogue. Why is it a class skill for the rogue? CAUSE YOUR A ROGUE! You are not ROGUEISH. Those are two seperate things entirely. A Rogue is someone who uses some kind of clandestine ability, while a Rogueish character is someone who has rogue like tendancies. 

Swashbuckler = Rogueish
Second Story Man = Rogue
Light Fighter = Rogueish
Assasin = Rogue

Its not that hard you are all too caught up on one class that you are trying to relate to in a 3E mentality when 3E and 4E are so different mechanically and philosphically that its irrelevant.


----------



## wherwrthal (Feb 26, 2008)

I just wish they'd call him a thief again.
Negative sterotypes and all.
I am kind of interested in that backstabbing feat.
Do you think it will be optional for other character classes as well?


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 26, 2008)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> Heh, unlike the Mona Lisa example that article is not 1/6 of the PHB rogue information. I would guess its over 1/2 easily. Anyhoo, for all the forum emphasis on this preview, my thought is 'did they really playtest this stuff?'




I'm guessing its something like 1/20th. If you count feats, multiclassing rules, races, etc, its more like 1/40th of what it will actually be like to play a rogue in a real game.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 26, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I betcha the complaints in a year are totally different than anything anyone is complaining about now.




Right. Weren't folks screeching that the Monk was the most "Uber-Broken" character in the PHB when 3rd edition came out? And they didn't mean in the "this class is teh sux" sense, either.


----------



## Mentat55 (Feb 26, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm guessing its something like 1/20th. If you count feats, multiclassing rules, races, etc, its more like 1/40th of what it will actually be like to play a rogue in a real game.




I think this will be THE determining factor of whether the rogue (or any other 4E class) is too narrowly defined or not.  From what I've seen so far, it seems like the 3E rogue is more flexible, though less flavorful, than the 4E rogue.  Weapon choice, complete control over selected skills, and the lack of something like Rogue Tactics that encourage one or the other secondary stat, rather than leaving that more or less up to the player, seem to be the biggest differences, IMO.

However, if the multiclassing system is really as elegant as they say it is, and powers cover most of the ground that feats and class abilities once occupied, and you still have feats to add to the mix, I think the 4E rogue >> 3E rogue in terms of flexibility in fulfilling character concepts.  Already, the powers we've seen surpass the 3E rogue (in terms of options) when it comes to combat.  3E rogue = sneak attack.  Sure, you can take feats to do other things, you can pick different weapons, you can even pick up those Ambush feats based on sneak attack, but still comes back to that -- sneak attack.  The 4E rogue has sneak attack, but the handful of powers we saw seems to suggest that in combat, while sneak attack is going to be very important, the rogue can pull off other stunts too, like moving an enemy around, bypassing the defenses of a heavily armored but less nimble opponent, and the like.  

I am anxious and excited to see what multiclassing, the full powers list, and feats bring to the table, for the rogue and all the other classes.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> 1) The Rogue being narrowly defined isn't a bug, it's a feature they specifically tried to implement for speed and clarity's sake. Whether or not it's a good goal is probably up to debate, but they intended it to be defined narrowly, and so it is.




Yeppers. I'm pretty sure I stated in a post a ways back (like 2+ months ago) that the method by which the designers will simplify the game is by removing a lot of the unnecessary (in their eyes) complexity and that a lot of people would end up missing this complexity once they realized what its absence really meant. I think at the time I was specifically referring to resource management, but I suppose it could be extended to cover other instances.



> 2) This means that, yes, if you want an agile non-thiefy combatant, you won't be using the Rogue. Similarly, if you want Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, or a Devilish Manipulator archetype, you won't be using the Rogue. If you want a special-ops Intelligence officer, you won't be using the Rogue. The Roue will be incompatible with a lot of archetypes it previously was compatible with. In exchange, it will do the "sneaky thiefy sneak-attacker" thing REALLY well.




Well, I'm willing to bet that if you had a heart-to-heart and off-the-record conversation with the developers about this, they'd probably ask you why you want to play D&D if you're interested in those archetypes. As the 4EFANS have so deliciously pointed out time and time again, D&D is and has been 90% about combat. After all, the vast majority of the PHB is dedicated to resolving that issue.

And you know what? I think it's a good thing if D&D stops trying to be everything to everyone. Like I'm pretty sure I've said in other historical posts, the way people currently play D&D is like trying to adapt Settlers of Catan to emulate a playstyle that's more like Yahtzee. I suppose you could do it, but you might just be better off playing Yahtzee.



> 3) Some of 4e's descisions will have "unfortunate side effects," and the complete inability of some enthusiasts to realize this and to insist on critics to "just house rule it!" or "no one's MAKING you use it!" misses the entire freaking point of the criticism to begin with: that the poster disagrees with what they percieve the designers as doing.




Yep. It's annoying. But they do bring up a good point. It's not like our opinions matter. Why bother expounding on something when it can have no effect on the outcome? Course, I'm fascinated by this whole experience, so I post just so I can participate.

As for all the posts related to the "logical argument" that "this is just a preview" and that "logically, there may be more material nullifies concerns about the seeming narrowness of the class" I'd like to take a moment to point out that the above construct is not even a "proof" much less a "logical proof." 

And really, here's the more interesting issue. Sure, there may be several pages of unreleased rogue material involving feats, other "builds", other powers and so on that completely and totally address the various expressed concerns about the narrowness of the class. But what if there isn't? What if the preview more or less encapsulates the theme and styling of the 4E Rogue? Is that okay?


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 26, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> And really, here's the more interesting issue. Sure, there may be several pages of unreleased rogue material involving feats, other "builds", other powers and so on that completely and totally address the various expressed concerns about the narrowness of the class. But what if there isn't? What if the preview more or less encapsulates the theme and styling of the 4E Rogue? Is that okay?




I'm OK with it.  Others are seemingly less so, but my main point is there is no reason to get worked up about how narrow a class is until we've seen the _scope_ of the class.  It this case that means the powers and feats available to it and the relative ease or difficulty of multiclassing.  We are missing _way_ too much data to extrapolate in this instance.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Nytmare (Feb 26, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> So to be fair, the clip of the Mona Lisa should probably be more like this.  It gives us an idea of the overall picture, but leaves out quite a bit.




Oh...  You're sneaky.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 26, 2008)

Mmm... Mona burger.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## ZombieRoboNinja (Feb 26, 2008)

Why would Sherlock Holmes be a rogue? Clear case of an urban ranger, if you ask me. Heck, probably 50% of what he does is "tracking."

Indiana Jones? Fits the 4e rogue quite well, IMO, although of course you'd have to take a weapon proficiency feat to get the whip. I'm guessing "Thievery" includes trapfinding and possibly Disable Device, which would seem to be pretty important to all that tomb-robbing. And it may not be a huge part of the movies, but would anyone really be surprised to see Indy sneaking around quietly?

Devilish Manipulator? I'm still not sure why this should fit into a class labeled "Rogue." It was purely an emergent effect that made the rogue the best "face" character in 3e, because he had a buttload of skill points. (And hey, I'm betting none of the other 4e core classes get as many skills as the 4e rogue either.) All that said, pick Intimidate, Streetwise, Insight and Bluff as trained skills and take Skill Training: Diplomacy as a feat and you've got a darn good 4e "manipulator" character too, I'm betting. Yeah, you've also got a lot of lurky combat powers you don't need... but hey, you had 10d6 Sneak Attack you weren't using in 3e, so what's new?

Overall, as long as there's some way to use some other reasonable weapons along with rogue powers and sneak attack (I'm guessing via feats), the 4e rogue doesn't seem too restricted to me.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 26, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> And really, here's the more interesting issue. Sure, there may be several pages of unreleased rogue material involving feats, other "builds", other powers and so on that completely and totally address the various expressed concerns about the narrowness of the class. But what if there isn't? What if the preview more or less encapsulates the theme and styling of the 4E Rogue? Is that okay?





Good question.

I'm personally willing to justify restrictions based on game balance. Take for example the fact that the 4E rogue has to wield a light blade. Compared to the 3.x rogue, that's definitely a restriction compared to what we have. 

However, given the mechanical limitations/benefits, I would be more than willing to see that restriction as a_ good thing_.

For example, without the light blade restriction, wouldn't that basically cause the 1 level dip people hated/bemoaned about in 3.x when basically everyone seemed to take 1 level of fighter to get wider weapon access? For non-spellcastes, you mgiht as well given them the entire weapon list since the "restriction" was so easily worked around.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Feb 26, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> But that isn't what we're actually getting.  What we're getting is classes that have a great deal of inescapable flavor.  And not just metagame flavor like feat names - this is highly visible in-game flavor.  Let's take our first case, the Rogue:
> [SNIP: A bunch of rogue-flavored abilities]




I don't see a problem with classes having flavor. D&D is class-based, after all. And if those classes are to mean something, they have to have flavor.

Compare to 3E. I know many, many players who "took one level of Rogue" at first level just for the skill points and the 1d6 sneak attack. And that's all they took. After that they dipped into ranger for TWF, a little fighter for the feats, and so on. It was a mess, and got so bad that in the RPGA, when mustering, no one used class names at all. Instead we used role names, like "heavy infantry", "artillery", "scout", and so on. 

That was fun for what it was, but 4E is not 3.75--it's an entirely new edition. And I *like* that Class seems to actually mean something in this edition. If you're a Rogue--an arr oh gee you ee Rogue--then yes, you sure should be able to pick a lock and hide in shadows. That's your *class*, it's what you're supposed to _do_. 

If you want to play an "agile warrior", that's fine, but you shouldn't expect the Rogue to be that guy. The Rogue is, well, a Rogue.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Sure, there may be several pages of unreleased rogue material involving feats, other "builds", other powers and so on that completely and totally address the various expressed concerns about the narrowness of the class. But what if there isn't? What if the preview more or less encapsulates the theme and styling of the 4E Rogue? Is that okay?



It is essentially impossible that this encapsulate the whole of the rogue, precisely because there are several pages of unreleased material.  Even leaving aside the feats, the powers alone are obviously nowhere near completed.  I think its safe to say that, while we may not know the exact number of rogue powers in the book, it will be at least enough that for every level at which you choose a rogue power, there will be enough powers that you cannot choose them all.  The specific options that people want may or may not be in those powers, but there most certainly will be more powers.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 26, 2008)

Mentat55 said:
			
		

> I think this will be THE determining factor of whether the rogue (or any other 4E class) is too narrowly defined or not.  From what I've seen so far, it seems like the 3E rogue is more flexible, though less flavorful, than the 4E rogue.  Weapon choice, complete control over selected skills, and the lack of something like Rogue Tactics that encourage one or the other secondary stat, rather than leaving that more or less up to the player, seem to be the biggest differences, IMO.




Without getting into multiclassing, I think people are missing the point.

They've told us, since the beginning, that every class would have a defined role to play _in combat_. The rogue's combat role is "sneaky martial striker." My guess is that the ranger's role is "mobile martial striker."

I can't believe people are getting so wound up about the rogue getting 2 skills for free that we know _next to nothing_ about. Stealth is, I suppose, pretty obvious. But what skills does "Thievery" entail? Based on previews to date, we know it covers disable device (probably including picking locks), but it might also include a lot of other things.

Chances are good that "extra trained skills" are gained via a feat. My guess is something like the following:

*Skill Training*
*Tier:* Heroic 
*Benefit:* When you take this feat, you gain additional trained skills equal to 1 + your Intelligence Bonus (if any).

And we know that there's a LOT more than those powers. My evidence?

The preview article lists different powers for two separate rogue builds at level 1! So presumably, all the powers they mention are 1st-level. They mention 4 "at-will powers," and preview only 2. They mention 2 "encounter" powers and preview both (along with another that's a 2nd-level utility power). Under the builds, they mention two 1st-level "daily" powers (_Easy Target_ and _Trick Strike_), but preview neither, instead giving us _Crimson Edge_, which is _9th-level!_

I'm guessing there will be at least 4 (and probably more) "at-will" powers per level, plus some number of "per-encounter" and "daily" powers _at each and every level_ as well. And that's where your options will come from. That means there's a LOT of powers missing. Probably upwards of 90% of them. 

On top of that, you'll have feats. Since it's now looking like characters will get powers every level, does anyone want to take a crack at when they'll get feats?

Dare we hope that you get a feat every level as well??  

Cuz that would be


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 26, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> Sure.  It is most of the basic information.  But do you think there are only going to be 12 powers total for the rogue in the PHB?  That seems really small.  36 seems closer to what it would be.  That would give a power a level, plus a few extras.  Maybe the article is the whole ball of wax, but I doubt it.
> 
> Thaumaturge.




I don't think it is the whole ball of wax.  That isn't the point. 

I'm sure that there are many other powers.  Heck, there are many powers listed in the builds not found in the articles.  That isn't the point.

I'm sure that the builds are configurable.  That's explicit.  But, that isn't the point either.

The point is that 'brawy rogue' and 'tricky rogue' proceed from the choice of rogue tactics, and the powers choices are designed to complement that core area of ability.

The thing about Sherlock Holmes ('detective') and to a lesser extent Indy (classic 'Adventurer'), is that they are rogues whose choice of rogue tactics seems missing from the article.  And its not easy to put it back in, because rogue tactics interacts in various ways with the powers.  You need a whole new suite of options to suit them.  The available talents and choices tend to support different sort of roles and archetypes.  If other options were available, they would have at least been hinted at in the 'builds' section much as powers not in the article were hinted at in describing the builds.

And in context, we can be fairly sure that 'tough' and 'smart' rogues aren't going to be supported options.  For one thing, we know that the article doesn't list Intelligence and Constitution as being particularly important for rogues, so if those options were available to support Intelligence, for example, they wouldn't be able to say that.  We also know that 4E has a strong emphasis on combat.  So we are very very unlikely to see alternate 'rogue tactics' that enhance the rogues social skills and problem solving rather than enhance thier combat ability.  Why?  Because if such options existed, it would be balancing character builds with slightly less combat relevance by having slightly more non-combat relevance, and that go against the grain of the design.

I would also like to say that very high on the list of complaints people had with 3rd edition was that many types characters weren't supported at 1st level.  They required multiclassing (something you could somewhat do at 1st level in 3.0, but which was taken out of 3.5) or prestige classes.  I would have thought it high on the list of things to fix that core classes became more flexible so that you could play a 'gish' or an arcane trickster or whatever starting at 1st level.  I would have thought it high on the list of things to fix that we would not require 40 splatbooks with variant core classes just to be able to play very basic archetypes.  I would have thought it high on the list of things to fix that we avoid the problems of late 3.5 were unconsidered synergies between the numerous published classes resulted in highly broken builds being available.   In short, why is that the very same sorts of complaints people were making about 3E a few months ago have suddenly become the means by which the design of 4E is being defended?

Of course, in the abstract, I might be able to capture the flavor of a detective type character by multiclassing between rogue and warlord, and maybe a dash of ranger.  But how is that actually a defense?  Of course, in the abstract, it might be that 'Master Detective' is an available Paragon path.  But how is that actually a defense?   Moreover, it is equally possible that in fact multiclassing between rogue and warlord won't produce something with a strong 'detective' flavor, won't be all that elegant, and so forth.  The 'black box' defense - you can't judge the quality of whats out of the box because the stuff still in the box is going to be so overwhelmingly good - is getting really old.  We've got pretty big peices now.  If you think narrower less flexible rogues capture the flavor better, are easier to use, and retain thier archetypal feel better, well then great.  You are probably right.  Enjoy 4E.  But lets not put our hands over our eyes and refuse to see what we are seeing.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 26, 2008)

It looks to me like there's too much focus on what the 4e rogue can't do instead of what it can. With class systems, you really have to come at it as 1) read the class 2) decide what kind of characters you can make out of it. Instead of 1) Decide what kind of character you want to play with a rogue 2) try to make it. That just seems, to me, to be totally backward.


----------



## Thaumaturge (Feb 26, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> <snip> The 'black box' defense - you can't judge the quality of whats out of the box because the stuff still in the box is going to be so overwhelmingly good - is getting really old.  We've got pretty big peices now. <snip>




Due to time constraints (I know, lame) I'll address this one issue.  I don't believe I said it would be overwhelmingly good.  I didn't say it'd be good.  I make no judgment of that which I haven't seen, which, incidentally, is my whole point.  It could be better than a Mona burger.  It could suck.  I haven't the foggiest.  We have pretty big pieces, but the picture is still very disjointed. , and making blanket statements about how archetypes will be unattainable with the information we have is unfounded speculation.

By the way, I haven't sold off my 3e books yet, and Iwon't for awhile, because I'm not sure how 4e will play.  I like most of what I've seen, but I'm not sold.

Thaumaturge.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The thing about Sherlock Holmes ('detective') and to a lesser extent Indy (classic 'Adventurer'), is that they are rogues whose choice of rogue tactics seems missing from the article.



What, precisely, are Sherlock Holmes' combat tactics?  Should he have powers like Eviscerating Quip?  The Subtle Put-Down?  The Knowing Smile (in D&D terms, the Smile of Knowing)?

For Indiana Jones, I don't see a problem with taking whatever the 4e equivalent is of Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Whip, and Improved Unarmed Strike.  Will those suck?  Heck, we don't know, we haven't seen them.  Whip sucked in 3e.  Maybe it will still suck in 4e.  But saying that a Whip wielding rogue with a solid left hook isn't a possibility is awfully premature.  I could justify him as either a Brawny rogue (he punched a lot of people) or a Tricky rogue (he ran away a lot).

But the Sherlock Holmes one is a mystery to me.  The Rogue Tactics choices are combat modifications to the basic rogue.  Sherlock Holmes was never in combat.  It seems that if you want a non violent character who talks a lot and solves mysteries, you have some more genre compatibility issues than could really be addressed in the rogue character class.  

And if you're willing to modify the Sherlock Holmes archetype to fit a game in which fighting is a regular occurrence, this rogue isn't THAT bad at it.  The only thing he's missing is Knowledge skills, which, while pretty important 1) are barely available to the 3e rogue either so if your comparison is that the rogue's diversity shrank this is a loser position for you, and 2) are handled in some manner that we basically don't know- possibly by just roleplaying them as your DM permits.

Sherlock Holmes- probably can't do it, because he doesn't fight people.
Lord Vetinari- probably CAN do it, and makes a good Sherlock-Holmes-Who-Stabs-People.


----------



## Imp (Feb 26, 2008)

Interminable theory-loving yaps about "stronger class definition" and "the game not being everything to everyone" aside, I'm simply not going to play an RPG that doesn't allow me to make the characters that I want to play – I'd rather go back to 3e (E6, probably) and its flaws and yet actually be able to create characters that I like rather than wait years for 4e's gods-be-praised business model bleeding-the-consumer-strategy to come out with PHB 6 (power sources: Moxie, Spunk, and Runecrafting) that finally has the class that strikes my imagination.

4e multiclassing is strictly in believe-it-when-I-see-it territory at this point.

Also all the stuff "not being everything to everyone" carries with it an implicit surrender of, well, sales. The game is popular because it can be so many things. You want the new edition to sink, that you may direct disappointed would-be players to GURPS or whatever, well, good for you, because the game designers seem to be on board with that plan.


----------



## Ruin Explorer (Feb 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> What, precisely, are Sherlock Holmes' combat tactics?  Should he have powers like Eviscerating Quip?  The Subtle Put-Down?  The Knowing Smile (in D&D terms, the Smile of Knowing)?




Um, considering he knows kung fu ("Chinese Wrestling", as he calls it) and beats the hell out of people with sticks on a fairly regular basis, I'd suggest that he was a bit more melee-oriented than that.

I've also never read him use:

A) A put-down.

or

B) A quip.

On anyone but Watson. Who is purportedly his ally, so... I think you must be confusing Holmes with House or something. Definately, in fact, because you claim that "Sherlock Holmes was never in combat"? What?!


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> What, precisely, are Sherlock Holmes' combat tactics?




He's pretty handy with a revolver, although Watson is an even better shot.  He's an expert at hand to hand fighting, and particularly skilled as a grappler. 



> Should he have powers like Eviscerating Quip?  The Subtle Put-Down?  The Knowing Smile (in D&D terms, the Smile of Knowing)?




No but he should have things like, 'Perfect Timing', 'Master of Surprise', 'Pinning Strike', ' and 'Right Place at the Right Time'.  



> But saying that a Whip wielding rogue with a solid left hook isn't a possibility is awfully premature.




I didn't say it wasn't possible.  I'm just saying that Indy's player doesn't get the choice to move that +1 bonus from dagger to whip, just as Holmes's player doesn't get to move it to unarmed strike.  And neither get to do 'sneak attacks' with thier weapon of choice.



> Sherlock Holmes was never in combat.




Err.....you do realize that he doesn't smoke a pipe, right?


----------



## jaer (Feb 26, 2008)

JosephK said:
			
		

> Depends on what you consider a worthwhile upgrade I guess.. I cant imagine handaxes or clubs being much better than whatever the category "light blades" contain. Even *if* we're talking about going from 1d6 to 1d8 with my weapon (which seems unlikely shortswords to clubs), it hardly seems a big enough deal (even with the reduced HP of 4e) to bother with a feat for.




But your assumptions here is this "use new weapons for class abilities" is not equavalent to other heroic level feats, and is therefore somehow wasted.  We might always disagree on this matter, but it makes sense to me to think that rogues are trained to do what they do with the weapons rogues typically use (those on the rogue list) and if they want to do the same thing with other weapons, they need a little more training (i.e., a feat).

If a longbow allows a rogue to attack from longer range and deal more damager per shot, that needs to be balanced against a rogue who is closer and doing less damage with a x-bow.  The balancing factor is the x-bow rogue can sometimes do sneak attacks with his weapon.  It sounds somewhat reasonable that for the price of a feat, the bow rogue can do the same thing.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 26, 2008)

Sherlock Holmes was a monk (read martial artist).


----------



## TwinBahamut (Feb 26, 2008)

I really don't agree that the fact the Rogue is much more focused of a class now is a problem.

The designers have already stated that they aren't trying to make it so that you can cover a wide variety of archetypes through a single core class. Instead, they want people to cover a wide variety of archetypes through multiclassing. I don't know where the quote is from, but the designers have already said that they want players to start designing characters from core concept, and pick classes starting from there, rather than start with a class and try to make it fit a concept. 4E is going to be built around a flexible character creation system, rather than flexible classes.

We already know that things like Wizards wearing full-plate and Warlords who use Wizard spells are going to be viable. Also, we know that the Rogue is designed to allow some degree of multiclassing. Sneak attack is limited, sure, but it is more open than the Rogue's weapon list. Light Blade is more generic than dagger and shuriken, Crossbow is more generic than hand crossbow. We don't know how wide it is, but there does seem to be an emphasis on it being more open than just assuming Rogue starting proficiencies.

Anyways, I am very happy with the options given to the new rogue, and I am happy that the class is focusing on a limited set of archetypes rather than remaining too broad.


----------



## Voss (Feb 26, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It looks to me like there's too much focus on what the 4e rogue can't do instead of what it can. With class systems, you really have to come at it as 1) read the class 2) decide what kind of characters you can make out of it. Instead of 1) Decide what kind of character you want to play with a rogue 2) try to make it. That just seems, to me, to be totally backward.




Many roleplayers like to do things outside the box.  Coming up with a concept is often first, class is almost an afterthought.  Good rpg design, I would say, accommodates that.  The more times the devs step in to the class design and state 'No, you can't do that (because we said so)', the less happy people who like to design their characters this way are likely to be.  The forced skills are really egregious in this regard, because not a single feature of the rogue class (and yes, there may be some powers that take advantage of those skills, but the class itself does not), uses the mandatory skills in any way at all.

Forcing the rogue into a role of  'sneaky stealer who stabs schlubs' isn't going to match with a lot of concepts.  In the core books, where else are people going to go for rogues that don't fit the dev's vision?  The paladin, warlock, cleric and wizard are obviously out.  The fighter is, by design, expected to wear heavy armor.  That probably won't work.  The warlord?  Maybe for a concept or two, but I doubt 'inspiring combat tactician' is going to work for more than an individual concept or two when you're coming at it with a cunning scoundrel or knowledgable forger in mind.  Ranger?  Maybe, but I expect most of the ranger class is going to be defined as 'forester feathers fearsome foes', or some TWF silliness (in fact, I will be mildly surprised if those aren't the two builds).

So what they can't do seems rather important.
At the very least, if they were designing the game with very specific roles, they should have had a lot more classes in the first book.    There's still time, apparently, too.  Put the magic items in the DMG where there is room, and add another 6 classes so more concepts aren't left out in the cold, scratching at the door.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 26, 2008)

I think the main issue here is that there is no generic "adventurer" or "expert" class with a lack of baggage at hand.

We could really use a very-vanilla melee striker class which lacks a defined secondary role.

Really, we need that lightly-armored fighter everyone has been clammoring for.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Feb 26, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> This would make me sad.  Rangers excelling in archery makes some sense.  Rangers having some propensity for TWF over light weapons, sword and board, or big freakin' axes goes beyond strange and well into absurd.
> 
> Can someone please give me an even remotely plausible excuse way a wilderness survivalist would have any greater inclination towards TWF?  And "'cause the rules say so" doesn't count.




Carrying a shield into the wilderness is all kinds of foolish. Look at any army soldier faced with a long trek, and you'll see a guy shedding every bit of spare weight--even going so far as to cut excess length from belts and laces. No survivalist would want to lug around something so heavy, and of such extremely limited use.

Same goes for any "great" weapon. Too big, too bulky, too heavy. Two longswords are just as impractical. Longswords hate getting wet, and are really only good for one thing: being a longsword. 

Much more practical: a spear in one hand (can double as tent pole, walking stick, river stick, quicksand probe, fishing spear/pole, etc etc) and a handaxe in the other (way too many uses to list). Or knife and handaxe. Or machete and spear.  

It's all about keeping weight and fuss (maintenance) down, and keeping multi-purpose use and practicality up.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

> It would be like looking at the upper left section of the Mona Lisa and assuming there are no people in the picture. There might be, but there might not be. There is a dearth of information still.




You didn't use a generic food analogy!   

The thing is that the upper-left section of the Mona Lisa wouldn't be a very good "preview." Maybe a sketch of it before it was finished. Maybe a completely finished eye. You'd save the smile for the true release. The upper-left section of the Mona Lisa doesn't tell you anything you WANT to know. It's functionally useless.

The rogue is bigger than that. It's like the left eye. I can't say with certainty what the smile or background is going to be, but I can probably tell that we're drawing a person, perhaps a woman, and that she's caucasian, and she probably has a right eye that's just like her left, unless Leonardo wanted to pull some tricks on us. I don't know what the whole effect is going to be, I don't know the center of the painting, but I can say that there is evidence for my claims.

I could be surprised, and I don't know everything, but I do have evidence for the claim. I might even criticize it based on that evidence: "Oh, great, another brown-eyed girl, like we don't have ENOUGH of those!"

Whereas someone who came along and said "She might be hazel-eyed, or maybe she'll be different colored in her eyes depending on how you look at her, or maybe she'll have three other eyes on tentacles coming out of her head! You're just seeing what you want to see because you want to be critical!" wouldn't have any evidence for the claims. She might, sure. It is just a preview. But one position is _supported_ by that preview. The other is _not_. 

If the rogue is more like the upper-left corner than the eye, then I can say that it's a HORRIBLE preview that is, in fact, directly MISLEADING.

It might be. But I do have some faith in WotC's competence in choosing what little bits of information to release, and that these bits of information are in line with what they're telling us about philosophy means that there is PLENTY of evidence for my position.

Yes, the Mona Lisa might have tentacle-eyes, but you're going to have to show me that, or make be believe that the preview is directly misleading.

Yeah, the rogue probably has more powers, even a greater diversity of them, but that doesn't mean the rogue is suddenly Captain Flexibility and "we just don't know enough." Evidence points to it NOT being very flexible, and to the designers believing that a narrowly focused class is a GOOD thing (and probably just hope it's not 'too narrow,').

So if we can drop that little "not enough information!" canard, that'd be _great_.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> ...some stuff...




A lot of this boils down to archetype fiddly bits. Suffice it to say that a selection of skills doesn't back up an archetype alone. It needs to be reinforced at multiple levels, especially something that's as counter-intuitive as a medieval action-adventure movie featuring a crime-solving detective with a pipe and an overcoat. It needs abilities, it needs to combat as if it were that character, and it needs to have the 'telling marks' of the archetype.

3e helped achieve this archetype with the rogue because of the vast number of skill points and the way that skills worked to begin with. Putting 1 point in 10 different Knowledge skills (with a few left over to max out Search and Spot and Listen, and a handful of points in Gather Information maybe) worked out to be a very "Sherlocky" thing. 4e mandates some of your skills (stealth and theivery), and looks to be getting rid of knowledge (in favor of several different skills like Arcana and Nature and the like). 

But here's something interesting:



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> What would be a particularly Sherlock Holmes-ish way of killing orcs? Seems to me that using one's powers of perception to slip a dagger right between the plates of their armor is a pretty good option. Is there a better one? It seems like this is just the usual problem of taking a character from one genre (non violent detective work) to another(medieval style fantasy).




It's perfectly fine to cede that 4e abandons the Sherlock trope entirely. 3e only gave a vague passing nod to it's possibility in the first place, and it is dissonant. In which case my criticism remains true, but becomes slightly more damning: In 4e, you can't play Sherlock Holmes-type at all (at least at launch). The game doesn't support it. Welcome to house rule and/or different game territory.

Of course, we have no evidence that 4e is wholeheartedly limiting itself in genre like this, or that it becomes impossible to play a nonviolent detective campaign or session, and I still think that D&D is "too generic" to not give a nod or three in the direction of at the very least a mystery-centric adventure or two. 

So we're left with ideally making Holmes fun even when he's killing orcs, not just when he's solving crimes (but especially when he's solving crimes). Some basic seeds for abilities might include something like:

*Momentum Shift*: The character trips a creature who moves past him, ending that creature's movement.
*Demoralizing Lecture*: You point out how ignorant the target is. Intelligence attack vs. Will to gain combat advantage
*Familiar Pattern*: You become familiar with a creature's fighting habits and gain your Int bonus as an AC bonus against a creature that has hit you once in combat already.
*Divinatory Knack*: You can learn to cast 1st-level divination spells. 
*Trained to Subdue*: You can make a Grapple check to pin an enemy and hold him immobile

...or, come to think of it, almost anything from the Archivist's Dark Knowledge class feature.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I really don't agree that the fact the Rogue is much more focused of a class now is a problem.
> 
> The designers have already stated that they aren't trying to make it so that you can cover a wide variety of archetypes through a single core class. Instead, they want people to cover a wide variety of archetypes through multiclassing. I don't know where the quote is from, but the designers have already said that they want players to start designing characters from core concept, and pick classes starting from there, rather than start with a class and try to make it fit a concept. 4E is going to be built around a flexible character creation system, rather than flexible classes.




This sums up my position on it pretty nicely, actually. I like that I can make a character "a little bit ninja" by taking a level of rogue better than I like the idea of making the rogue Captain Generic Dex-Based Class. It's a shame we haven't seen much of the multiclassing system, I'm hoping it's dynamite.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 26, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> It looks to me like there's too much focus on what the 4e rogue can't do instead of what it can. With class systems, you really have to come at it as 1) read the class 2) decide what kind of characters you can make out of it. Instead of 1) Decide what kind of character you want to play with a rogue 2) try to make it. That just seems, to me, to be totally backward.



Fourth Edition: The game so good it tells YOU what you want before you even think of it!!!!


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I didn't say it wasn't possible.  I'm just saying that Indy's player doesn't get the choice to move that +1 bonus from dagger to whip, just as Holmes's player doesn't get to move it to unarmed strike.



The +1 to the dagger is to compensate it for being per se crappier than the shortsword.  In 3e, rogues use daggers for concealed backup weapons and for ranged attacks, maybe.  For everything else its rapiers and shortswords, because they're objective better.  This is a problem because it makes the "rogue with a dagger" archetype kind of a poor choice, even though it should be a strong one.  The +1 attack bonus for the dagger is compensation to fix this problem.  Now there's a mechanical reason to use it- its more accurate than a shortsword, even if less damaging.

If you let rogues move this to other weapons, we'd just kiss the dagger goodbye for another edition.  Don't think of the +1 as a free weapon focus, think of it as an attribute of the dagger as a weapon- rogues are better with it than are other classes.

As for sneak attacking with these other weapons... I don't see that as all that important, to be honest.  Thinking back over the Indiana Jones movies, "sneak attack" isn't the description I'd give his whip use.  If whips can be used as improvised ropes for climbing and swinging, then THAT is what will make Indiana Jones work as a character.  And as for unarmed striking for Sherlock... I'm inclined to think of that as a genre issue.  Holmes comes from a genre where dangerous people might shoot you, someone might punch you, or someone might knife you (or attack you with a venomous cobra, but you know where I'm going here).  D&D is a genre where people in heavy armor might stab you, or shoot fire at you, there are no revolvers, and non lethal unarmed combat generally doesn't take place versus foes in armor with military weaponry.  I think you have to relax your demands for certain combat types to fit within the genre.


----------



## Chocobo (Feb 26, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm guessing its something like 1/20th. If you count feats, multiclassing rules, races, etc, its more like 1/40th of what it will actually be like to play a rogue in a real game.



I'm guessing we've seen about 1/5 to 1/7 of the rogue class.  I have reasoning to back that up.  

1. We've seen 6 powers described which took up approximately 1/3 of the article.  

2. We've seen 10 level 1 powers mentioned, so that is the minimum available at that level. 

3. We've seen that there are powers for both even and odd levels (maybe utility even, attack odd).

I am going to assume based on 3, that there are in fact powers for every level.  I am also going to assume that there will be a choice for every power pick (i.e. at least 2 powers to choose from).  This gives me a minimum of 68 powers for the rogue class: 10 at level 1, and 2 at each additional level.  I also suspect that they wouldn't give much more than 3 powers to choose from per level, since that would give a Brutal choice an Artful choice and one that either could use.  And they want to save something for splatbooks.  That gives us a range of about 68 - 100 powers.  

68 powers would mean we've seen about 1/5 of the class.  100 powers would mean we've seen about 1/7.  

100 powers x 8 classes would certainly be more powers than there were spells in 3.x core rules, but it looks like powers also use up a lot less space than spells due to the shorthand and specific effects.  So I wouldn't say it is an unreasonable number.  With 2 columns of 5 powers per page, that's only 80 pages of powers which should easily fit in a PHB.  


Now, on the subject of how many feats there will be, I also have some thoughts.  First, on how many class-based feats there will be.  We know from the much maligned wizard feat Golden Wyvern Adept that there will be class-based feats.  We can also extrapolate from that feat a set of 6-18 wizard feats based on 6 schools and 3 tiers.  There might be others as well, but also I can't see many more than that showing up in a core book.  It is likely that each class will have a similar number of class-based feats available to them.  Multiplied by 8 classes, we then have 48-144 class-based feats.  

Then they need general feats too.  I'm estimating 5 x the number of feats earned, because you'd want a party of 5 characters to be able to have unique feat choices.  The class-based feats don't really cut into this number since, based on the Wizard example, only about 1-3 of those feats necessarily apply to a particular character.  This would give you a number from about 50 to 150 depending mainly on how often the characters get feats.   

So essentially, we're looking at a minimum of about 100 feats, on up to a maximum around 300.  Now that is a crapload of feats, but remember that this is 30 levels instead of 20 so they need a lot more feats than the 3.x PHBs.  I wouldn't be at all surprised to see over 200 feats, because if you add the PHB and ELH together you get way over 200 feats. 

If there are 200 feats, then the single classed rogue would be able to choose from about 112 of those feats.  At first level even they'd be able to choose from about 37 of those, since they have access to the whole heroic tier.   2-6 of those would be rogue-based feats to directly affect their class features or powers.


Of course, that's all a lot of guessing based on very little information...


And it doesn't figure in races, paragon paths or epic destinies.  Or anything that they haven't told us about yet.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 26, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> This would make me sad. Rangers excelling in archery makes some sense. Rangers having some propensity for TWF over light weapons, sword and board, or big freakin' axes goes beyond strange and well into absurd.
> 
> Can someone please give me an even remotely plausible excuse way a wilderness survivalist would have any greater inclination towards TWF? And "'cause the rules say so" doesn't count.




Okay.

A single light weapon is stupid. Period. Nobody in their right mind fights this way. Even if you are using a single weapon (á la "single sword" style), you tend to make use of your off-hand for parries, grabs, and the like. If you're not doing so, you're handicapping yourself.

As has been mentioned, shields are heavy and bulky. They're also single use - defense only. If you lose your primary weapon, you're now unarmed.

A good backup weapon, on the other hand, is useful if you lose your primary weapon. It's also functional for parrying, and thus providing defense. Potentially, it can  be a utility instrument, like a dagger or a handaxe, that has another purpose as well. It could even do a different damage type, making you versatile against different foes.

The only good argument is the "big freakin' axe." I'd contend that a smart ranger with a "big freakin' axe" is either a) wearing heavier than average armor, or b) using it as a double weapon. The latter is just smart if you fight in light armor with a big weapon. It's even how knights in heavy armor usually fought with longswords. They engaged in lots of half-swording, trips, and similar "double weapon" kinds of tactics.

And do I need to point out that, in D&D, fighting with a double weapon *is* two-weapon fighting?

How's that for an explanation?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 26, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Many roleplayers like to do things outside the box.  Coming up with a concept is often first, class is almost an afterthought.  Good rpg design, I would say, accommodates that.




I disagree. "Outside the Box" is doing something that is not in a system. A class system is there to provide exactly the opposite - packaging this inside a box - a class. A class that you can make to do anything (or just a lot) is something that's very much no longer a real class, it is some kind "point buy" system for building a character. It's not doing is job as a class.
It's certainly reasonable to demand a range of customability in a class, because otherwise, you need to invent classes for even the slightest differences (or you end up with a lot of abilities that you can only describe in your personal flavor text, not in actual mechanics), and more importantly, all Rogues look similar to each other. You'll lose all excitement about playing a Rogue after the second time when you noticed they all feel the same. You come up all with this interesting background for the Rogue, but he's still the same. 

In 3rd edition, the Rogue was received as a very flexible class - and that it was. And basically only due to its broad class skills and many skill points. But all other abilities of the Rogue were the same. There was no choice whether you really wanted Sneak Attack for your "Jarod - The Pretender" clone, or your diplomat, or your dwarven trapmaster. 

But the problem is - knowing that someone played a Rogue didn't mean anything. Does he sneak around and disarm traps? Or is he an eloquent talker? Creating false documents and selling our loot? You just didn't know, and that meant the class didn't do his job in telling us what the character was all about. And it could also lead to the opposite effect - someone has a cool idea for a Rogue, and then the party says "but we need you to be able to find and disarm traps, open locks and be generally percepive." "But my Rogue is a noble who worked at the city court - he doesn't know anything about this stuff. How am I supposed to fit this into his backstory? Or with his limited skill points?"

The 4E rogue has a stronger focus on what you can do. But there are still several options to explore how to play the Rogue. We've only seen a few 1st level power and 9th level power for the Rogue. This will give plenty of room for playing different Rogues. 

In the end, Roleplaying means you play a role. In D&D, your role is described by a class.


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Feb 26, 2008)

I wonder if the problem may not lie in two schools of thought on class roles.

In the flexible class role school of thought, while your main class grants you certain abilities it doesn't limit you, and you can build similar characters using different classes through adding feats, skills etc.

In the not-flexible class role school of thought, your main class defines who you are - your niche is "protected" -  the spellcasters can't use spells to emulate you, the warriors can't use feats to emulate you etc.

Thoughts?


----------



## helium3 (Feb 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Sherlock Holmes was never in combat.




Well, except for that one time he got pitched over a waterfall. And he survived!! So, Sherlock Holmes was either a Monk or a high level PC of any class!!


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> A lot of this boils down to archetype fiddly bits. Suffice it to say that a selection of skills doesn't back up an archetype alone. It needs to be reinforced at multiple levels, especially something that's as counter-intuitive as a medieval action-adventure movie featuring a crime-solving detective with a pipe and an overcoat. It needs abilities, it needs to combat as if it were that character, and it needs to have the 'telling marks' of the archetype.




Exactly.  And that's why all this talk of multiclassing, feat selection, and so forth misses the point.  The archetype of 'brawny dagger wielding rogue' is reinforced at multiple levels.  If I choose the strength based option in 'rogue tactics', that choices resonates throughout my career as a rogue.  The archtype is continually reinforced at multiple levels.  If I try to use the same class to build 'smart rogue' or 'charming rogue' or 'tough rogue', the best I can do is try to cobble something together through general feat choices.  On the balance, that won't be nearly as effective or evocative as working within the tightly created framework of, 'You are this stealthy street thug whose handy with daggers and knows how to hurt people.'


----------



## helium3 (Feb 26, 2008)

Thaumaturge said:
			
		

> By the way, I haven't sold off my 3e books yet, and Iwon't for awhile, because I'm not sure how 4e will play.  I like most of what I've seen, but I'm not sold.




Right now, the one group I run a game in is orbiting around "we'll likely play 4E for a while but never give up 3E entirely or find another game to play when we want a less 'hack-and-slash' experience."

In the other group, the DM has already stated that he's sold most of his 3E books, keeping just what he needs to run 3E modules until 4E Ebberon is released.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Sure, but this is about 4e and how it's rogue isn't flexible.
> 
> If we want to compare, we still have 3e's rogue not having any required skills, and having a broader selection of weapons, and more opportunities for a sneak attack.
> 
> ...




3e rogues had required skills too.  They just had to buy them with skill points instead of getting them for free.  Search and disable device, for example, are so necessary to party survival that they are essentially required.  It's nice that we are getting them for free now.  

As for the weapons, we don't know enough about how we buy weapon proficiencies to say whether or not the rogue's selection of weapons is narrow.  And sneak attack is restricted in weapon choice, just like before.  Plus ca change...



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> So what? It's incomplete, but that doesn't mean it won't be judged on what it is now. What it is now looks limited. If the final rogue is broadly similar (and it wouldn't be much of a preview if it wasn't), the final rogue will be limited.
> 
> Or you could point me to a place where the preview or the designers contradict anything that the preview or the designers imply, and I'd gladly admit that there's a question.
> 
> ...




I still say it's only a preview.  The class is going to appear narrow when we only have a narrow view of it.

Also consider that the rogue gets 10 skills total, not 6.  Theivery, stealth, any four skills, and four from a list.  Perhaps even more, if you get more skills for your inteligence bonus.  (perhaps they haven't mentioned it because every character gets it, kind of like languages in 3rd edition... the extra skills are a benefit of your intelligence, not your class, so it isn't mentioned in the class.)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The 'black box' defense - you can't judge the quality of whats out of the box because the stuff still in the box is going to be so overwhelmingly good - is getting really old. We've got pretty big peices now. If you think narrower less flexible rogues capture the flavor better, are easier to use, and retain thier archetypal feel better, well then great. You are probably right. Enjoy 4E. But lets not put our hands over our eyes and refuse to see what we are seeing.




Can I get an Amen?

AMEN.



			
				cthulu duck said:
			
		

> I wonder if the problem may not lie in two schools of thought on class roles.
> 
> In the flexible class role school of thought, while your main class grants you certain abilities it doesn't limit you, and you can build similar characters using different classes through adding feats, skills etc.
> 
> ...




I think that's where the legitimate debate is, yes. How flexible should one class be? The 4e designers say "not very -- the focus helps define the role and tells you what you need to know about the class." Many disagree with this.

But then we have a school of thought that says that those in the first school just aren't seeing the _big picture_, and so they shouldn't be talking about their criticisms yet, before they see it all. This school seems to hold that the designers didn't say that, and that the flexibility is there, it's just obscured because it's incomplete, that the rogue really will be as flexible as it was before, we're just not seeing it all, the first group is just looking for something to criticize. And that any flexibility that is gone deserves to be gone because these characters aren't very good D&D characters anyway because D&D is about medieval fantasy combat and that's it. 

I like non-flexible classes. I don't think that the 4e rogue will be as flexible as the 3e rogue was. I still want the archetypes it's leaving behind supported. And I think those who are saying that we just don't have the information, that it will be that flexible, and that D&D shouldn't be supporting those archetypes anyway, are kind of putting their heads in the sand.


----------



## jaer (Feb 26, 2008)

Just something else about what weapons are useful: multi-classing.  The rogue gets sneak attack at first level for +2d6 damage, which means a fifth level ranger might be able to take 1 level of rogue and be able to sneak attack.

So a rogue 6 does the same sneak attack as a ranger 5/rogue 1, but the ranger can use better weapons for it.

The same for the fighter.  A fighter takes 1 level of rogue and can sneak attack as well as a rogue with better weapons.

Being that there is no longer a difference between rogue levels in sneak attack damage, that there should be a restriction on what weapons can be used to keep every class from grabbing one level in rogue for the sneak attacks.

Also, note the sneak attack damage section:

As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.
Level Sneak Attack Damage
1st–10th +2d6
11th–20th +3d6
21st–30th +5d6

It doesn't say "as you advance in rogue levels" or in any other way say that these levels correspond to rogue levels.  I could be reading way too much into what isn't said...but it could be that even a ranger 21/rogue 1 might have a +5d6, and therefore the weapon restrictions are necessary or else sneak attack just becomes too good for people to not take it.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 26, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> Also all the stuff "not being everything to everyone" carries with it an implicit surrender of, well, sales. The game is popular because it can be so many things. You want the new edition to sink, that you may direct disappointed would-be players to GURPS or whatever, well, good for you, because the game designers seem to be on board with that plan.




Oi. Yeah. Why would I want people to stop playing D&D and start playing GURPS?

I'm talking about playing D&D when you want combat heavy skirmish play, an old fashioned White Wolf product when your group just wants to tell a story and god only knows what when you want a good old game of resource management that's more complicated than a round of Settlers.


----------



## JohnSnow (Feb 26, 2008)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> I wonder if the problem may not lie in two schools of thought on class roles.
> 
> In the flexible class role school of thought, while your main class grants you certain abilities it doesn't limit you, and you can build similar characters using different classes through adding feats, skills etc.
> 
> ...




I think you're spot-on.

However, I think that Third Edition put the designers firmly in the "not-flexible" class role - to an extent. Without some form of niche protection, you end up with classes like the bard, who have no niche, and therefore no role. They're suboptimal at everything, which is hardly conducive to play. At the other extreme, there are classes like the cleric and druid, who can outdo everyone else.

Fourth Edition aims to change that, I believe, by protecting a niche for every class. That way, the rogue can't easily subsume the ranger's role, or the bard's, and make those classes utterly unnecessary. Likewise, the fighter just isn't going to be as good an archer as the ranger.

To some extent, the wizard and cleric have always had this niche protection (maybe even TOO much). Nobody tramples on the wizard's mastery of the arcane, and nobody can heal quite like the cleric.

But for the martial characters, it's always been a bit more of a free-for-all.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 26, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> Also consider that the rogue gets 10 skills total, not 6.  Theivery, stealth, any four skills, and four from a list.  Perhaps even more, if you get more skills for your inteligence bonus.  (perhaps they haven't mentioned it because every character gets it, kind of like languages in 3rd edition... the extra skills are a benefit of your intelligence, not your class, so it isn't mentioned in the class.)




I don't think that is correct.



			
				Ampersand: Sneak Attack! said:
			
		

> Trained Skills: Stealth and Thievery plus four others. From the class skills list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level.




I think you're misinterpreting the meaning of 'plus four others' there. By my reading the second sentence is elaborating on the first. Hey look ma ! the rules forum will still be necessary.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> If I try to use the same class to build 'smart rogue' or 'charming rogue' or 'tough rogue', the best I can do is try to cobble something together through general feat choices.



You're mixing combat issues with non combat issues.

Or to put it another way, NOTHING makes a "charming rogue" incompatible with a stealthy guy with a dagger.  Neither is a "smart rogue" incompatible with a stealthy guy with a dagger.  Neither is a "tough rogue" incompatible with a stealthy guy with a dagger.

We can keep going.  Nothing makes a "lawyer rogue" incompatible with a stealthy guy with a dagger.  Nothing makes a "sausage factory owner rogue" incompatible with a stealthy guy with a dagger.  You aren't being stopped from using non combat roleplaying possibilities by the fact that your combat roleplaying possibilities are non infinite.

If, upon release of 4e, I read the PHB and discover that intelligence is of ZERO OR NEARLY ZERO VALUE to a rogue, and that therefore a rogue for whom "smart" is a character descriptor is no longer viable, I HEREBY PROMISE to come to this forum and issue a mea culpa.  But until then, I'm going to be convinced that "smart rogue" is fully compatible with "brawny rogue," creating the lovely hybrid "smart brawny" rogue.  And that any other similar combination is AT LEAST as viable as it was in 3e, if not more so.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> 3e rogues had required skills too. They just had to buy them with skill points instead of getting them for free. Search and disable device, for example, are so necessary to party survival that they are essentially required. It's nice that we are getting them for free now.




This is a fallacy. It works that way in your games, maybe, but definately not everywhere. 



> I still say it's only a preview. The class is going to appear narrow when we only have a narrow view of it.




Do you see any hints of depth anywhere?

If so, point 'em out.

If not, then it's just wishful thinking that runs directly contrary to at LEAST what the designers have been hinting that they're doing.

I can tell the Mona Lisa is a person with brown eyes....


----------



## Arkhandus (Feb 26, 2008)

Steely Dan said:
			
		

> 1) As there are two builds for the rogue, I suspect there will two builds for the ranger – ranged or TWF.
> 
> 
> 2) As there power source is Martial, not Primal, I don't think it will be overtly so.



As for the first part, that would still leave a gap for any other kind of agile warrior; either be an agile archer with some wilderness skills, or an agile twfer with some wilderness skills, or an agile thief with some limited backstabbin' and limited snipin'.....etc.

No general agile warrior or ranged fighter.  And no sneaky backstabbin' thug with a big club or somethin', among other things.

The second part is likely to be covered by stuff like getting the Nature skill automatically, filling for wilderness lore/survival, I would hazard a guess.  And maybe also an animal-handling skill automatically, perhaps (I forget what skills they've mentioned/revealed so far besides just a few).

They might still get an animal companion or camouflage or other such thing automatically...


----------



## Zamkaizer (Feb 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Nothing makes a "sausage factory owner rogue" incompatible with a stealthy guy with a dagger.



The smell.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 26, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> Just something else about what weapons are useful: multi-classing.  The rogue gets sneak attack at first level for +2d6 damage, which means a fifth level ranger might be able to take 1 level of rogue and be able to sneak attack.
> 
> So a rogue 6 does the same sneak attack as a ranger 5/rogue 1, but the ranger can use better weapons for it.
> 
> ...





Well, that's kind of what we have now with weapons and the 3.5 version of sneak attack.

There's no damn good reason for a rogue NOT to simply take one level of FTR and then simply use a greataxe for sneak attack/damage. Thus, for the non-TWF rogue, getting the biggest weapon made mechanical sense.

Of course, the optimal solution was use TWF which gave birth to the 3E TWF rogue.


The only question is, "do you consider this a problem?" For some people, no, for others, yes.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 26, 2008)

Pale Jackal said:
			
		

> Why?  If it gives your rogue a feat-worthy mechanical advantage under the new rule set... then why not?  It allows you your concept, and keeps the game balanced.



Sneak attacking with a club or sap will unbalance the game?


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 26, 2008)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> I wonder if the problem may not lie in two schools of thought on class roles.




There definately appear to be two schools of thought, but I'm not sure that you've pinned them down.



> In the flexible class role school of thought, while your main class grants you certain abilities it doesn't limit you, and you can build similar characters using different classes through adding feats, skills etc.
> 
> In the not-flexible class role school of thought, your main class defines who you are - your niche is "protected" -  the spellcasters can't use spells to emulate you, the warriors can't use feats to emulate you etc.




That's interesting because one of my fears since they moved to the 'everyone is a spell caster with per encounter powers' model, is that there would be extensive mechanical overlap between different classes abilities and that classes would primarily be differentiated by flavor.  For example, I think it is likely that we'll see something like this:

Perfect Position
Warlord 1: Encounter: 1[W] + strength, move the target a number of squares equal to your int bonus

Arcane Shove
Wizard 1: Encounter: 1d6 + intelligence, move the target a number of squares equal to your int bonus
11th 2d6 + intelligence, move the target a number of squares equal to your int bonus
21st 3d6 + intelligence, move the target a number of squares equal to your int bonus

Positioning Strike
Rogue 1: Encounter: 1[W] + dexterity, move the target a number of squares equal to your charisma bonus

Slam
Fighter 1: Encounter: 1[W] + strength, move the target a number of squares equal to your constitution bonus

And so forth.

There isn't anything wrong with that per se, but it does suggest that 'niche' protection isn't something necessarily a feature of 'not flexible'.  You can have classes that aren't flexible and don't have 'niche protection' either.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that 4E does not consider niche protection to be a particularly important thing.  I strongly suspect that we will see alot of niche overlap in the class designs so that you can compose a balanced party without the need for a particular class.  

I think the difference in thinking is how much complexity you want in a class.  The more flexible a class, the more complex it tends to be.  

Think of the space of all possible character types.  You are designing a class system for it.  At one extreme, you could create a single class flexible enough to handle any possible character.  However, such a class would be extremely complicated and have a very high design burden (it would be very hard to balance all possible builds, for example).  The system is elegant, but the individual class is not.  At the other extreme, you could create a very large number of highly individualized classes so that for each concept there would be a class.  Each class itself may be quite elegant, but the overall system with its 100's of class with unique rules is not.  D&D has traditionally used this latter model.  In 3E though, there was at least some attempt to move in the direction of a more elegant set of classes so that in theory you'd only need a few to realize any possible class concept.  That is to say that 3E classes were somewhat more universal and generic than thier predecessors.  Virtually all the third party products that tried to revise the character creation rules moved D20 even further in this direction, creating more generic and more flexible classes in an effort to fix the percieved flaws of the 3E core classes.  Quite a few went down to a model of just three highly generic classes, which may have been to few but was quite elegant.  So I think there was an expectation amongst alot of us that dabble in design that 4E would be another attempt to achieve what 3E tried to achieve - a set of design space spanning flexible classes that would empower characters to create and play any sort of character that they wanted.  Instead, what we seem to be getting is the exact opposite, a move back towards D&D's roots where every profession or archetype required its own class with its own highly individualized rules.   

The thing is that alot of us got away from D&D precisely because of 'features' like that.  We didn't see them as features.  We saw them as bugs.  We don't want dozens and dozens of books of kits and classes, which is exactly what this sort of preview promises.  We've been there.  Done that.  Thank you very much, but you can keep it.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

Zamkaizer said:
			
		

> The smell.



Its his trademark.  He's an assassin.  The wealthy fear the smell of grilled, fatty meat.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> If, upon release of 4e, I read the PHB and discover that intelligence is of ZERO OR NEARLY ZERO VALUE to a rogue, and that therefore a rogue for whom "smart" is a character descriptor is no longer viable, I HEREBY PROMISE to come to this forum and issue a mea culpa. But until then, I'm going to be convinced that "smart rogue" is fully compatible with "brawny rogue," creating the lovely hybrid "smart brawny" rogue. And that any other similar combination is AT LEAST as viable as it was in 3e, if not more so.




Promises are worthless if you know you'll never have to deliver on them. 

INT will probably have some value that we haven't seen for all characters, and it's definately possible that the value of a high INT for a given rogue is higher than for many other characters.

The complaint isn't so much incompatibility as it is that the archetypes are not reinforced. I may be a "smart brawny rogue" but if I have 30 levels worth of abilities dedicated to how brawny I am and just happen to have an Int of 12 and a few extra skills....that wouldn't do the trick for me, I'm afraid.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 26, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> However, I think that Third Edition put the designers firmly in the "not-flexible" class role - to an extent. Without some form of niche protection, you end up with classes like the bard, who have no niche, and therefore no role. They're suboptimal at everything, which is hardly conducive to play. At the other extreme, there are classes like the cleric and druid, who can outdo everyone else.




Well, that's not true. Bards are good at things, they just aren't good at things that players who demand constant ego-validation require from an RPG.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 26, 2008)

Aristotle said:
			
		

> I'll give you Thievery, that should probably have been recommended rather than automatic. As a DM I would likely let someone who wanted to use the class more as a skirmisher than a thief choose another skill instead. Stealth makes sense enough to me. The lightly armed and armor guy is better able to sneak around? I buy it.



The skill issue is more about making sure people don't shoot themselves in the foot, I think.  Certains tasks are expected of certain classes, so it's best to not assume that all players will automatically know this.  Have the expected abilities built into the classes and there's no problem.



			
				Aristotle said:
			
		

> I think your jumping way too soon here. For all we know all character classes are automatically proficient in simple weapons, or simple weapons simply don't require proficiency to use.



This has been brought up as a possibility before, but given that dagger & sling are specifically on the rogue's list of proficiencies, I do not think that it is likely.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 26, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> Just something else about what weapons are useful: multi-classing.  The rogue gets sneak attack at first level for +2d6 damage, which means a fifth level ranger might be able to take 1 level of rogue and be able to sneak attack.
> 
> So a rogue 6 does the same sneak attack as a ranger 5/rogue 1, but the ranger can use better weapons for it.




You are making some huge and I think very unwarranted assumptions here.

I don't think multi-classing is going to work anything like 3e multiclassing.  I'm not at all sure at this point that a ranger 1/rogue 1 is going to have alot in common necessarily with a rogue 1/ranger 1.  We just don't know how multiclassing is implemented, but I'm just about positive that the 3E model is impossible to integrate with what we've seen so far.  If it does allow obvious frontended exploits like you suggest, then the certainly haven't 'fixed' multiclassing.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 26, 2008)

Puggins said:
			
		

> And making razor-precise attacks with a shuriken, *sling* or long bow?  Err.... no.  At least not in the middle of combat.



"Sneak Attack
Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or *a sling*"

You were saying?


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 26, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That's interesting because one of my fears since they moved to the 'everyone is a spell caster with per encounter powers' model, is that there would be extensive mechanical overlap between different classes abilities and that classes would primarily be differentiated by flavor.



I do think that's somewhat likely.  "Hit an enemy and make them move" is generic enough that it can be used in a striking, defending, or leading role.  I'm not bothered by this, particularly as it applies to low level abilities- because these low level abilities seem to be how the game intends to make things like "bull rush" function.  In fact, I think that its healthy to have slight mechanical differences with general mechanical similarities in order to represent accomplishing the same overall effect in multiple ways.

In 3e, for example, if you wanted to trip someone there was basically only one way to do it- superior strength.  Lots of people wanted tripping through trickery or agility.  The current system provides the outline on how to do this, and Positioning Strike may be the first clue.


> The complaint isn't so much incompatibility as it is that the archetypes are not reinforced. I may be a "smart brawny rogue" but if I have 30 levels worth of abilities dedicated to how brawny I am and just happen to have an Int of 12 and a few extra skills....that wouldn't do the trick for me, I'm afraid.



What WOULD do the trick?


----------



## jaer (Feb 26, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Well, that's kind of what we have now with weapons and the 3.5 version of sneak attack.
> 
> There's no damn good reason for a rogue NOT to simply take one level of FTR and then simply use a greataxe for sneak attack/damage. Thus, for the non-TWF rogue, getting the biggest weapon made mechanical sense.
> 
> ...





True.  Was it a problem for 3e?  No particularly - PrCs like the blackguard were designed for heavy weapon sneak attack, so for a rogue not to be able to do so as well would have been somewhat skewed.

However, it once again comes back to balance issues with weapons and 4e.  Perhaps WotC didn't want a high level fighter dipping into 1 level of rogue for sneak attack awesomeness, but perhaps they did design it so that a high level rogue would not have the same problem.

Again, completely base-less idea, but there could be higher level powers that allow rogues only to sneak attack with different weapons.  If a ranger wants to sneak attack with his longbow, he'll need five levels of rogue to do it.  But the elf rogue will be able to manage just fine as he does from 1-30 in his class.

Fairly similar to what they did with paladin's Divine Grace and the ranger's weapon styles in 3.5: they stopped letting people get these useful abilities with only 1 level.  Only this time, you get the cool ability at first level...you just can't use it without restriction until you take a few more levels in the class.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 26, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Okay.
> 
> A single light weapon is stupid. Period. Nobody in their right mind fights this way. Even if you are using a single weapon (á la "single sword" style), you tend to make use of your off-hand for parries, grabs, and the like. If you're not doing so, you're handicapping yourself.



Presenting a narrow profile to your opponent is hardly stupid.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

> What WOULD do the trick?




Being closer to an even split of abilities for one. 30 levels of Rogue, about half of which are "smart rogue" abilties, about half of which are "brawny rogue" abilities, would probably help define a "smart brawny rogue" for me pretty clearly.


----------



## jaer (Feb 26, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> You are making some huge and I think very unwarranted assumptions here.
> 
> I don't think multi-classing is going to work anything like 3e multiclassing.  I'm not at all sure at this point that a ranger 1/rogue 1 is going to have alot in common necessarily with a rogue 1/ranger 1.  We just don't know how multiclassing is implemented, but I'm just about positive that the 3E model is impossible to integrate with what we've seen so far.  If it does allow obvious frontended exploits like you suggest, then the certainly haven't 'fixed' multiclassing.




Fair enough.  I accept that my assumption is a huge leap, and probably not a correct one.

However, I would say that they have fixed the problem of front loading if the ranger's abilities require the use of a box or other "heavy" missile weapon and the rogue's abilities require the use of a hand x-bow or other "light" missile weapon.  You can load up on both abilities, but you would need to be switching weapons to use them, meaning you can't simply take 1 level of a class and exploit all the advantages of that class.  You would get some, but not all.

Also, we know base attack and defenses are calculated by character level not class level; so to could abilities like sneak attack, thus making it not a waste for a character to pick only 1 level or rogue.  Their sneak attack, though limited to light blades, would always be doing viable damage.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 26, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Well, that's kind of what we have now with weapons and the 3.5 version of sneak attack.
> 
> There's no damn good reason for a rogue NOT to simply take one level of FTR and then simply use a greataxe for sneak attack/damage. Thus, for the non-TWF rogue, getting the biggest weapon made mechanical sense.
> 
> Of course, the optimal solution was use TWF which gave birth to the 3E TWF rogue.



So, wait... was there no reason for a rogue to not use a greataxe, or no reason for a rogue to not use TWF?  Your statements seem contradictory.

Anyway, there's a very good reason not to use a greataxe for sneak attacking, which is that 2H weapons only shine with high strength, high attack bonuses, and Power Attack.  A high-strength rogue might benefit from using a 2H weapon, although he'd still be lacking the attack bonus to make proper use of PA.  In any case the character shorted himself somewhere else to have a lot of strength, which is a perfectly fine tradeoff.  (and he'd probably still do more damage without the fighter level and using TWF instead)


----------



## Spatula (Feb 26, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  I accept that my assumption is a huge leap, and probably not a correct one.
> 
> However, I would say that they have fixed the problem of front loading if the ranger's abilities require the use of a box or other "heavy" missile weapon and the rogue's abilities require the use of a hand x-bow or other "light" missile weapon.  You can load up on both abilities, but you would need to be switching weapons to use them, meaning you can't simply take 1 level of a class and exploit all the advantages of that class.  You would get some, but not all.



Note that sneak attack is limited to crossbows, not just hand crossbows.  A rogue can sneak attack just fine with whatever forms of heavier crossbows exist in 4e.


----------



## Zamkaizer (Feb 26, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its his trademark.  He's an assassin.  The wealthy fear the smell of grilled, fatty meat.



"A respected hobbit who owns a local butcher shop known for its delicious sausages. His most defining characteristics are his charitable nature--giving scraps to the local poor and settling disputes between other businesses--and the odor of fat and blood he seems permanently to exude. There are rumors whispered about him though, that his butcher shop is, in fact, a front for a citywide crime ring, and that he himself participates in its efforts. A few even say the victims of that whispered crime ring--a merchant with no local ties who disappeared here, a zealous adventurer that suddenly up and left town there--make their way into his products."

Generic to be sure, though perhaps worth it for when you begin describing to your players, while they snoop in the city's catacombs too near to one of the syndicate's caches, the aroma of succulent meat.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 26, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> So, wait... was there no reason for a rogue to not use a greataxe, or no reason for a rogue to not use TWF?  Your statements seem contradictory.)




Sometimes I really suck at making myself clear. From the Char-Op board, mechanically, the best way to optimize Sneak Attack was 
Rogue wielding Dagger ->= Rogue wielding high dmg wpn/FTR 1 -> TWF Rogue.

I'm leaving other options of course and the effect of things like spells/magic items, but all things being equal, the math worked out this way.

What made it somewhat hooky IIRC was that if you were a rogue with an average DEX (14 or under), it didn't make sense to finesse a weapon and thus it was better to simply take 1 level of FTR for the weapon access. However, if you did have high enough DEX (16+), the math made more sense to actually go TWF.

So, technically, even though the 3.x rogue's sneak attack at first glance was best in the hands of a one-handed weapon user (the Errol Flynn swashbuckler), the OPTIMAL solution was either Greataxe or TWF.

Of course, this leads back to the underlying problem that shield + board was a less optimal option than either TWF or THF as many on WOTC's Char Op would be happy to show you. 

I hope I was clearer this time.



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> Anyway, there's a very good reason not to use a greataxe for sneak attacking, which is that 2H weapons only shine with high strength, high attack bonuses, and Power Attack.  A high-strength rogue might benefit from using a 2H weapon, although he'd still be lacking the attack bonus to make proper use of PA.  In any case the character shorted himself somewhere else to have a lot of strength, which is a perfectly fine tradeoff.  (and he'd probably still do more damage without the fighter level and using TWF instead)




1. There's no STR restriction on wielding a greataxe/zweihander
2. Rogue X/FTR 1 gives you access to greataxe 
3. Greataxe >>>>>> Rapier/Shortsword/Dagger.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 26, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> "Sneak Attack
> Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or *a sling*"
> 
> You were saying?




I'm also wondering in what bizarre universe a shuriken would not be considered a light blade...


----------



## franzel (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Being closer to an even split of abilities for one. 30 levels of Rogue, about half of which are "smart rogue" abilties, about half of which are "brawny rogue" abilities, would probably help define a "smart brawny rogue" for me pretty clearly.




What are you looking for the smart rogue to do?  And in which previous editions do you feel that your concept of the smart rogue was given justice?  I'm just curious as a basis for comparison.

In 3e/3.5, smart rogues were just that.  Smart.  Smart rogues were skill-based characters.  They had a high INT, which gave them more skill points and they were better at the INT-based skills.  Out of six 10th+ level powers, one had to do with skills: Skill Mastery.

So far in 4e, the only indication we have how INT will apply to Rogues is the line in Races & Classes where Mike Mearls said that rogues would add their INT bonus to all skill checks so that's certainly an indication that they value the "smart," skilled rogue.  We do not know if a high INT provides more starting skills, independent of class.

And for prestige classes, there are a few classes like the Spymaster or the Virtuoso (or the skill trick PrCs from Complete Scoundrel).  I think the primary function of a SMART rogue, at least to me, is as a master of disguise and multiple identities.  In 3.5, there weren't any great, well-integrated attempts. For 4e, it would almost certainly have to tie into the social combat system which we won't see until the books are out (or at least that's what WotC has said).  For all we know, there will be the concept of a Trick attack (a la Torg).

A master of disguise-type rogue _could_ be handled as a paragon path, but that's pure speculation.  We have no evidence one way or the other.

In 2e or 1e, I don't think the concept was catered to at all.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Feb 26, 2008)

Best was a rogue/ranger. Ranger's TWF obviated the need for high DEX (it granted TWF feat even if you had a Dex of 3), and also granted the fighter weapon list. Plus you could maintain most of your rogue skills, track, use wands of CLW, boost fort save, etc. etc. Ranger was the ultimate dip.

TWF was best for rogue because your damage came from sneak attack dice, not weapon damage. With two attacks you had a chance to double that xd6 damage, and double your chances of scoring a crit. Dual wielding two high crit weapons FTW. And, again, by going ranger you can dump Dex and pump Str for extra attack & damage.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 26, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> I'm also wondering in what bizarre universe a shuriken would not be considered a light blade...




The Microverse?


----------



## Mercule (Feb 26, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> A single light weapon is stupid. Period. Nobody in their right mind fights this way. Even if you are using a single weapon (á la "single sword" style), you tend to make use of your off-hand for parries, grabs, and the like. If you're not doing so, you're handicapping yourself.




That doesn't justify TWF for rangers, though.  Single weapon style may or may not be bright, but it is no less so for a ranger than a burly fighter.  One could actually argue that it would be smarter for the ranger because it frees up a hand to use for those grabs or to help him control himself and balance in rough terrain or a variety of other reasons.

If your argument holds for ranger, it holds for both rogue and fighter, too.  Those classes should have a TWF option built in.

Actually, I'd put forth that a ranger should get a bonus for using a single weapon in an outdoors setting.  He now has a hand free to manipulate the woods as only he can.  Which, of course, actually makes sense in 3e where the ranger had spells to represent his woodsy tricks, but had to have a hand free to cast them.

Any 3e ranger that actually did wield two weapons was throwing away a lot more advantage than one who didn't dual wield.

D&D also imitates heroic fantasy more than it does realistic swordplay.  Single wielding is pretty common in most genre pieces.  It also isn't horribly sub-optimal compared to most styles in D&D.  Within the D&D-verse, the "it's foolish to fight with only one light weapon" argument is simply untrue.



> As has been mentioned, shields are heavy and bulky. They're also single use - defense only. If you lose your primary weapon, you're now unarmed.
> 
> A good backup weapon, on the other hand, is useful if you lose your primary weapon. It's also functional for parrying, and thus providing defense. Potentially, it can  be a utility instrument, like a dagger or a handaxe, that has another purpose as well. It could even do a different damage type, making you versatile against different foes.




Because a back-up weapon must be co-wielded?  That doesn't make any sense.  

I absolutely agree that a ranger is likely to have utility weapons, like something I heard once: A dagger or axe doesn't count as armed.  Those are just tools that have some extra uses.

That still doesn't make a ranger any more likely to dual wield, though.



> The only good argument is the "big freakin' axe." I'd contend that a smart ranger with a "big freakin' axe" is either a) wearing heavier than average armor, or b) using it as a double weapon. The latter is just smart if you fight in light armor with a big weapon. It's even how knights in heavy armor usually fought with longswords. They engaged in lots of half-swording, trips, and similar "double weapon" kinds of tactics.
> 
> And do I need to point out that, in D&D, fighting with a double weapon *is* two-weapon fighting?




Of course, D&D does not actually have mechanics for the way most sword combat was done.  Just because the weapon spends a certain amount of time being used backwards (perfectly legitimate for most large swords), doesn't mean it requires TWF.  It just means such use is included in the basic proficiency of the weapon.



> How's that for an explanation?



Lacking.  Very little of it dealt with why a ranger would be inclined to TWF any more than another class would.

As I've said, I think it makes sense to give a ranger a narrow band of combat excellence.  That way, he's a scary combatant, but doesn't encroach on the fighter's schtick too much.  I just can't see any good rationale for TWF over any other style.


----------



## Mortellan (Feb 26, 2008)

This thread is humorous. There's only 320 pages in this PHB. I'm still keeping my expectations for the flexibility low.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 26, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> I hope I was clearer this time.



Ok, I see what you are saying.



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> 1. There's no STR restriction on wielding a greataxe/zweihander
> 2. Rogue X/FTR 1 gives you access to greataxe
> 3. Greataxe >>>>>> Rapier/Shortsword/Dagger.



For a 2H weapon to *shine* you need a high strength, high attack bonus, and PA, is what I said.  Though if you do have a low strength, you might have problems carting around all your adventuring gear plus a huge weapon without being encumbered - especially if you're a halfling or gnome - which a rogue does not want to do (keeps you from using evasion & tumbling, gives an armor check penalty, slows movement, etc.).

While it is true that the 2H weapons deal more damage than 1Hers, you're also delaying getting additional sneak attack dice by a level, losing out on skill points, and so on.  Still a net win for the fighter dip (which is true for any martial class; fighter is just a great multiclass option), but there are some tradeoffs.  If you assume every attack is a sneak attack, the great axe is +3 average damage (plus possibly more if str is 14+), while you're losing "half" of a sneak attack die, or -1.75 average damage, for a net gain of +1.25.  The 2Her is obviously all kinds of win vs crit-immune targets.

As you note, the real problem is that the system doesn't reward using 1H weapons at all.


----------



## Mercule (Feb 26, 2008)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> There's only 320 pages in this PHB. I'm still keeping my expectations for the flexibility low.




I wonder how the 4E forum would stack up against the core three, in word count, as of June.


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> The thing is that alot of us got away from D&D precisely because of 'features' like that.  We didn't see them as features.  We saw them as bugs.  We don't want dozens and dozens of books of kits and classes, which is exactly what this sort of preview promises.




... but you keep buying them anyway.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 26, 2008)

> What are you looking for the smart rogue to do? And in which previous editions do you feel that your concept of the smart rogue was given justice? I'm just curious as a basis for comparison.




Most anything you'd expect a brilliant detective, a cunning liar, a streetwise urchin, a clever merchant, a master of riddles, a keenly observant tactician, and a master of lore to be able to do.

Specifically in combat this means, amongst other things:

Using the battlefield to his advantage
Seeing the weaknesses in an enemy's defense
Knowing how and where and when to strike for maximum effect
Seeing through bluffs and fients and dodges
Not hitting often, but hitting hard when they do.
To use knowledge to gain an immediate advantage
To be able to manipulate enemies with words and deceptions and insidious forgeries
To use a small amount of effort for a catastrophic effect

Previous editions haven't done an excellent job of it, but have nodded towards it with, for instance, the ability to do subdual damage with a sneak attack (for when information is more valuable than murder), or with a chance to use arcane scrolls or other magic devices (for when a little bit of knowledge can go a long way), or with feats such as Combat Expertise.

Saying "do it all with roleplaying!" is useless, because if I wanted to do that, I'd stick with my 1e fighters.


----------



## hong (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Most anything you'd expect a brilliant detective, a cunning liar, a streetwise urchin, a clever merchant, a master of riddles, a keenly observant tactician, and a master of lore to be able to do.
> 
> Specifically in combat this means, amongst other things:
> 
> ...




There is nothing that says any of that has to be exclusive to rogues. Basically, you want to play a tactical character.

What 4E needs to provide to satisfy your demands is that ability, whether it's via rogue, warlord, fighter, ranger, or multiclassed combinations thereof. It may well be that all classes have a selection of powers that address this. In fact, I'd bet on it, at least in combat, with the talk that 4E is deemphasising the I hit/you hit approach of previous editions. Further, feats may provide similar abilities out of combat that can be used by everyone regardless of class.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Feb 26, 2008)

Mercule said:
			
		

> As I've said, I think it makes sense to give a ranger a narrow band of combat excellence.  That way, he's a scary combatant, but doesn't encroach on the fighter's schtick too much.  I just can't see any good rationale for TWF over any other style.




For a ranger (in other words, a guy who regularly goes on long treks in the wild), sword & board doesn't make any sense. I think that's obvious. 

Most great weapons are heavy and impractical. Who would want to lug an enormous greataxe across a swamp? Longspear is a possibility, but again, it's enormous and likely to get caught up on branches or other obstacles.

Single-weapon is simply sub-par, from a rules *or* a "real world" standpoint. Humans have two hands; it's a waste to not use both of them in a fight*.

That leaves TWF. The ranger, being a practical survivalist, will have a knife. That's good for the off hand. He'll also likely have an axe, or a spear/club/walking stick, or at least a backup knife. It just makes sense to pull out both weapons and dual-wield.

There's your rationale. 

-z

* Keeping the open hand free to punch/grapple is dual wielding (knife + "unarmed strike").


----------



## Michele Carter (Feb 26, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Most anything you'd expect a brilliant detective, a cunning liar, a streetwise urchin, a clever merchant, a master of riddles, a keenly observant tactician, and a master of lore to be able to do.
> 
> Specifically in combat this means, amongst other things:
> 
> ...




Hm. Well, obviously I'm biased (and a robot, whirr click), but I feel like my 4E rogue did all of those things. 

And she could sneak attack with her shuriken. And a rapier, which she spent a feat for. It was worth it.

I enjoyed playing that rogue a great deal...and I felt far more effective with the class than in any previous edition.

My robotic .02 cents.


----------



## fafhrd (Feb 27, 2008)

The Bringer of Peace said:
			
		

> And she could sneak attack with her shuriken. And a rapier, which she spent a feat for. It was worth it.



Woohoo!  THANK you.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Feb 27, 2008)

I can't wait to get into work tomorrow and tell the guys that I just read a thread on EnWorld in which people were discussing the fact that a rogue HAS to hide and steal things.

I also suppose WoTC are going to pigeon hole every wizard into HAVING to use spells (instead of there being a character option for those who want a non-magical wizard) or the fighter into HAVING to devote resources to combat.

I am revoking my pre-order!
DS


----------



## I'm A Banana (Feb 27, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> There is nothing that says any of that has to be exclusive to rogues. Basically, you want to play a tactical character.




True 'nuff. There could definately be some shunting around of what class fills what archetypes most snugly (if any do). 



> What 4E needs to provide to satisfy your demands is that ability, whether it's via rogue, warlord, fighter, ranger, or multiclassed combinations thereof. It may well be that all classes have a selection of powers that address this. In fact, I'd bet on it, at least in combat, with the talk that 4E is deemphasising the I hit/you hit approach of previous editions. Further, feats may provide similar abilities out of combat that can be used by everyone regardless of class.




Well, it's a bit more specific than "something more than I hit/you hit." It's mostly "I do neat things thanks to my crazy fast brain powers!" But if the archetype sticks around, that's good. The "detective" or "adventuring sage" or whatnot should still be on the "supported archetype" horizon, even if it's a game about beating up goblins and taking their stuff. I'd hope they'd have out-of-combat abilities to reflect this, too. Specifically the idea is that your brilliance makes you formidable in combat, as well as a good detective or a knowledgable sage outside of combat, just like your agility makes you speedy in combat, as well as a good pick-pocket outside of combat.



			
				WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> Hm. Well, obviously I'm biased (and a robot, whirr click), but I feel like my 4E rogue did all of those things.
> 
> And she could sneak attack with her shuriken. And a rapier, which she spent a feat for. It was worth it.
> 
> ...




Awesome!

Now tell us how! 

Seriously, this is evidence for broader abilities than we've seen so far, so that's super-nifty and good to know. You might be biased, but I'm generally inclined to trust you guys. I know it'll lead to the Robot Revolution, but I just can't help it.


----------



## hong (Feb 27, 2008)

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> And she could sneak attack with her shuriken. And a rapier, which she spent a feat for. It was worth it.




You broke your NDA!

NO SOUP FOR YOU!


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 27, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> This is a fallacy. It works that way in your games, maybe, but definately not everywhere.




____ and Dragons.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Do you see any hints of depth anywhere?
> 
> If so, point 'em out.
> 
> ...




But you can't see her smile.

I see that there is a lot we do not see.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 27, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> You broke your NDA!
> 
> NO SOUP FOR YOU!




That's ok we'll give her soup.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 27, 2008)

I'm not seeing a huge difference between 3e and 4e in terms of flexibility.

1e: None. All thieves have the same class abilities.
2e: Distribute points amongst thieves' skills.
3e: Select feats, select special abilities, select skills and distribute points amongst them.
4e: Select feats, select powers (and rogue tactics), select skills.

4e is maybe a step back towards 2e, but it's a small step and imo is still much closer to 3e.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 27, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> Many roleplayers like to do things outside the box.  Coming up with a concept is often first, class is almost an afterthought.




It's a class based system.

You can't do that in any D&D edition. You just think you can because you know what roles the classes are built to accommodate in previous editions. You're only fooling yourself. You don't go into 3e and say "I want to build X" and then try to make fighter or rogue or wizard work with that concept. You look at the classes first, digest the rules, then determine what you can play based on that.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> Fourth Edition: The game so good it tells YOU what you want before you even think of it!!!!




The exclamation points only undermine the validity of your argument. Which, really, is a poor one anyway.

Thing is, that's how all class based systems work. Heck, its how point based systems work. You think Shadowrun, with its point buy ability system, doesn't influence how characters are built in its system? It certainly does. What you can be is based on the abilities you can buy. The same is true of all RPGs.

What's the difference?

_You've read the rules if those other RPGs!_

When you read a system, you start to see the game based on that system. That's why we have all these discussions on implied settings, and we have for years. The idiom of the setting is based, largely, on how the PCs can interact with things. When you think about designing a character in 3e, you have the entire system to think about while doing it.

You cannot think about how to create concepts in an RPG with as few data points as we have access to for 4e. Also, when making a character in 4e, after we've read the rules, we'll know what are good concepts and what are not so good concepts. These will influence the kinds of characters one thinks of making.

This isn't to really say anything about the discussion at hand. This is to say that when coming up with concepts in an RPG, one makes decisions that are informed by the game system it is being designed for. This might seem like a simple, straightforward concept, but it is very important to keep in mind. When we come up with concepts for a 3e campaign, we are _not_ doing it in a vacuum.

So no, this isn't "In 4e, classes build YOU!" This is simply, "In any RPG, concept and build go hand in hand." You can't have one without the other. And, I'm sorry, that's just how it works, has always worked, and it will always work.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 27, 2008)

Classes, by their very nature, are the least flexible part of the system. The whole purpose of the character class is, imo, to restrict options. By keeping meaning tight, they thus become a more powerful communicative tool. The classic D&D triad of class, level and alignment tell you everything you need to know about a character - his job, his power level and his personality.

Feats and multiclassing are where the options will lie and we haven't been shown those yet. So of course the system is going to look more restrictive than it really is - we've seen the restrictive part but not the flexible parts.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Feb 27, 2008)

One thing people are missing out on is the fact that the 3.x rogue was one of the more open ended, options based classes, one of two that could really focus on non-combat things, and had all of these options that could be really interesting _if you were in the right campaign_. (like building rogues with int or chr as their highest stat) Getting rid of that kind of stuff was a design goal, we knew classes like Wizards would be "simplified" to a middle ground, we shouldn't be surprised it's happened to rogues too. 

I should also point out that the one set of abilities we haven't seen much of, and hasn't been bought up, is the utility powers, since Rogues have chr as a "secondary ability" and apparently a lot of skill powers, I'm expecting to see a lot of interesting in combat uses of intimidate and bluff (and hopefully insight, streetwise & dungeoneering). The loss of int as a major Rogue stat is somewhat annoying though.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Feb 27, 2008)

One problem with a GURPSian level of flexibility, which is what the critics of 4e seem to want, is that it screws over the casual player. Most players are casual so it's a losing proposition. GURPS loves only gearheads.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 27, 2008)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Fourth Edition: The game so good it tells YOU what you want before you even think of it!!!!



Builds are *optional*


----------



## Wormwood (Feb 27, 2008)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> I also suppose WoTC are going to pigeon hole every wizard into HAVING to use spells (instead of there being a character option for those who want a non-magical wizard) or the fighter into HAVING to devote resources to combat.



*applause*


----------



## LostSoul (Feb 27, 2008)

Hmmm... classes define the setting.


----------



## Silverfox13 (Feb 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> * Skills - Stealth and Thievery is mandatory.  Just wanted to be a agile type who doesn't sneak around stealing things?  Too bad.
> * Weapons - Not only is the Rogue only proficient in a small set, but their powers are specifically limited to this exact set.  Want to play a thug who uses a club, or a sniper with a bow, or an infiltrator with unarmed strikes?  Nope, you must carry a dagger and wear a black hooded cloak.  And lurk in the shadows, even in your own house.
> 
> * And apparently slings can be used for sniping, but not bows.  Yeah, that's just bad.




Playing an elf gives proficiency with the bow.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Feb 27, 2008)

I for one welcome our new focused core class overlords!

It looks as though in 4E, all the classes are going to have a tighter focus to them.  In previous editions of the game, the six or seven TRULY core classes were such generalists, that you could run pretty much any archetype with them.

This led to a lot of supplements with increasingly contrived core and prestige classes that really didn't do much that a core class couldn't have done.  This probably also contributed to power creep as designers were forced to push the limits of what a character class could do in order to differentiate them.

Under 4th edition it looks like the classes are going to be much narrower in scope than before.  Instead of a core rogue that can perform just about any rogueish role, its going to have a narrower focus, perhaps on thievery and stabbity-stab-stab combat ability.

If you want an social "con man" rogue, perhaps that's going to be covered by the Bard class when it comes out.  Or some other class altogether.

Just like the fighter seems to be focused on heavy armor approaches, if you want an agile fighter, that might now be the province of the ranger class.

The classes are becoming more distinct, and I think that's a good thing.

I think the argument that "I want to play X now!"  and "Everything should be in the PHB from the get-go" is fallacious.  In the first place, that leaves no room to expand the game in later supplements.  In the second place, its just not possible so its really a question of whose preferences get included.  Personally I could care less about Druids, Gnomes, and Bards.  Others may feel differently, but I suspect more people share my view than don't, otherwise they would have gone another route if those were among the most popular elements of the game.  You certainly don't see them dropping fighters, even though the fighter archetype can be handled by the Paladin or Ranger.  Fighters are just too popular.  Many of the elements that have not been included just don't have the same amount of adherents as those that do.

What about the Warlord you say. . . its brand new, how can it be one of the popular elements?

Well. . . the class is brand new, but we don't know enough to say that its playstyle is.  Perhaps it turns out that its something that previously a fighter, paladin, or cleric build did well that is very popular.  Under the new more narrow class focus, that play style gets its own class.  

In addition adding some new elements to the game outside of what was previously considered "core" really reinforces the "freshness" of the new rules, so that it doesn't just feel like a overblown supplement or a 3.75 version.

All in all, I think they've done a good job and I'm looking forward to ditching my 3.5 Half-orc assassin in favor of a 4th edition Dwarven Fighter. . . or something.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Feb 27, 2008)

Why would anyone model Sherlock Homes as a 3.5 rogue? All Rogues in 3.5 come with the class abilities of Surprise Strike, Trapfinding, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge: for all the claimed flexibility in class skills there is no way to design a rogue without them. It's been a while since I read the stories, but I think the only argument could be for Holmes perhaps using Trapfinding.

I'd model Holmes as an Expert 15-20, in a world with no PC classes and almost no-one else above level 2. Maybe Moriarty.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 27, 2008)

One thing to note is that rogue, skill wise still has a lot to choose from...

Thievery and Stealth for free
plus four more skills (no stipulations listed...)
And then four from a list.
10 skills... that's a lot, especially considering how they are cutting down on the number of skills in the game.

If you were to pick all of your skills from the rogue list -that you get for just being a rogue, mind you- you would have all of them.  Plus we haven't accounted for Intelligence yet.

Now, some people are thinking that INT doesn't do that anymore, but my guess is that every character at first level gets a few extra skills (which he can pick freely) equal to his INT modifier.  If he ever raises his INT to a new bonus, then he gets another skill proficiency.  And because this has nothing to do with your class, it isn't mentioned in the rogue class description.  Blind guess, but this is how it works in Saga, IIRC.

I think that's pretty flexible.


----------



## Arkhandus (Feb 27, 2008)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> This thread is humorous. There's only 320 pages in this PHB. I'm still keeping my expectations for the flexibility low.




Yeah.  Never you mind that the 3.0 PHB had fewer pages and allowed for _several _ different kinds of rogue, fighter, ranger, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, druid, monk, etc.  :\ 

Several different kinds of each class, through class feature choices/spell choices and feat or ability score choices.  Rogues could sneak attack with whatever the heck they felt like wielding, even if it was just a handy rock or broken bottle.  They could be sneaky or not.  They could be thieves or not.  They could be spies or not.  Fighters could be better archers than rangers, better two-weapon fighters than rangers, or better sword-and-boarders than rangers, or better two-handed weapon wielders than rangers.  Etc.

4e so far seems to pigeonhole the classes more.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 27, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> One thing to note is that rogue, skill wise still has a lot to choose from...
> 
> Thievery and Stealth for free
> plus four more skills (no stipulations listed...)
> ...



Sorry, you only get 6 skills, 2(thievery and stealth) + four others- in total


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 27, 2008)

Sabathius42 said:
			
		

> I also suppose WoTC are going to pigeon hole every wizard into HAVING to use spells (instead of there being a character option for those who want a non-magical wizard) or the fighter into HAVING to devote resources to combat.




Amusing enough, but also really quite unfair to the people who are complaining about "pigeon-holing."

Their opinions are nowhere near this silly.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 27, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> One thing to note is that rogue, skill wise still has a lot to choose from...
> 
> Thievery and Stealth for free
> plus four more skills (no stipulations listed...)
> ...



I do believe you're misreading the skills bit.  Looks like 6 total to me (2 fixed, 4 from the list).


----------



## hong (Feb 27, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> Amusing enough, but also really quite unfair to the people who are complaining about "pigeon-holing."
> 
> Their opinions are nowhere near this silly.


----------



## outsider (Feb 27, 2008)

For everybody that is asking why you can't sneak attack with a club, greatsword, or long bow, I think the answer is flavor.  Rogues should be using weapons like light blades, crossbows, and slings, thus they are rewarded for doing so.  Shortbow probably would have been appropriate, but bows are likely the ranger's shtick.

Also, it's quite possible that not all "sneak attacks" will come in the form of "Sneak Attack".  Perhaps rangers will have a per encounter power named something like "Sniper Shot" that allows them to do extra damage to an unsuspecting target.  Wouldn't surprise me if fighters got a backstab like ability, to punish their foes when they turn away from the fighter to target his allies.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 27, 2008)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Yeah.  Never you mind that the 3.0 PHB had fewer pages and allowed for _several _ different kinds of rogue, fighter, ranger, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, druid, monk, etc.  :\



This is illusory.  Its like arguing that the Fighter is a more diverse class than the Warblade because the Fighter can use ranged weapons.  Its true that the fighter has the option of ranged weapons while the Warblade does not (unless he spends a feat), but the only way it makes sense is if you disallow consideration of the Warblade's maneuvers.

So... yes, if you disallow consideration of Rogue powers, Rogues are less diverse than they were before.  Similarly, I am shorter than my girlfriend if you don't count my legs.

This is how I see this forum:

Imagine taking the 3e rogue.  Give it a first level choice of +1 hit point per level or +5 feet of movement.  Call the first one "thuggish rogue" and the second one "fleet rogue."  This forum would then shriek that they DO NOT WANT to be pigeonholed into thuggish or fleet characters- they want to go back to the good old days when they had ALL KINDS of rogues they could play.  The idea of playing exactly the same rogue they did before except now with an extra ability simply would not occur to them.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 27, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> This is how I see this forum:
> 
> Imagine taking the 3e rogue.  Give it a first level choice of +1 hit point per level or +5 feet of movement.  Call the first one "thuggish rogue" and the second one "fleet rogue."  This forum would then shriek that they DO NOT WANT to be pigeonholed into thuggish or fleet characters- they want to go back to the good old days when they had ALL KINDS of rogues they could play.  The idea of playing exactly the same rogue they did before except now with an extra ability simply would not occur to them.




So, in other words, you think they're idiots, unable to "simply" accept this way of looking at the rogue?

I think the problem many people are having is that this new "special ability" that they have to choose may not fit into their character concept at all.  For some people, it is hard to simply ignore an ability (like a non-thieving rogue automatically having the ability to steal things or a desert-born character being able to swim like a pro) if it flies in the face of character concept.

Of course, all this has been explained before and better than I can, so I guess you'll just lump me in with the folks who have cognitive problems.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Feb 27, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> So, in other words, you think they're idiots, unable to "simply" accept this way of looking at the rogue?



This language would be going too far. Just too far.


> I think the problem many people are having is that this new "special ability" that they have to choose may not fit into their character concept at all.  For some people, it is hard to simply ignore an ability (like a non-thieving rogue automatically having the ability to steal things or a desert-born character being able to swim like a pro) if it flies in the face of character concept.



Everyone who wants very specific campaign restrictions or should be doing serious considerations of the rules that they will be using. The example of the "swimming pro" is one involving a very high level character. The idea of the general skill bonus is that the DM can create difficult situations that do not hopelessly leave behind most PCs and that give PCs a feeling of competence commensurate with a certain general fantasy approach.


> Of course, all this has been explained before and better than I can, so I guess you'll just lump me in with the folks who have cognitive problems.



The real problem, as Cadfan has pointed out, is that people are demanding things from D&D 4E that no game system can provide.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 27, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Sorry, you only get 6 skills, 2(thievery and stealth) + four others- in total




Take another look!  



> 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)




Stealth and thievery
plus four others.
From the class list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level.

I wouldn't assume that's a typo.  How else would you expect to get cross class skills in 4e?


----------



## Lizard (Feb 27, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> Take another look!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Feats.

That's how it is in SWSE.

I do not think it's a typo at all. I think rogues get 6 feats total, of which they pick 4, and those 4 (modulus feats) come from the class skill list. Everything I've seen indicates this is the case, and your interpretation is unique.


----------



## DSRilk (Feb 27, 2008)

> You're only fooling yourself. You don't go into 3e and say "I want to build X" and then try to make fighter or rogue or wizard work with that concept. You look at the classes first, digest the rules, then determine what you can play based on that.




I agree with many of your points.  Not this one, however.  I pretty much always come up with a concept first.  Yes, many times it's based on a class - but that's because the classes are based on common archetypes, and what I'm actually picking is an archetype.  Now, you could argue chicken or the egg with those examples, but there are many characters I've created that fit no mold at all and are obviously concept-first characters.  For example, I created a merchant.  I wanted a character that sold stuff and was an expert in art who ended up caught in the middle of an "adventure."  So, given that concept, it was then a question of "what class can give me the highest knowledge of art and mercantile-like skills?"  The answer was the rogue.  The fact that he also "knew" how to wear armor and wield weapons?  Well, I just ignored that.  He never carried weapons.  During his first combat, he went and hid, then grabbed a helmet off a fallen skeleton and started whacking anything that came too close.  All this is to say, concept absolutely and unarguably does come first for some of us.  I, at least, then pick a class that gives me most of what I want and I simply ignore the rest of it.  The rules can say I am skilled with a rapier all they want, but if I, as the player, say otherwise... well, too bad for the rules.  I also feel no need to create new classes to support all my whims - rogue was good enough.  It's amazing how little classes truly strap you down if you're willing to reach outside the box a bit and have a flexible DM.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 27, 2008)

DSRilk said:
			
		

> I agree with many of your points.  Not this one, however.  I pretty much always come up with a concept first.




Before you read the RPG rules? Because if not, your concept is going to be at least subconsciously affected by what you know about the rules of the particular RPG, I think.

The example you gave is very broad, and people in this thread are talking about extremely specific characters, so I'm probably more talking about those kinds of character concepts and less broad ones.


----------



## Wolfspider (Feb 27, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> This language would be going too far. Just too far.




Perhaps I did go too far.  His characterization of people who disagree with him also goes too far, I think.  In any case, I apologize for my harsh language.


----------



## Elder-Basilisk (Feb 27, 2008)

Not necessarily so. WotC folks described the swordmage as an arcane defender--a character who uses magic to fight more effectively rather than a multi-role character who can swing a sword or toss a fireball as he sees fit. It is quite possible that the promised sword wielding wizard can fill the latter role effectively but has trouble functioning in the first role.

It is also possible that the swordmage will be to the sword wielding wizard either as duskblade is to eldritch knight (a simpler and less clunky build with much more predictable effectiveness) or as the Abjurant Champion is to Eldritch Knight (a horribly overpowered version of a different way to accomplish the same goal).



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Apperantly not. Otherwise WotC wouldn't make a special swordmage class for it. Likewise they apparently also have to make a special skirmisher class to cover non thief agile warriors unless ranger cover this niche. But then we are missing a archer class.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Feb 27, 2008)

Mortellan said:
			
		

> This thread is humorous. There's only 320 pages in this PHB. I'm still keeping my expectations for the flexibility low.




Then, by that logic, it's impossible to make any RPG ruleset with flexibility in it. I doubt too many people are going to be publishing 3,200 page books anytime soon. So if complete flexibility is the aim, and 320 pages is too short to put more than a smattering of flexibility in, it's impossible to produce an RPG which meets the standards people are expecting of it.

Actually, everyone seems to be overlooking one point -- that they say the math behind the rules is going to be more explicitly visible this time around. That would permit you to make balanced houserule additions more easily, building on the existing framework, and thus introduce more flexibility, correct? Just a thought.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 27, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Feats.
> 
> That's how it is in SWSE.
> 
> I do not think it's a typo at all. I think rogues get 6 feats total, of which they pick 4, and those 4 (modulus feats) come from the class skill list. Everything I've seen indicates this is the case, and your interpretation is unique.




If that is what they meant, it would be much more clear and concise to say: "Thievery, stealth, plus four skills from the list below."  

But it doesnt!

It says stealth, thievery, plus four others.  From the list below, pick four *more*.

Now, they could be saying it like that because somewhere along the line, the writer's brains fell out of their everloving heads, or that it is a typo that has gone unnoticed for a very long time... but I don't think so.

I think picking skills from a special list may be the exception rather than the rule this time around.  Some classes, like maybe rogues and bards, rangers, and all those skill-monkey classes may have a skill list like Fighters had a special list of feats.  But that's all supposition on my part, but it would account for the sentence structure.

Edit: scratch that.  The fact that they list stealth and theivery on the class skill list makes me believe that there is some benefit to having a skill on your class list.  But the list is treated more like a bonus with a catch than the rule that all skills must adhere to.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 27, 2008)

4E previews are notorious for bad wording, so I really wouldn't read too much into them.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 27, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> 4E previews are notorious for bad wording, so I really wouldn't read too much into them.




 .


----------



## helium3 (Feb 27, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> One problem with a GURPSian level of flexibility, which is what the critics of 4e seem to want, is that it screws over the casual player. Most players are casual so it's a losing proposition. GURPS loves only gearheads.




And out of what yarn did you spin this whole cloth? I have yet to see a single post in this thread where anyone takes the position that switching to GURPS is something anyone could do. At best, there is a series of linked posts where a single poster completely misreads one of my posts and comes to the conclusion that I want people to switch to GURPS because it's more generic than D&D.

I can't wait to see a thread with a post that contains the word "baby" followed by another post that contains the word "eater." I'm sure it won't be long before someone immediately follows up with a third post claiming that "4E Critics" like to eat babies.


----------



## AZRogue (Feb 27, 2008)

So, shuriken count as a "light blade" and you can get a Rapier with a feat. Cool. That's good, at least.

To tell the truth, I'd like to be a knife fighting rogue. It wasn't something that was that effective before, but it might be now. Well, more so. the 1d4 damage will just be a small part of all the other damage you'll be doing. And a +1 to hit isn't anything to sneeze at.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 27, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> 4E previews are notorious for bad wording, so I really wouldn't read too much into them.



Yeah ENW has already done a bit of proof reading for the PHB, with the how many sneak attacks in a round thing.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Feb 27, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> It says stealth, thievery, plus four others.  From the list below, pick four *more*.



The two sentences should be quite clear. The first sentence is a descriptive sentence, listing two specific skills that a rogue gets and stating that a rogue has a total of four other skills. The next sentence is an imperative sentence, instructing the reader, who supposedly is in the process of creating a rogue character, to pick four skills, the total of the other skills a rogue knows, from the given list.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 27, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> The two sentences should be quite clear. The first sentence is a descriptive sentence, listing two specific skills that a rogue gets and stating that a rogue has a total of four other skills. The next sentence is an imperative sentence, instructing the reader, who supposedly is in the process of creating a rogue character, to pick four skills, the total of the other skills a rogue knows, from the given list.




This.


----------



## Raduin711 (Feb 27, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> The two sentences should be quite clear. The first sentence is a descriptive sentence, listing two specific skills that a rogue gets and stating that a rogue has a total of four other skills. The next sentence is an imperative sentence, instructing the reader, who supposedly is in the process of creating a rogue character, to pick four skills, the total of the other skills a rogue knows, from the given list.




And that's the way a lot of people are reading it but that just isn't what it says.

The word more.  The separation into two different sentences.  This is what I am basing this reading on.  What are you basing your reading of it on?


----------



## DSRilk (Feb 27, 2008)

> The example you gave is very broad




I fail to see how I could get more specific than my merchant example - literally a real, individual character I created for a D&D campaign I played in -- it doesn't get much more concrete than that.  I also am not sure how on earth that character concept was at all influenced by the rules.  Seriously - what class or feats in the PHB are associated with creating a merchant/amateur artist, much less would lead one to see that as a D&D character archetype?  What skills scream, merchant?  Or artist, for that matter.  None.  After I had the concept, I picked skills that came as close as possible to fitting with the character.  He ended up with diplomacy, for example.  Why?  Because that was as close as I could come to a skill that represented haggling the way I saw him doing it.  Certainly not because I viewed him as diplomatic.  To the point, I had no intention, nor did I, play him as a diplomatic character excepting during circumstances where it involved dealing for something (as opposed to winning favor, or what-have-you).  I could see your point far more if I created a concept that involved a diplomatic character that could bluff a bit.  But that wasn't at all how it was.  As is evident by the traits that were described up front during the concept phase that had nothing to do with any game mechanics whatsoever.  The concept truly grew from the title character on a TV show called Lovejoy - a mystery series in Britain.

While there are certainly times where character concepts are derived from the rule set, such as when I specifically set out to create a character that was a fighter who was convinced he was a paladin, and went around detecting evil based on what he thought was evil (as he obviously didn't have the power, but truly believed he did).  Given that several characters I have created had literally no connection to the rule set at all (the above merchant being an extremely non-broad example), the word "always" that you used is inaccurate.  However, it doesn't hurt me in the least if you want to think you're right on this, so if I haven't misunderstood what you meant, or you haven't misunderstood my previous post, feel free to consider yourself correct.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 27, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> The two sentences should be quite clear. The first sentence is a descriptive sentence, listing two specific skills that a rogue gets and stating that a rogue has a total of four other skills. The next sentence is an imperative sentence, instructing the reader, who supposedly is in the process of creating a rogue character, to pick four skills, the total of the other skills a rogue knows, from the given list.



I think you are right, but it still is rubbish wording. "A Rogue gets 6 trained skills at first level: Stealth, Thievery and 4 others from this list:...." No ambiguity there.
Especially helpful for people like myself who don't know their imperatives from their pro-nouns...or whatever.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 27, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> "A Rogue gets 6 trained skills at first level: Stealth, Thievery and 4 others from this list:...."



Or even better: "A Rogue gets 6 trained skills at first level: choose from this list:...."


----------



## DSRilk (Feb 27, 2008)

I believe that the description in the spoiler is horribly written.  It is grammatically vague.  The statements appearing in two sentences does not imply from a grammatical standpoint either reading.  However, both readings can be reasonably inferred.  Why on earth they wrote:

"Stealth and Thievery plus four others. From the class skills list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level."

Instead of either:

"Stealth and Thievery, plus four others from the class list below at 1st level."

or

"Stealth and Thievery, plus four others from the class list below, and an additional four more skills of any type."

is beyond me.  I can't imagine, however, that they reduced the skill list in half, then gave the rogue 10 skills, which would effectively bring their equivalent total to 20 3e skills at first level.  It seems much more likely that they brought the total up to an equivalent of 12.  While only one reading makes sense to me from a game design standpoint, I believe either reading makes sense otherwise.


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 27, 2008)

I really really hope they have a better editor for the books than for the previews.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 27, 2008)

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> I really really hope they have a better editor for the books than for the previews.



[/holdbreath]


----------



## DSRilk (Feb 27, 2008)

<mach1.9pants dies of suffocation />


----------



## Incenjucar (Feb 27, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> [/holdbreath]




 

Sage Advice and Errata are going to be working over time.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 27, 2008)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Yeah.  Never you mind that the 3.0 PHB had fewer pages and allowed for _several _ different kinds of rogue, fighter, ranger, cleric, wizard, sorcerer, druid, monk, etc.  :\
> 
> Several different kinds of each class, through class feature choices/spell choices and feat or ability score choices.  Rogues could sneak attack with whatever the heck they felt like wielding, even if it was just a handy rock or broken bottle.  They could be sneaky or not.  They could be thieves or not.  They could be spies or not.  Fighters could be better archers than rangers, better two-weapon fighters than rangers, or better sword-and-boarders than rangers, or better two-handed weapon wielders than rangers.  Etc.
> 
> 4e so far seems to pigeonhole the classes more.




Really?  This must be a joke.

Player chosen class features in 3.0:
Skills
Feats
Spells(maybe)
Domains/School Specialization(maybe)
Equipment - limited, sort of, by proficiency and cost


Player chosen class features in 4.0:
Skills
Feats
Spells/Rituals(maybe)
Domains/Warlock Oaths(maybe)
Equipment - limited, sort of, by proficiency and cost
At-Will Powers
Per Encounter Powers
Per Day Powers
Tactics(maybe)
Weapon Specialization(maybe)
etc.??(maybe??)

You can argue in some arbitrary sense that 4.0 classes are more limiting, but it is empirically wrong to argue that players have fewer choices in determining their class features or builds.  Just because some choices for two classes - fighter and rogue are the only things where I see people crying foul just yet - have been (arguably) deselected doesn't mean that the player has fewer choices as a whole or fewer builds to choose from.

At least, it's wrong to argue that at this juncture.  Maybe there will come a point when the PHB comes out that we can actually enumerate the trade off in skills, feats, spells, equipment, and other choices between the two editions of the PHB and maybe at that point 4.0 will come out behind.

But categorically, the 4.0 class building system offers players more options and choices.


----------



## hong (Feb 27, 2008)

At a minimum, the nutty "favoured class" thing should be dead, anyway.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 27, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> At a minimum, the nutty "favoured class" thing should be dead, anyway.




Depends on what the full racial traits end up looking like. Seriously. We could end up with cool traits of use in any class, or we could end up with favored classes in all but name.

(The FC mechanic was pretty lame, and never upgraded to handle new core classes)


----------



## IceFractal (Feb 27, 2008)

Wow, I seem to have sparked quite a bit of response.  My thoughts in a second, but first - would people _please_ stop mentioning that Rogues can gain proficiency with weapons like bows?  Yes, they can, and no, it doesn't matter.  Sneak attack, and all the powers seen in the preview, have a specific list of weapons you can use them with.  Proficiency is not the issue.*  


The 4E Rogue is by no means the least flexible class I've seen.  However, it's ancestor, the 3E Rogue, was a combination of simplicity, flexibility, and utility that the 4E Rogue comes nowhere near.  Let's look at what a 3E Rogue could do:

* Use any weapon, even including spells with attack rolls, to deliver their sneak attack.  
* Gain sneak attack in a number of ways - by rushing into melee (flanking), hiding in the shadows, using magical aid (invisibility), or hindering their enemies (many spells, items, and other abilities, such as Grease).  
* Have a wide range of skills that could take you anywhere from face to con-man to mechanical expert to explorer to scout to assassin.
* Multiclass effectively with almost any martial or skilled class and many spellcasters (with the right split); use Sneak Attack in concert with abilities from other classes.
* Remain viable against high-level foes (much more so than most non-spellcasters), without the balance-shattering abilities of high-level magic.
* Use their abilities while in disguise with atypical equipment.

Of this, the 4E Rogue may accomplish #2 and #5, but fat chance on the rest.  And honestly, the 3E Rogue was already well implemented mechanically - the 4E Rogue isn't worse in this aspect, but it isn't hugely better either.  So from where I'm sitting, this is a _downgrade._  Is 4E the Vista of D&D?  I hope not.  


And why are less flexible classes bad?  Because there are only going to be 8 or so in the PHB - simple as that.  If they were providing twice as many classes as 3E, they could make them half as flexible.  Since they're providing _less_, that doesn't work.  

I'm not against supplements, but having to wait for PHBIII+ to play basic types of characters, when with better design I could be playing them right away, isn't inclining me to "upgrade".


One more thing:


> You can argue in some arbitrary sense that 4.0 classes are more limiting, but it is empirically wrong to argue that players have fewer choices in determining their class features or builds.



 The number of build options, even in 3E, was already virtually infinite.  What matters is the number of _distinct_ paths - chosing between two powers that are both dextrous strikes with daggers, where one causes more damage up-front and the other causes bleeding, doesn't increase the number of viable directions available.  Chosing between three "blast people with fire" powers doesn't make the Wizard more flexible either.  


*WotC_Miko posted an interesting hint in this direction, but didn't actually say you could get past the restriction with a feat.  Shurikens are light blades, and probably so are Rapiers, so the feat in question may just be Weapon Proficiency, which wouldn't help with a club, whip, or bow.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> * Use any weapon, even including spells with attack rolls, to deliver their sneak attack.
> 
> 
> One more thing:
> The number of build options, even in 3E, was already virtually infinite.  What matters is the number of _distinct_ paths - chosing between two powers that are both dextrous strikes with daggers, where one causes more damage up-front and the other causes bleeding, doesn't increase the number of viable directions available.  Chosing between three "blast people with fire" powers doesn't make the Wizard more flexible either.




Two things:

#1 - How do you account for the increased limitations on range with the 3E sneak attack?

#2 - If you are judging the number of build options in 4E based on this one choice of Rogue Tactics then 3E goes from your virtually infinite to one or even zero as that level of choice was never present within the 3E Rogue mechanics.

if the argument is that a 3E rogue has more build options then the 3E Rogue then that argument is patently false.  The 4E Rogue gives the player far more options.  Even the presense of two recommended builds doubles your options vs. 3E.  Which is deceptive since each of those builds adds at least five additional choices on top of what you would have been given in 3E.

You _might_ be able to argue that the framing of the new rogue reduces the overall flexibility of the class.  You can argue that the new structure of the rogue eliminates options that were present previously.

You cannot argue that it reduces the number of distinct choices the player had before when building a rogue character.

It is possible that one could have fewer choices and still have more flexibility, but I must admit that intuitively I expect that the class that's built with more options must accomodate more choices and be a more flexible class.


----------



## Imp (Feb 27, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> Player chosen class features in 3.0:
> Skills
> Feats
> Spells(maybe)
> ...



No, this is a bogus breakdown: Spells in 4.0 seem to occupy the same slot as the various powers, and seem to be much less numerous than in 3e; there are several classes in 3.5 at least that have featlike choices or power paths (ie ranger); there are alternate class features in the expanded rules for 3.5; and in any case much of this is still theoretical and the rogue could be more flexible than advertised depending on how feats and multiclassing works. Besides, breaking this down in terms of literal numbers of choices does not get us much of anywhere.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Feb 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> Wow, I seem to have sparked quite a bit of response.  My thoughts in a second, but first - would people _please_ stop mentioning that Rogues can gain proficiency with weapons like bows?  Yes, they can, and no, it doesn't matter.  Sneak attack, and all the powers seen in the preview, have a specific list of weapons you can use them with.  Proficiency is not the issue.*
> 
> The 4E Rogue is by no means the least flexible class I've seen.  However, it's ancestor, the 3E Rogue, was a combination of simplicity, flexibility, and utility that the 4E Rogue comes nowhere near.  Let's look at what a 3E Rogue could do:
> 
> * Use any weapon, even including spells with attack rolls, to deliver their sneak attack.



WotC appears to have simply decided that this is too good a quality for sneak attack to have- but even that's debatable, as Miko's post demonstrates that you can get sneak attack damage with at least one non-listed weapon. We'll need to see the actual rules to see whether you can spend a feat to use sneak attack with any weapon, or a feat to use sneak attack with non-Rogue-native light blades.



			
				IceFractal said:
			
		

> * Gain sneak attack in a number of ways - by rushing into melee (flanking), hiding in the shadows, using magical aid (invisibility), or hindering their enemies (many spells, items, and other abilities, such as Grease).



Supported, as you noted- and supported in spades, since it appears at least some Rogue powers actually give their initiator combat advantage as part of the effect.



			
				IceFractal said:
			
		

> * Have a wide range of skills that could take you anywhere from face to con-man to mechanical expert to explorer to scout to assassin.



The 4e rogue has everything on his class list that the 3e rogue had, in terms of capability, with the exception of Diplomacy. The 3e rogue class was used for a face man simply because it had the most skill points while also not being a bard.



			
				IceFractal said:
			
		

> * Multiclass effectively with almost any martial or skilled class and many spellcasters (with the right split); use Sneak Attack in concert with abilities from other classes.



Until we know the multiclass rules, we really can't pass judgment on the likelihood of this. But I would be very, very surprised if the fighter's "sword" line of powers somehow stopped working when a short sword-wielding thief decided to add Sneak Attack to the damage. Or that the Warlock with a rogue dip became incapable of per-encounter tumbles and sliding pesty melee goons back into the defender. As for "skilled class", they don't appear to exist any more. You don't get your noncombat juju from your class choice, as far as I can tell. According to the hints I've seen, you get it from your feat choices, trading much broader (not much better) employ of your class abilities through feats for superior noncombat prowess.



			
				IceFractal said:
			
		

> * Remain viable against high-level foes (much more so than most non-spellcasters), without the balance-shattering abilities of high-level magic.



It's possible they'll screw this up, but since it's a problem they were aware of from day one, I'd be surprised if they failed on multiple axes.



			
				IceFractal said:
			
		

> * Use their abilities while in disguise with atypical equipment.



What disguise has "a knife" as atypical equipment? A perfectly bog-standard rogue that can get his hands on a belt knife has access to his full range of Sneak Attack and class powers. 



			
				IceFractal said:
			
		

> Of this, the 4E Rogue may accomplish #2 and #5, but fat chance on the rest.  And honestly, the 3E Rogue was already well implemented mechanically - the 4E Rogue isn't worse in this aspect, but it isn't hugely better either.  So from where I'm sitting, this is a _downgrade._  Is 4E the Vista of D&D?  I hope not.



I see no evidence that the 4e Rogue hasn't already delivered on most of them and appears very likely to deliver on the rest.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 27, 2008)

DSRilk said:
			
		

> <mach1.9pants dies of suffocation />



Did I get a nice funeral?


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 27, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> No, this is a bogus breakdown: Spells in 4.0 seem to occupy the same slot as the various powers, and seem to be much less numerous than in 3e; there are several classes in 3.5 at least that have featlike choices or power paths (ie ranger); there are alternate class features in the expanded rules for 3.5; and in any case much of this is still theoretical and the rogue could be more flexible than advertised depending on how feats and multiclassing works. Besides, breaking this down in terms of literal numbers of choices does not get us much of anywhere.




I was specifically comparing to 3.0.

For 3.5 both Ranger and Monk have options for their bonus feats that seem to mirror the Rogue's choice of Tactics, but in the end it's still just picking feats.

There do seem to be spells that occupy the same slots as powers, but there are also rituals which are explicitly not powers and are spell like.

Alternate class features I didn't count as they did not appear in the core rule book.

I think breaking it down into the sheer number of choices is an important point.

If we know that we have more choices in 4E, but we theorize that the class is less flexible, then that opens up an important point for the validity of the rigidity theory - 

Namely what does it mean that more flexible somehow equals fewer choices and more restrictions over what your class actually does?

It's a simple criteria, I'll grant you that, but it's one we shouldn't ignore.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Feb 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> The 4E Rogue is by no means the least flexible class I've seen.  However, it's ancestor, the 3E Rogue, was a combination of simplicity, flexibility, and utility that the 4E Rogue comes nowhere near.  Let's look at what a 3E Rogue could do:
> 
> 1 Use any weapon, even including spells with attack rolls, to deliver their sneak attack.
> 2 Gain sneak attack in a number of ways - by rushing into melee (flanking), hiding in the shadows, using magical aid (invisibility), or hindering their enemies (many spells, items, and other abilities, such as Grease).
> ...



3 seems to work for the 4e rogue for me, the only one I see missing is face.

The only part of 4 which we know to be true is the sneak attack thing, which references 1, and is likely intentional, the reason this was okay in 3.x, is that multiclassing hurt your character, a rogue wizard does less damage which their scorching ray, and needs the extra sneak attack to get back to normal (not that it really works...), a rogue Paladin does less damage with their smite, and sneak attacking on the smite brings it back to normal(which does kinda work), with the 4e multiclassing rules we know, it won't be like that, the multiclassed character will likely be just as good at smiting and scorching as the straight character, they'll have just swapped out some abilities for others, meaning asking to stack sneak attack on top of that is quite possibly asking for too much. (not that there's anything stopping you from smiting with a rapier)

6 also relies on 1, and I'd like to point out that part of the reason light blades, crossbows and slings and slings are considered appropriate for sneak attack, is that they can be disguised and hidden more easily than normal, meaning 6 isn't much of an example.

So ultimately, your argument comes down to "doesn't have diplomacy as a class skill, can't sneak attack with any weapons/ability". If the Utility powers aren't relatively interesting and iconic (which since the class is supposed to skill based, would suck), then I kinda see your point, otherwise, no.



			
				IceFractal said:
			
		

> And why are less flexible classes bad?  Because there are only going to be 8 or so in the PHB - simple as that.  If they were providing twice as many classes as 3E, they could make them half as flexible.  Since they're providing _less_, that doesn't work.



As I said earlier in the thread, the rogue was one of the more open ended classes, the one people often used to make skill monkeys and bakers who didn't have great combat potential, WotC saw this as a bad thing and focused them a lot more, in the same way they saw the Paladin as being too restrictive, and opened it out some more.



			
				IceFractal said:
			
		

> I'm not against supplements, but having to wait for PHBIII+ to play basic types of characters, when with better design I could be playing them right away, isn't inclining me to "upgrade".



Guy who sneak attacks with a club is not a "type of character", it's a build. Stealthy guy with a club is, but I don't see that being particularly hard to make.


			
				IceFractal said:
			
		

> One more thing:
> The number of build options, even in 3E, was already virtually infinite.  What matters is the number of _distinct_ paths - chosing between two powers that are both dextrous strikes with daggers, where one causes more damage up-front and the other causes bleeding, doesn't increase the number of viable directions available.  Chosing between three "blast people with fire" powers doesn't make the Wizard more flexible either.



"virtually infinite" you're kidding right? The major difference is the flavor built into the class(which could end up being a bad thing), not any actual differences in build options.


			
				IceFractal said:
			
		

> *WotC_Miko posted an interesting hint in this direction, but didn't actually say you could get past the restriction with a feat.  Shurikens are light blades, and probably so are Rapiers, so the feat in question may just be Weapon Proficiency, which wouldn't help with a club, whip, or bow.


----------



## IceFractal (Feb 27, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I think breaking it down into the sheer number of choices is an important point.



However, the number of choices is secondary to the breadth of those choices.  For instance, a Wizard with Fire Blast, Mind Control, and Create Labyrinth is more flexible than one with Fire Blast, Ice Blast, Large Fire Blast, Large Ice Blast, Lingering Fire Blast, and Flaming Ice Blast, even though the second has a larger number of choices. 


And something I forgot to post previously:
Re: Trapfinding/Stealth skills being required.  They really aren't - and that's a good thing, because a 4E party is by no means guaranteed to have a Rogue.  Even if you go with the classic Defender/Striker/Leader/Controller party, that Striker could just as well be a Ranger.  And the devs have mentioned that a party missing one role is still viable.

For that matter, if the 4E encounter-based traps are anything like the encounter-based traps in Dungeonscape, they're more suited than 3E traps to a Rogueless party.  The traps consist of a number of components that can be either disarmed, disabled, or destroyed.  While someone with trap-skills certainly makes things easier, they are by no means necessary.  And so a party with a non-trapfinding non-stealthy Rogue is no worse off than one without a Rogue - still perfectly viable.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> However, the number of choices is secondary to the breadth of those choices.  For instance, a Wizard with Fire Blast, Mind Control, and Create Labyrinth is more flexible than one with Fire Blast, Ice Blast, Large Fire Blast, Large Ice Blast, Lingering Fire Blast, and Flaming Ice Blast, even though the second has a larger number of choices.




Generally true, though in the case of the two rogue classes the case for the 4E rogue is still more convincing given that it preserves the original choice categories in addition to offering new options.

It may be that the additional strictures on proficiencies, assuming we know how those work, and the differences in the skill and feat systems do create narrower choices for those categories than we saw in 3E, but that's a big maybe and in the mean time I don't think we should loose sight of the fact that very structure of class choices in 4E is both a very different and more robust creature.

I mean you could talk about how all the Rogue powers seem to variations on Dagger Strike! (TM), but the fact is that's 20 more dagger strike options then anyone in 3E ever got.


----------



## Danzauker (Feb 27, 2008)

I really think must of the problems people see in the 4e Rogue are based on specilation without sufficient data.

I think the Rogue as posted in the preview as a sort of "vanilla" Rogue.

Only few weapons listed? Well, I'm more than sure that there are lots of feats to add other weapons to that list.

Sneak damage is low? OK, there will be powers, talent trees or whatchamacallits to bump the damage or do more interesting things via sneak attack (blind, paralyze, disarm...).

Thievery as a mandatory skill? Since there are less skills now and broader in scope I guess that now into thievery are folded other skills and mechanics like Find Traps, Disable Device, Sleight of Hands and others that fill nice in the Rogue niche. Not just Pickpockets.

That said, I don't really get the "Build angst", too.

In 2e there were kits, that were OPTIONAL packages that one could take to customize his character at creation time. In 3e we had prestige classes, that one could use to customize his character after some levels.

In 4e it seems we have the best of both worlds with builds and paragon paths.

Since they are optional, I don't see what's wrong in them. Basically, they look like "menu of the day" vs. "a la carte" ordering at a restaurant.

Plus they seem to make an easy way for some customizing of classes in campaigns. Once the books are available with all the power and feat lists, I guess it will be easy to design some new builds to fit our campaign worlds. I think it will not be long since someone makes up a ninja build or a pirate build.

Heck, I'm already thinking of how I can make an Athasian bard build for my Dark Sun campaign (since bards in Dark Sun are not arcane casters, I guess it's just matter of making up some music related and poison using powers)!


----------



## JosephK (Feb 27, 2008)

Well, it's very nice to hear that there indeed will be feats to allow for non pigeon-hole weapon choices! I'm still a bit concerned with my hammer wielding dwarven rogue, or club wielding footpad.. As the the wondrous Mikos rapier is also a lightblade.. I hope it'll be possible to use the various rogue powers (and sneak attack) with stuff that isnt necessarily light blades. 

That said, I still think using feat is a poor choice.. It reminds of why the weapon familiarity rules were introduced. I cant figure out a good reason why this sorta flexibility isnt build into the class from the get-go.. I can see it might be a problem if hammers or clubs for some reason turns out to be a vastly better mechanical choice than light blades (unlikely as it is), but as long as they arent, it just seems like a silly arbitrary constraint. I'd hate to have to waste a feat on getting rogue powers and sneak attack (possibly two) to work with handaxes.. As the choice is almost solely thematical and almost only has to do with how it "feels" to play a given character, rather than mechanical (I'd be all for using feats to be able to sneak with a greatsword or halberd for instance, depending on the mechanical advantage of those).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 27, 2008)

It might be obvious, but I'll point this out anyway: 
Character concepts that were best or at least easiest represented with a Rogue in 3.x might be represented with a different class then Rogue in 3.x. It's possible that some concepts that were better made with Fighter, Ranger or Barbarian in 3.x might work better in 4E with a Rogue.

Furthermore: 
It is possible that some concepts that worked with the 3E core classes in the first PHB will not be that easily possible with 4E core classes. 
On the other hand, some concepts that didn't work so well witht he 3E core classes from the first PHB might be easier possible with the 4E core classes. (Warlock and Warlord both open up a lot of options, and even the non-aligment-specific Paladin opens up a few options.)
Wether it will be a net gain or a net loss, it's a bit early to tell. 


I think 3.5 paved the way for the stronger focussed classes, by the way.
In 3.0, there were next to no new core classes in the splats. But 3.5 supplements contained more of them. I think this was in realisation that some concepts just didn't work so well with the existing classes, and rather trying to make this possible with PrCs or new feats, they tried to make it work with entirely new classes. 
3.x generally had a problem with some classes being very broadly defined, and others were narrowly defined. Compare the Rogue to a Paladin. The Rogue was your "catch-all" class to make any type of concept work (in some way, sometimes you might need to pretend sneak attack didn't exist or stuff like that), while the Paladin required you to play a holy warrior following a specific code of conduct, always lawful good, and eventually also getting a magic horse. You can probably get more narrowly defined then that, but barely so. 
In 3.x, it would have made a lot of sense to make the Paladin a Prestige Class, but that wasn't done. 
In 4E, instead of making the Paladin a PrC (or PrC equivalent), all classes get a narrower focus (though some classes, like the Paladin, apparently get a little braoder)


----------



## Jinete (Feb 27, 2008)

JosephK said:
			
		

> <snip>
> I can see it might be a problem if hammers or clubs for some reason turns out to be a vastly better mechanical choice than light blades (unlikely as it is), but as long as they arent, it just seems like a silly arbitrary constraint. I'd hate to have to waste a feat on getting rogue powers and sneak attack (possibly two) to work with handaxes.. As the choice is almost solely thematical and almost only has to do with how it "feels" to play a given character, rather than mechanical (I'd be all for using feats to be able to sneak with a greatsword or halberd for instance, depending on the mechanical advantage of those).




It seems to me that that handaxes will have different mechanics than light blades. They will probably do more damage, or do more damage on a crit or both. To allow them to be used with sneak attack without spending a feat would probably be too powerful a choice.


----------



## Imp (Feb 27, 2008)

- the thing about these two rogue builds is that they _do_ seem to be hard-coded into the power write-ups, where you have powers that gain extra benefit from particular rogue talents (instead of forking) - see "Charisma is a good third ability score, particularly if you want to dabble in powers from the other rogue build" and so on.

- 3e has basically no trouble with the "brawny rogue" concept. You go heavy on the strength, do a minor multiclass in something thumpy, skip Weapon Finesse. I don't remember ever thinking "boy, I can't make a thug with these rules!"  So I'm puzzled at the perceived need here.

- on looking at the writeup again, I'm more skeptical about feats making up the difference: Weapon Focus is in there. So if you take a feat to use a club or a staff (why? because you can improvise weapons in a pinch!) or something that's not clearly better than what's on the short list, you are actually giving up mechanical advantages for flavor effects and it's wizards with longswords all over again.

- also, arrgh, sneak attack isn't backstab, there's no particular stealth requirement in the current concept that would translate into weapon choice! And I do remember the arguments from earlier editions about backstabbing with big swords.


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 27, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Before you read the RPG rules? Because if not, your concept is going to be at least subconsciously affected by what you know about the rules of the particular RPG, I think.
> 
> The example you gave is very broad, and people in this thread are talking about extremely specific characters, so I'm probably more talking about those kinds of character concepts and less broad ones.




I'll agree with you that a player unfamiliar with the rules goes to the rules first and then decides on a concept.

But once you're familiar with the rules, you choose a concept first, and then work on how the rules can accomodate it. Essentially, instead of fitting the rules to the concept, you're fitting the concept to the rules because you're familiar with all the ins and outs. When creating characters these days, I select a concept first, and then decide what class or classes would best fit that, what ability scores would best reflect it, etc. Admittedly, that concept can be both a 'role' or a 'personality' concept.

Pinotage


----------



## solkanar33 (Feb 27, 2008)

The thing I'm most concerned with is the small number of classes combined with a system that at the moment does't shine in flexibility.

There are the four 'roles' and every class seems build around its 'role' in the party (leader, striker,etc..). There seems to be little room for a character to step out of its role and do something else. There seems to be no character that can play several 'roles' depending on how you build your character.

In 3.X your fighter could just as well be the tank (defender) or the main damage dealer (striker) by just taking some other feats and equipment.

One of the most appealing aspects of a druid is his ability to fill many different roles in a party depending on his spelluse and his wildshape. He wasn't as efficient as his 'core' buddies but he could go in melee or stand back and heal (leader) or cast fire and electricity mayhem (striker) or even summon blobs of hitpoints to defend the party (defender).

At the moment I don't see any class coming even close to this kind of flexibility. 

Perhaps that is the reason it's not included in the first PHB.
With what we know now, they want you to stick with the 'role' of your class the way they designed it. I find that well...boring.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 27, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I'll agree with you that a player unfamiliar with the rules goes to the rules first and then decides on a concept.




I'm saying the opposite. A character unfamiliar with the rules does concept first.

Isn't that what we're seeing here? People are trying to come up with concepts first and attempting to put what little we've seen in this preview to work with our information about that class gleaned from a preview. We aren't seeing people looking at the class and then working back character concepts. And, since they know little about the game rules, that fact is supporting my point.

A character familiar with the rules does rules first. It isn't a conscious decision. I don't think the Buffy game offers any weapon crafting rules. I've never seen anyone go into a Buffy game thinking for their concept "I'm going to be a weapon crafting master!" I have seen that concept in D&D 3e.

I'm not saying its conscious. It's subconscious. It's still there. Once you've been playing the game for a while, your decisions are simply informed by the rules. I don't think it can be any other way. You don't try to make a pacifist in 3e.

When Planescape wanted to add the role of the fiend touched creature, they had to create rules for it. The trifling was made a PC class. Before that, you couldn't play it. Before the thief was no skill monkey archetype. Before bards there was no "singing support" character concept. Or do you usually go into a Shadowrun game wanting to play a norse skald who sings and helps your allies? It simply doesn't work.


----------



## Pinotage (Feb 27, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I'm saying the opposite. A character unfamiliar with the rules does concept first.
> 
> Isn't that what we're seeing here? People are trying to come up with concepts first and attempting to put what little we've seen in this preview to work with our information about that class gleaned from a preview. We aren't seeing people looking at the class and then working back character concepts. And, since they know little about the game rules, that fact is supporting my point.
> 
> A character familiar with the rules does rules first. It isn't a conscious decision.




Well, then we're disagreeing!   

Whenever I create a character, I come up with role first, then concept within that role, and then look for a class/prestige class combination that will allow me to do that. Sure, it's guided by knowledge of the rules, but it's concept first. I certainly don't know if the concept is plausible right at the start. I try to use the rules to build the concept.

I'd say that somebody unfamiliar with the rules would take a look at a class, decide to use it, and then build a concept around what's possible. Rules first, concept second. And that's what I think we're seeing here. Sure, people are familiar with the 3e rules, but this is an entirely new set of rules, and people unfamiliar with them are looking at the rogue and seeing what concepts they can create. Here you're trying to conform the concept to the rules.

I'll admit there's a bit of a grey area here since even if you do concept first you are to a certain extent guided by knowledge of the rules. Still, the majority of work for those familiar with the rules, is concept first, then rules.

Pinotage


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 27, 2008)

DSRilk said:
			
		

> I fail to see how I could get more specific than my merchant example - literally a real, individual character I created for a D&D campaign I played in -- it doesn't get much more concrete than that.




I'm sure your character was concrete in play. But, what you described was a merchant who had no combat experience. I could do that with a fighter, rogue, ranger, or even a paladin who hadn't discovered his gift yet. The concept iteslf is fairly broad, so that part of it wasn't influenced by the rules because it fits any game anywhere any system.

The more specific characters expressed above, however, must use rules to implement them. Take trying to make Indiana Jones into a PC. He _has_ to use the whip. He _has_ to have knowledge of archeology. He _has_ to be able to have influence over others and get the girl and all that. Compare that level of specificity to what you described in your post.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Feb 27, 2008)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Well, then we're disagreeing!




That's cool. I'm sure the answer lies somewhere in the middle!


----------



## FireLance (Feb 27, 2008)

solkanar33 said:
			
		

> The thing I'm most concerned with is the small number of classes combined with a system that at the moment does't shine in flexibility.
> 
> There are the four 'roles' and every class seems build around its 'role' in the party (leader, striker,etc..). There seems to be little room for a character to step out of its role and do something else. There seems to be no character that can play several 'roles' depending on how you build your character.



I'm fairly sure you will be able to create such a character. You just have to multiclass instead of taking levels in only one class.



> In 3.X your fighter could just as well be the tank (defender) or the main damage dealer (striker) by just taking some other feats and equipment.



And in 4e, you can still have a striker character or a defender character. The former will just have rogue or ranger levels.



> One of the most appealing aspects of a druid is his ability to fill many different roles in a party depending on his spelluse and his wildshape. He wasn't as efficient as his 'core' buddies but he could go in melee or stand back and heal (leader) or cast fire and electricity mayhem (striker) or even summon blobs of hitpoints to defend the party (defender).
> 
> At the moment I don't see any class coming even close to this kind of flexibility.



One single class, no. But I see no reason why you could not have a character with this flexibility. You just need to multiclass.



> Perhaps that is the reason it's not included in the first PHB.
> With what we know now, they want you to stick with the 'role' of your class the way they designed it. I find that well...boring.



"Role" is a good way to guide newer players. More experienced players who want more complex characters that can fit multiple roles can multiclass.

You know, I must have used "multiclass" about three or four times in this post alone. Get used to it. I get the feeling you're going to see it very often whenever someone complains about how restrictive the roles are.


----------



## solkanar33 (Feb 27, 2008)

> You know, I must have used "multiclass" about three or four times in this post alone. Get used to it. I get the feeling you're going to see it very often whenever someone complains about how restrictive the roles are



.

I know, the rules we know about are sketchy at best and don't provide a proper view of the whole ruleset. We have no idea what the multiclass ruling will be. 
Until then, you're right to point out that multiclassing will hopefully provide for the (much needed imho) flexibility in character build.

But the restrictiveness of what we do know is a surprise for me. An unpleasant one at that. I was reading all those euphoric playtest reports about what cool and varied things you could do with your character. What I see now is a staightjacketed character build system with only multiclassing as a valid way out.

Hopefully (I'm certainly not against 4e) future information proves me wrong. I would be glad to fall on my knees in awe and do a few epic quests to atone for my early misguided judgement.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 27, 2008)

solkanar33 said:
			
		

> But the restrictiveness of what we do know is a surprise for me. An unpleasant one at that. I was reading all those euphoric playtest reports about what cool and varied things you could do with your character. What I see now is a staightjacketed character build system with only multiclassing as a valid way out.
> 
> Hopefully (I'm certainly not against 4e) future information proves me wrong. I would be glad to fall on my knees in awe and do a few epic quests to atone for my early misguided judgement.



I think it's a half full/half empty thing. Instead of obsessing over the things you can't do, why not focus on the things that you can do instead? I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote the euphoric playtest reports did just that.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 27, 2008)

I have to wonder if the seeming limits of the rogue as presented (a small subset of the full rogue, one must presume) are due to WOTCs stated desire not to confuse new players with too many choices. Instead of a range of light armor, rogues start with leather. Instead of many weapons with subtle differences, rogues have a small list, and a bonus to one in particular. Etc. It might be that the real complexity and depth comes from feats/multiclassing, and instead of these things primarily adding a specific ability, they add an additional set of *options*.

There's a real disconnect between the stated goals of the design ("Options, not limitations") and what they're choosing to show us (Limits, limits, and more limits.) Either the design failed to achieve its goals, or marketing is failing to show us these achievements. Based on the skill of the designers, I'm betting the latter.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 27, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think it's a half full/half empty thing. Instead of obsessing over the things you can't do, why not focus on the things that you can do instead? I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote the euphoric playtest reports did just that.




Are those people representative of the bulk of current 3e players? Are most players going to say, "Wow, I can do all these nifty things!" or "Huh, I can't do any of the things I used to be able to do."

If a new version of a program doesn't include old features I relied on, I'm not inclined to care about the new features I didn't need before...


----------



## FireLance (Feb 27, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> There's a real disconnect between the stated goals of the design ("Options, not limitations") and what they're choosing to show us (Limits, limits, and more limits.) Either the design failed to achieve its goals, or marketing is failing to show us these achievements. Based on the skill of the designers, I'm betting the latter.



Actually, I think "Options, not limitations" was the design goal for 3e. The design goal for 4e seems to be streamlining the game and making it run smoother over more levels. That might mean a rolling back of some options.


----------



## Lizard (Feb 27, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Actually, I think "Options, not limitations" was the design goal for 3e. The design goal for 4e seems to be streamlining the game and making it run smoother over more levels. That might mean a rolling back of some options.




I'm quoting Races&Classes, here.

Now, maybe the design goals CHANGED since when that book was laid out, but that was one of the original goals.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 27, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Are those people representative of the bulk of current 3e players? Are most players going to say, "Wow, I can do all these nifty things!" or "Huh, I can't do any of the things I used to be able to do."



In the case of the rogue, the key complaints seem to be:

1. Inability to trade off combat ability for non-combat ability
2. Restricted skill choices
3. Equipment restrictions

The first I see as a design philosophy. Whether you agree with it or not, the game is set up so that heroic characters are not allowed to be ineffective combatants unless the player deliberately chooses not to fight well.

I agree that the second is a restriction. However, I see it is a restriction that helps newer players (by making some decisions for them) and is trivially easy for experienced players to relax if they want to. 

As for the third, the key issue will be how important equipment (or being a rogue) is for your character concept. In some cases, e.g. using a rapier instead of a short sword, wearing chain armor, or sneak attacking with a two-handed weapon, there may be mechanical advantages that should be paid for with feats or other opportunity costs. In some cases, e.g. dealing significant damage at range, you may need to use a crossbow instead of a bow, or play a ranger instead. Some restrictions do look odd because there do not appear to be any mechanical advantages or niche protection - dealing significant damage with a club or sap, for example. Still, I'm prepared to wait and see whether these concerns are addressed in the actual 4e rules.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 27, 2008)

solkanar33 said:
			
		

> But the restrictiveness of what we do know is a surprise for me. An unpleasant one at that. I was reading all those euphoric playtest reports about what cool and varied things you could do with your character. What I see now is a staightjacketed character build system with only multiclassing as a valid way out.



Umm, I haven't read the majority of this thread, but I fail to see anything straightjacketed in that preview...?!

The three different categories of powers (daily/encounter/at will) plus what I think is the siloing we've heard about (attack/utility/defense(?)) alone make for more variety than a rogue has ever had in incarnation of D&D. On top of that you get feats, skills and racial abilities right from the start - all in PHB1.


----------



## FireLance (Feb 27, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm quoting Races&Classes, here.
> 
> Now, maybe the design goals CHANGED since when that book was laid out, but that was one of the original goals.



Ah, found it. The full text states:

"We want to maintain this philosophy into the new edition, though we can see places in the game where we might want to have some restrictions in place for play balance." (emphasis mine)

Looks like what we've got, actually. More restrictions, but still a lot of options, and some options to overcome restrictions (e.g. rapier proficiency with a feat).


----------



## solkanar33 (Feb 27, 2008)

There's nothing wrong with straightlining the rules.
But what makes this game great fun to play is (for me at least) the amount of options you have. 
There are better ways to help newcomers than tight character design. Give them pregenerated characters (and a bunch of online support!).

I (still) hope for 4E to work, to inspire me into new builds the way 3e did when I first saw those sketchy rules, to get me looking forward to its release, to want me to convert my characters asap,...

But with what we know, I don't feel any of those things. While warlords and warlocks may be cool, many people just want to see the 4E equivalent of their core barbarian, bard, druid or sorcerer not some new class they didn't ask for. It's as basic as that. 

We are now 4 months before release and basically we still know nothing. That leaves me the impression that even today there is not a finished ruleset and that some rules still need to be tampered with. It's not a comforting thought and WOTC isn't doing anything to take my worries away.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 27, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I think 3.5 paved the way for the stronger focussed classes, by the way.




I agree, but it was not a trend in 3.5 that I liked.



> In 3.0, there were next to no new core classes in the splats. But 3.5 supplements contained more of them. I think this was in realisation that some concepts just didn't work so well with the existing classes, and rather trying to make this possible with PrCs or new feats, they tried to make it work with entirely new classes.




There was some of that, I agree.  However, I think just as often classes were created from a mechanical concept and built around that.  This actually started in the PH with sorcerer.  At its heart, sorcerer is a class defined by its variation on the normal spellcasting rules.  It wasn't necessarily that you couldn't build the concept, its that mechanical variaty was being provided.  I look at classes like the Ninja and the Warlock and see mainly variant rules.  Is the Ninja necessarily a better ninja than a ninja built using a rogue?  IMO, not really.  

Classes like Knight seem to me to be built more around, 'How can we have a Knight class that is mechanically different from a knight built using the Fighter class?' than anything else.  It seems to be mechanical variation, if not for its own sake then one in large part justified by having a class named 'Knight' for people who want to play a knight.   



> 3.x generally had a problem with some classes being very broadly defined, and others were narrowly defined. Compare the Rogue to a Paladin.




I agree.  I felt that 3.X frequently confused the notion of character class with character concept.  Between that and the sometimes ill-thought out or incomplete feat trees, it frequently found itself needing variant or alternate classes to deal with a concept. 



> In 4E, instead of making the Paladin a PrC (or PrC equivalent), all classes get a narrower focus (though some classes, like the Paladin, apparently get a little braoder)




Right.  And that's valid design.  It's just that the design I wanted and expected used Rogue, Cleric, or Fighter as a template of good design, and not Paladin, Monk, or Barbarian.

In the general RPG forum, there is a dicussion over whether or not D&D is a rules heavy game.  Some site the complexity of a system like HERO and suggest that D&D is by comparison 'rules-lighter'.  However, others note that with HERO any sort of character concept can be designed from rules compiled in a single volumn, and they suggest that this means that on the whole HERO is more rules-light than D&D is.  I tend to think that both arguments have a kernel of truth in them.  A HERO character is a good deal more complicated than a D&D character.  But the simplicity that D&D gains by using a relatively inflexible character creation system has a tradeoff.  It results ultimately in higher system complexity as a whole.  Once you add in all the different possible character creation rules, D&D becomes an enormous stack of paper.   Very few of those rules will be interacting with the game at any one time, but its still not elegant in the way HERO's character creation system. 

It really doesn't matter too much to me whether WotC prints 100 core classes and 400 PrC's.  I'm not going to buy them one way or the other, so it doesn't impact me much.  But I would like to have seen a further attempt to unify multiple concepts under a single flexible class.  Third edition took the ever expanding concept of a 'specialty priest' and found a way to unify clerical concepts into a single class.  It may not have captured all the mechanical variaty of the 2E specialty priests, but it did capture the concept of almost any cleric.  From 4E I wanted to see more refinement in that direction.  Instead, it seems that we are moving back from 3E's single unified flexible classes, back towards 2E's goal of providing a class and variant class for every concept.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 27, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Instead, it seems that we are moving back from 3E's single unified flexible classes, back towards 2E's goal of providing a class and variant class for every concept.




I didn't consider most 3e classes very flexible at all. Possible exceptions would be the fighter and the core casters. The entire sum total of a fighter's class abilities was tied to pretty open feat selection. Likewise, clerics and wiz/sor were pretty much defined by spell selection which was also pretty wide open.

But ranger, barbarian, rogue, paladin, and monk were pretty much set. You didn't have a lot of variation outside your pre-defined class abilities. If you wanted to play a non-berserker barbarian, for example, you were pretty much out of luck. No way to trade in Rage for some other class ability.

It seems to me that 4e classes are much more flexible and customizable considering that all classes now have multiple powers they can choose from, in addition to feats every other level.


----------



## AllisterH (Feb 27, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> .
> * Remain viable against high-level foes (much more so than most non-spellcasters), without the balance-shattering abilities of high-level magic.
> ]




This isn't true at all. As you get higher in level, the more and more likely you face opponents simply immune to sneak attack. 

Then there's the other problem. Technically, a rogue can't sneak attack a creature two sizes larger than themselves. Well, not without the use of size changing magic.

Read the sneak attack ability carefully. You can't sneak attack limbs (a.k.a legs, arms) and a halfling shouldn't even be able to sneak attack an ogre.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 27, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I didn't consider most 3e classes very flexible at all. Possible exceptions would be the fighter and the core casters.  But ranger, barbarian, rogue, paladin, and monk were pretty much set. You didn't have a lot of variation outside your pre-defined class abilities. If you wanted to play a non-berserker barbarian, for example, you were pretty much out of luck. No way to trade in Rage for some other class ability.




Yes, but that was exactly the sort of problem I expected 4E to solve.

My problem with the barbarian was slightly different from yours though.  I wasn't so much bothered by a class whose concept was, "Warrior powered more by raw emotion than fighting skill and discipline.", although ideally speaking I would have liked to seen some variation even there.  What bothered me was that if you wanted to be "a warrior powered more by raw emotion than fighting skill and discipline" you had to accept the flavor of a wilderness primitive (and related skill choices), and conversely this seemed to imply wilderness primitives were "warriors powered more by raw emotion than fighting skill and discipline".  It was for me taking one narrow class concept - a beserker and implicitly a member of an iron age northern european - and mistaking it for a class.  Why couldn't I play a religious fanatic that was a 'warrior powered more by raw emotion than fighting skill and discipline'?  Why couldn't a play a member of a semi-secret elite warrior cult that was a 'warrior powered more by raw emotion than fighting skill and discipline'?  What about the drug crazed boxers of the boxer rebellion?  Why did I need a prestige class like 'Dwarven Defender' and all of its slight and possibly unnecessary mechanical variation?  Why couldn't barbarians be loyal to thier larger social entity and adhere to an external code by which thier actions could be judged?  And so forth.

So I agree that 3E had big problems.  But that doesn't for me necessarily defend what they are doing with 4E.  In particular, 4E seems to be designed by someone who had problems with 3E that are often quite different than the problems I had with it.  It isn't being designed with me in mind.  This is quite different than the experience I had reading 3E for the first time. 



> It seems to me that 4e classes are much more flexible and customizable considering that all classes now have multiple powers they can choose from, in addition to feats every other level.




Most of the powers seem more like feats rather than things that provide variation in the concept.  For example, you can take a variaty of different builds in Rogue, but you can't take one that trades sneak attack for the ability to skirmish like a 3E Scout which is more in line with what I thought we'd see.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 27, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Most of the powers seem more like feats rather than things that provide variation in the concept.  For example, you can take a variaty of different builds in Rogue, but you can't take one that trades sneak attack for the ability to skirmish like a 3E Scout which is more in line with what I thought we'd see.



This is the perfect example of the sort of complaint that is NOT justified at this stage of the game.

There are some things you can reasonably conclude and predict will be possible from the rogue info given.  There are some things you can reasonably conclude and predict will not be possible.

However, whether the rogue can move past a target and stab it for extra damage is precisely the sort of thing you cannot predict, because if it exists, it is almost certainly amongst the rogue's powers.  These are as of yet unknown.  Nothing indicates that skirmish-like abilities will not be available, and there is evidence that spring attack like abilities are part of the rogue's 4e concept.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 27, 2008)

Dragonblade said:
			
		

> I didn't consider most 3e classes very flexible at all. Possible exceptions would be the fighter and the core casters. The entire sum total of a fighter's class abilities was tied to pretty open feat selection. Likewise, clerics and wiz/sor were pretty much defined by spell selection which was also pretty wide open.
> 
> But ranger, barbarian, rogue, paladin, and monk were pretty much set. You didn't have a lot of variation outside your pre-defined class abilities. If you wanted to play a non-berserker barbarian, for example, you were pretty much out of luck. No way to trade in Rage for some other class ability.
> 
> It seems to me that 4e classes are much more flexible and customizable considering that all classes now have multiple powers they can choose from, in addition to feats every other level.



I guess it's "selective perception" on both sides of the fence:
Both types of classes exist in 3rd edition.
Fighter, Rogue, Cleric and Wizard where focused, but not overly so. Fighter and Rogue mirror each other well - Fighter gains extrem customisation options due to feats, Rogue due to his vast set of skills. 
Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Monk, Ranger and Paladin were very focussed. They had special abilities that made a major part of defining the characters and were not negotiable.
I think it's interesting to note that the weakly focussed classes are exactly the classes that don't seem to date back to OD&D (as far as I know, I am not a D&D history expert  ). 

At least in the case of the Rogue, 4th edition seems to aim for a narrower focus of each class. For everyone interested in varied character concept this means that each core class alone will not always be sufficient to play their concept. Which is why multiclassing is very important, and I hope we'll see a preview of that sometime soon. (But maybe we'll only see it in June?) It will also mean that 4E will rely on rules supplements as much as 3E to give everyone what he wants (just not always when he wants it, which is usually now  ).
What I hope is that the PHB I classes will cover more ground then the 3E core classes. And if not more, at least a slightly different area of it.


----------



## Dragonblade (Feb 27, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes, but that was exactly the sort of problem I expected 4E to solve.
> 
> My problem with the barbarian was slightly different from yours though.  I wasn't so much bothered by a class whose concept was, "Warrior powered more by raw emotion than fighting skill and discipline.", although ideally speaking I would have liked to seen some variation even there.  What bothered me was that if you wanted to be "a warrior powered more by raw emotion than fighting skill and discipline" you had to accept the flavor of a wilderness primitive (and related skill choices), and conversely this seemed to imply wilderness primitives were "warriors powered more by raw emotion than fighting skill and discipline".  It was for me taking one narrow class concept - a beserker and implicitly a member of an iron age northern european - and mistaking it for a class.  Why couldn't I play a religious fanatic that was a 'warrior powered more by raw emotion than fighting skill and discipline'?  Why couldn't a play a member of a semi-secret elite warrior cult that was a 'warrior powered more by raw emotion than fighting skill and discipline'?  What about the drug crazed boxers of the boxer rebellion?  Why did I need a prestige class like 'Dwarven Defender' and all of its slight and possibly unnecessary mechanical variation?  Why couldn't barbarians be loyal to thier larger social entity and adhere to an external code by which thier actions could be judged?  And so forth.
> 
> ...




I see what you are saying and I mostly agree with you. The only issue I'll raise is that if they are going so far enough to make all the Rogue abilities totally customizable, then why even have classes at all?

Would classless D&D be your ideal? I find the notion intriguing myself, but I have found that in classless games, like M&M for example, players tend to either be very unfocused, or try to be overly focused.

This is getting off topic, but in M&M, for example, I find my players try to make a jack of all trades character that can do anything, or they tend to be overly focused and make a one-trick pony character that totally breaks the game in their niche. And in neither case do they conform to classic comic book archetypes. They all want to make Super-Spider-Wolverine-man. Or they take something like Superspeed and use far-fetched pseudo-scientific explanations to justify taking half the other powers in the book as APs. I can veto this stuff as the GM, but it gets frustrating.

Ironically, I have been thinking about enforcing comic book archetypes by giving players a choice of templates and requiring them to choose one. For example, you can play the agile wise cracking hero ala Spider-man or Deadpool. Or you can play the big invulnerable tank. Not both.

Getting back on topic, I see 4e as preventing the issues with classless systems by requiring the classes to be somewhat focused, yet still allowing a wide degree of customization within the concept through power and feat selection.


----------



## helium3 (Feb 27, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Read the sneak attack ability carefully. You can't sneak attack limbs (a.k.a legs, arms) and a halfling shouldn't even be able to sneak attack an ogre.




I've never seen sneak attack implemented this way and the groups I've played in have interpreted that particular bit of rules verbiage as a way of stating that you can't sneak attack a huge sized monster from 15' away even if it's able to reach you with it's arms or slam attack.

But really, that's a question for the 3.5 forum . . .


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 27, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> This is the perfect example of the sort of complaint that is NOT justified at this stage of the game.




So you say.



> However, whether the rogue can move past a target and stab it for extra damage is precisely the sort of thing you cannot predict, because if it exists, it is almost certainly amongst the rogue's powers.  These are as of yet unknown.  Nothing indicates that skirmish-like abilities will not be available, and there is evidence that spring attack like abilities are part of the rogue's 4e concept.




Something very strong indicates that the ability to do skirmish damage is available to the rogue, that it is as an additive ability rather than an option.  Additive abilities are pretty simple.  I could easily make feats that let any class do a bonus 1d6 damage if they moved at least 10' in the turn.  It's replacement abilities that are somewhat more complex, because even if I write a feat which replaces an ability it isn't a true replacement ability, because you still have to spend the feat and a true replacement ability is simply an exchange.  

If rogues had a more general bonus damage ability, it would be referred to in the text by its more general term rather than as 'sneak attack' so that all the various abilities that interacted with it would be clearly understood.  If rogues had a more general bonus damage ablity that was configurable, it would have in all likelihood been mentioned in the description of sneak attack.  We can conjecture this because otherwise _it wouldn't be a very good design and it would be a very misleading preview_.  Since we are working with the assumption that the 4E designers aren't incompotent, this is likely to be a very strong assumption on our part and I'm comfortable in making it because if I'm wrong it makes the designers look worse than I would be made to look.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 27, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> etc, etc



I may be completely misunderstanding you.

But, if the complaint is "I want a Rogue who can hit and run like a 3e Scout," then the complaint is satisfied quite adequately with a rogue power or set of powers that allow the rogue to move in, hit, and move out, with in-game mechanics sufficient to make that a good idea.  I think there is significant evidence that this WILL be available to the rogue, because 1) moving in, dealing massive damage, then escaping is the rogue's shtick as described by the game designers, and 2) we already can see Deft Strike, which is a start on this sort of ability that seems appropriate to level 1.

Meanwhile, if the complaint is "I want a Rogue who can give up his sneak attack power to get the ability to obtain bonus damage exactly like a 3e Scout," then that demand is... I'd personally say unreasonable, but a more charitable characterization might be "awfully nitpicky."  Its like someone loudly proclaiming that they want a Wizard who can cast Fireball, being told that you CAN cast Fireball, and then rephrasing that what they REALLY want is a Wizard that casts Fireball with a big pile of d6s, not with a couple d6s and a flat bonus.  

Such a person would be entitled to their preference, but they ought to accept that to the rest of us a Wizard who casts Fireball is a Wizard who casts Fireball, and a Rogue who Skirmishes is a Rogue who Skirmishes, even if Skirmish is now a selectable at-will power that is compatible with Sneak Attack, and the mechanics are not directly ported from 3e.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 27, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> I may be completely misunderstanding you.




Quite possibly.  Several people have told me I'm hard to understand.



> But, if the complaint is "I want a Rogue who can hit and run like a 3e Scout," then the complaint is satisfied quite adequately with a rogue power or set of powers that allow the rogue to move in, hit, and move out, with in-game mechanics sufficient to make that a good idea.




In abstract, yes, I agree.  Although, from that perspective, it seems like 3E scout ought to be equally unnecessary (something I don't necessarily disagree with).



> Meanwhile, if the complaint is "I want a Rogue who can give up his sneak attack power to get the ability to obtain bonus damage exactly like a 3e Scout," then that demand is... I'd personally say unreasonable, but a more charitable characterization might be "awfully nitpicky."




Quite a few posters arguing against my ideas have said that 3E rogues weren't really flexible because they had to have 'sneak attack'.  If you wanted to play a rogue that relied on some other mechanic than sticking it to someone when thier gaurd was down, this was pretty tough.  Hense, at least in part, the existance of classes like 'Scout'.  

Right now, the way the 4E rogue is written it appears to work like the 3E design.  You must take the ability to do bonus damage whenever you have combat advantage against an opponent.  You can't trade this advantage for one of similar value, as for example, not doing bonus damage whenever you have combat advantage, but inflicting bonus damage whenever you move 10' in the round.  

Yes, I could have a feat that said, "You gain combat advantage against your target whenever you have moved X squares this round.", but that wouldn't be quite the same thing.

It does seem to me that the exact mechanic of scout doesn't port well to 4E, because of the lack of iterative attacks and the assumptions of greater mobility that it makes.  Scout is another of those classes that seems inspired by mechanical variaty for its own sake.  But the general complaint of 'why must I take specific mechanics that don't necessarily apply' to my concept still stands.  It is a fair complaint to suggest that 'sneak attack' doesn't seem really appropriate to every rogue, unless you define rogue really narrowly.  I'm personally not into having every rogue loosely inspired by Victorian English street criminals, much as I love that archetype.  I'm certainly not sure that I want as an archetype for rogue something as self-reflective as what 4E is looking like - the archetypal rogue being its own mechanically limited predecessor.


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 27, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Right now, the way the 4E rogue is written it appears to work like the 3E design.  You must take the ability to do bonus damage whenever you have combat advantage against an opponent.  You can't trade this advantage for one of similar value, as for example, not doing bonus damage whenever you have combat advantage, but inflicting bonus damage whenever you move 10' in the round.



True, but not at all the same as being unable to hit and run effectively.

Personally, I am not one of the people who thinks that "This rogue has sneak attack and that doesn't fit my Sherlock Holmes character concept!" is a logical argument, particularly when the concept is otherwise satisfied.  I think that in a game in which combat is an important part of gameplay, Sherlock Holmes + Sneak Attack + Dagger is better than Sherlock Holmes without.



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> Yes, I could have a feat that said, "You gain combat advantage against your target whenever you have moved X squares this round.", but that wouldn't be quite the same thing.



No, it wouldn't.  But what about this?

Skirmish
At Will
Full Round Action
During this round you may move up to your normal movement rate and make one melee attack.  This attack may be made at any point along your movement except that you must move at least 10 feet before the attack.  Your attack deals 1[W]+Dex damage.  Your movement during the use of this power does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
Trickster Rogue: You may instead move your normal movement plus five additional feet per point of charisma bonus you possess, minimum +1 (5 ft).
Brutal Rogue: Your attack counts as a charge, and gets the appropriate bonuses, but no penalties.

That's probably really lousy game design because I just made it up, but you get the idea.  It satisfies the criteria I have- it lets the rogue move, strike, and move away, it lets the rogue deal additional damage (+Dex, if I'm wrong on how 4e damage works and this is available for all attacks then this can be changed), and its usable at will.  And beyond that, it doesn't have to replace sneak attack- it can instead be compatible with sneak attack.  A rogue who used this ability to move into flanking position for each attack would be gaining additional damage on each hit above and beyond what's listed here.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 27, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> There's a real disconnect between the stated goals of the design ("Options, not limitations") and what they're choosing to show us (Limits, limits, and more limits.) Either the design failed to achieve its goals, or marketing is failing to show us these achievements. Based on the skill of the designers, I'm betting the latter.



That was the 3e design goals.  It's looking like the 4e designers have no problem with arbitrary limitations.  Viva la 1e!


----------



## Spatula (Feb 27, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> 6 also relies on 1, and I'd like to point out that part of the reason light blades, crossbows and slings and slings are considered appropriate for sneak attack, is that they can be disguised and hidden more easily than normal, meaning 6 isn't much of an example.



Stop, please.  You're never going to adequately rationalize the 4e rogue ability weapon restrictions with real-world logic.  A heavy crossbow is easier to disguise & hide than... a staff?  A sap?  An improvised blunt instrument (i.e. club)?


----------



## Cadfan (Feb 27, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Stop, please.  You're never going to adequately rationalize the 4e rogue ability weapon restrictions with real-world logic.  A heavy crossbow is easier to disguise & hide than... a staff?  A sap?  An improvised blunt instrument (i.e. club)?



For the sake of pedantry, the rogue is proficient with the Hand Crossbow.  It is small and concealable.  They are, quite literally, the size of a pistol, and are sometimes called Pistol Crossbows.

If a Rogue wants to use (and therefore sneak attack with) a larger crossbow, I presume he is going to have to spend a feat on it in the same manner that a rogue who wishes to sneak attack with a rapier must do the same.

I will grant that there needs to be some provision for clubbing enemies unconscious from behind.  It doesn't have to be Sap Proficiency or Club Proficiency.  It could be any particular mechanical method, such as special rules for the Sap or special rules for subdual damage versus unaware opponents.  But it does need to exist in some form.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 27, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> For the sake of pedantry, the rogue is proficient with the Hand Crossbow.  It is small and concealable.  They are, quite literally, the size of a pistol, and are sometimes called Pistol Crossbows.



I realize that, but sneak attack works with any crossbow, out of the box.


----------



## Crashy75 (Feb 27, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> That was the 3e design goals.  It's looking like the 4e designers have no problem with arbitrary limitations.  Viva la 1e!



I doubt the limits are completely arbitrary.  I remember a playtest report about a rogue that went around with a great axe because the damage was just too good.  I think they could have (and maybe they did?) made some sort of compromise.  Perhaps there is a feat that allows sneak attack with other (more damaging weapons) that does less/equal overall damage.  Also, assuming light weapons are roughly the same, they could have limited non-feated sneaks to light weapons.  Limiting it to blades does seem rather arbitrary.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Feb 27, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Right.  And that's valid design.  It's just that the design I wanted and expected used Rogue, Cleric, or Fighter as a template of good design, and not Paladin, Monk, or Barbarian.




I realize this is being nitpicky, but they're fairly obviously using Sorcerer, not Barbarians and Paladins who had almost no built in class options, only stat and feat options. Sorcerers had options and flexibility within it's base concept, but tended to not step on other classes toes quite as much the Wizard or Cleric, (and not so complicated to be irritating to play like many prepared casters)



			
				Spatula said:
			
		

> Stop, please.  You're never going to adequately rationalize the 4e rogue ability weapon restrictions with real-world logic.  A heavy crossbow is easier to disguise & hide than... a staff?  A sap?  An improvised blunt instrument (i.e. club)?



Whether or not this is true is somewhat besides the point, the point is that knives and shurikens are extremely easy to hide or disguise as other objects on your person meaning "can't use their abilities in a disguise" is untrue. (Which is obviously what I was replying to)


----------



## Stogoe (Feb 28, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> I realize that, but sneak attack works with any crossbow, out of the box.




And the rapier is a *light blade**, out of the box.  That doesn't mean he's proficient in it.

So we have: 

Take a feat, and Sneak attack with a rapier
and
Take a feat, and Sneak attack with a heavy crossbow.

Compared with "Sneak attack with a hand crossbow or a dagger, no feats required."


*EDIT: Yes, this is an assumption.  But if the rapier isn't some sort of light blade in 4e, I'll eat my hat.


----------



## Spatula (Feb 28, 2008)

Stogoe said:
			
		

> And the rapier is a *light blade**, out of the box.  That doesn't mean he's proficient in it.



I didn't say he was?


----------



## Darkthorne (Feb 28, 2008)

In regards to sneak attack "using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling" I believe it's a combination of both pinpoint accuracy and timing. The light blade is obvious to most. As for the X-bow (or subset thereof) the bolt is held in place, your mobility isn't affected much then you aim and pull the trigger. Compared to using a bow (which I have used) requires more concentration, endurance becomes a factor (not necessarily a huge one, but one none the less) against a moving target. As for the sling the only thing I can think of is that it is a small projectile (bullet) hitting a small specific area (which a lot of people could see as a stretch). I also think they downplayed the damage as that was the one main thing the 3.5 rogue had going for it in regards to combat (unless VS, undead, elemental, oozes, armor or fortification etc.) and gave it new abilities that can be used against multiple foe types.

For the 2 preselected skills I don't see this as an issue. I have a group of relative newbies, which one guy was very excited to put together a sniper (was not familiar with the rules) and he put together a ranger with ZERO ranks in spot. Needless to say he wasn't doing much recon. If I remember correctly WOTC mentioned you could focus more in trained skills (I could be wrong) so having a base amount in freebie skills seems to be a non issue.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 28, 2008)

I'm just glad to see slings get some love.

They are terribly undervalued weapons in most RPGs and Wargames.


----------



## hong (Feb 28, 2008)

I'm happy to see CROSSBOWS get some love! Now that the full attack is gone, maybe people will actually start using crossbows now instead of machine-gun archers all the time.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 28, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I'm just glad to see slings get some love.
> 
> They are terribly undervalued weapons in most RPGs and Wargames.




I'll praise them for this when and only if I see them get the range increments for various weapons right.  All of the ones in 3E were too long, _except_ for the sling.

STRIKE!


----------



## TwinBahamut (Feb 28, 2008)

Darkthorne said:
			
		

> In regards to sneak attack "using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling" I believe it's a combination of both pinpoint accuracy and timing. The light blade is obvious to most. As for the X-bow (or subset thereof) the bolt is held in place, your mobility isn't affected much then you aim and pull the trigger. Compared to using a bow (which I have used) requires more concentration, endurance becomes a factor (not necessarily a huge one, but one none the less) against a moving target. As for the sling the only thing I can think of is that it is a small projectile (bullet) hitting a small specific area (which a lot of people could see as a stretch). I also think they downplayed the damage as that was the one main thing the 3.5 rogue had going for it in regards to combat (unless VS, undead, elemental, oozes, armor or fortification etc.) and gave it new abilities that can be used against multiple foe types.



I will agree with this.

The new sneak attack seems to be based on the idea of being able to seize a very brief window of opportunity with a quick attack. Knives and other "light blades" are the stereotypical kings of this kind of thing, so obviously they will be used for sneak attacks. Crossbows work because, despite their slow reload time, they can be triggered quickly, even on the run. I imagine that in a different technological period guns would also work as sneak attack weapons (I think Indiana Jones pretty famously uses a gun to sneak attack a swordsman ). Having never used a sling or seen one used, I really don't know why they are useable with sneak attack... I guess to give them a niche and to help associate them with the stereotypical Halfling Rogue.

I can't imagine using a bow with a sneak attack because it is hard to seize a quick opportunity with a bow. In order to hit accurately with a bow, you need to slow down and bring your whole body into a proper position to fire. It requires focusing every muscle in your body into a set pattern in order to pull off a stable draw and smooth release of the arrow. I think bows would be great weapons for long range sniping attacks, but that is hardly the same thing as it being good for a quick shot at a moment of weakness.

As for other weapons... I think few melee weapons are quite as quick and subtle as the knife, and certainly greatswords, axes, clubs, spears, and staves are not. I can't imagine any of them being really good for striking precisely in the blink of an eye and sneaking an attack past the opponent's defenses, simply by virtue of being to heavy or requiring too large and obvious of a wind up to the attack.

I guess I have no problem justifying the rogue weapon list, other than figuring out the sling, I guess. I would be more inclined to remove the sling than to open up the list further.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman (Feb 28, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> I'm just glad to see slings get some love.
> 
> They are terribly undervalued weapons in most RPGs and Wargames.




And I was glad to see daggers get some love! The premier weapon of the backstabbing bastard.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 28, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> I'll praise them for this when and only if I see them get the range increments for various weapons right.  All of the ones in 3E were too long, _except_ for the sling.
> 
> STRIKE!




Um, not really.

The current record on a sling toss is 477+ yards.  According to the SRD the longest potential range for a sling bullet is 500 _feet_.

That record is far less than the distances ancient commentators recorded for the sling, and no matter how you trace their accuracy and judgement of distance classical commentators were pretty universal in praising the effective range of slings over bows.

If the range increments are simply determined by taking the maximum possible miracle shot range and then dividing it by ten, the sling is heavilly underrated.


----------



## Li Shenron (Feb 28, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think it's a half full/half empty thing. Instead of obsessing over the things you can't do, why not focus on the things that you can do instead?




Ehm... that's exactly the attitude I've been trying to keep through all my years of gaming in 3ed. The result? I'm still enjoying 3.0 and didn't even need to switch to 3.5!


----------



## Imp (Feb 28, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> As for other weapons... I think few melee weapons are quite as quick and subtle as the knife, and certainly greatswords, axes, clubs, spears, and staves are not. I can't imagine any of them being really good for striking precisely in the blink of an eye and sneaking an attack past the opponent's defenses, simply by virtue of being to heavy or requiring too large and obvious of a wind up to the attack.



Dude, look up escrima on Youtube for clubs – you can also find videos of large swords, spears (well, not so much longspears), and especially staves being brought to bear with the kind of speed and precision you'd want to imagine a sneak attack employs. Also working against a knife in those kinds of situations is reach.

Basically, it's easier to just plain ignore the whole idea of weapon verisimilitude, I've decided. 

It _is_ nice that previously neglected weapons are getting love in the new edition. I had to houserule slings into having a point in 3.5e.


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Feb 28, 2008)

I do have to say that one of the things I think sneak attack should do in a more general sense is provide love for small weapons.

A two-handed sword should already be doing most of the damage sneak attack provides.

A special knowledge of anatomy and the value of surprise is going to provide diminishing returns for a weapon that's essentially a perfectly balanced, razor sharp, I-beam.

Not hitting a major organ is going to be the difficult point.

For a dagger or light blade, it's not that they're better weapons for sneak attack it's that sneak attack represents the training you need to use those weapons as effectively as any proficient user can use a Bastard Sword.

It's more Rogues knowing how those weapons should be used and that providing the extra compensatory sneak attack damage, rather than Rogues knowing those are the weapons you should use for sneak attacks.


----------



## IceFractal (Feb 28, 2008)

I notice a lot of people have been mentioning multiclassing as a solution to narrow class roles.  While it _may_ be a solution, all the information I've heard up to this point is somewhat contrary to that.  

What it seems like, based on the mention of the Class Training feats, is that you can't do 3E-style "Rogue 5/Fighter 5" style multiclassing.  Instead, you have a class, and then you can use feats to get specific abilities from other classes (might be almost all their abilties, might be just a few).  So right off the bat, you're going to be burning a lot of feats if you want anything like an even split - it's better suited to, in 3E terms, dipping.

Secondly, there's the issue that if other classes are limited to specific weapons like the Rogue is, their abilties won't have any practical synergy when multiclassed.  If I'm trying to multiclass Fighter and Rogue, but the Fighter abilties are geared to polearms, maces, and heavy swords, then they don't really combine at all.  Which was the reason 3E caster-multiclassing sucked, BTW - having two abilities you can use one at a time isn't the same as having two abilties that synergize, or one stronger ability.  


Now I may be wrong on this - the information released has been limited, and things may have changed since then.  However, there's equally no indication that you can do anything like a 3E multiclassed hybrid.  So I don't think it's a relevant solution at the present time.


----------



## hong (Feb 28, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> I notice a lot of people have been mentioning multiclassing as a solution to narrow class roles.  While it _may_ be a solution, all the information I've heard up to this point is somewhat contrary to that.
> 
> What it seems like, based on the mention of the Class Training feats, is that you can't do 3E-style "Rogue 5/Fighter 5" style multiclassing.  Instead, you have a class, and then you can use feats to get specific abilities from other classes (might be almost all their abilties, might be just a few).  So right off the bat, you're going to be burning a lot of feats if you want anything like an even split - it's better suited to, in 3E terms, dipping.




No, it's better suited to, in 3E terms, cherry-picking. Besides, you don't know just how many class abilities the multiclassing feats get you.



> Now I may be wrong on this - the information released has been limited, and things may have changed since then.  However, there's equally no indication that you can do anything like a 3E multiclassed hybrid.  So I don't think it's a relevant solution at the present time.




Of course it's relevant. The whole point of multiclassing is to do what you're talking about: create something that isn't covered by the base classes individually. The instant you hear anyone say "no, you CAN'T multiclass", it becomes irrelevant.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 28, 2008)

IceFractal said:
			
		

> I notice a lot of people have been mentioning multiclassing as a solution to narrow class roles.  While it _may_ be a solution, all the information I've heard up to this point is somewhat contrary to that.
> 
> What it seems like, based on the mention of the Class Training feats, is that you can't do 3E-style "Rogue 5/Fighter 5" style multiclassing.  Instead, you have a class, and then you can use feats to get specific abilities from other classes (might be almost all their abilties, might be just a few).  So right off the bat, you're going to be burning a lot of feats if you want anything like an even split - it's better suited to, in 3E terms, dipping.
> 
> ...



The mechanical details of multiclassing might be different from 3.0, but that doesn't mean it's less useful (or more  ). 

The problem in understanding the implications of the new multiclassing system is that we're
1) still stuck (or at least best familar) with the 3E approach on multiclassing. 
2) don't know enough about the 4E multiclassing system. 

In 3E, the cost for multiclassing was spending a full character level. You got a full class level in return.
In 4E, the cost for multiclassing might be a feat. You get a subset of class abilities in return. 

It is different. But it's hardly possible to say which is superior. We know that the 3E system had weaknesses: 
- Front-loaded classes lead to cherrypicking, but also getting abilities you didn't care for and might not fit your intentions. 
- Spellcaster multiclassing lead to characters that were ineffective.


----------



## Crashy75 (Feb 28, 2008)

Sure we are stuck in the 3.x box but what else do we have to go on?  When I use the term 'class' among non-gamers I understand that they will assume I am referring to the R/L definetion.  When a dev uses the term 'multi classed' to us (s)he has to know most of us will assume that (s)he means something very similar to our 3.x experience.  (and in 3.x taking an angry feat, for example did not make you a m/c barbarian.)  Using the term with such a different meaning is intentionally deceptive.


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 28, 2008)

Dr. Strangemonkey said:
			
		

> If the range increments are simply determined by taking the maximum possible miracle shot range and then dividing it by ten, the sling is heavilly underrated.




I'm struggling to understand why this is a contridiction.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 28, 2008)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> Sure we are stuck in the 3.x box but what else do we have to go on?  When I use the term 'class' among non-gamers I understand that they will assume I am referring to the R/L definetion.  When a dev uses the term 'multi classed' to us (s)he has to know most of us will assume that (s)he means something very similar to our 3.x experience.  (and in 3.x taking an angry feat, for example did not make you a m/c barbarian.)  Using the term with such a different meaning is intentionally deceptive.



IIRC, AD&D also had multiclassing and dualclassing. How close is that to 3.x multiclassing rules?


_... intentionally deceptive ... _
I am always tempted to pick the Angry Posting feat or even a Berserking Board Member level when I read stuff like this. It's a baseless accusation that does nothing except insulting others (in this case - like too often, when I see it - the guys at WotC).


----------



## Celebrim (Feb 28, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> IIRC, AD&D also had multiclassing and dualclassing. How close is that to 3.x multiclassing rules?
> 
> _... intentionally deceptive ... _
> I am always tempted to pick the Angry Posting feat or even a Berserking Board Member level when I read stuff like this. It's a baseless accusation that does nothing except insulting others (in this case - like too often, when I see it - the guys at WotC).




Errr....mmmmm....the thing is, I can understand why the poster thinks that it is deceptive.  He might have been 'angry posting' when he shouldn't have, but his underlying point is sound once you take away some of the unnecessary spittle flinging.

Yes, he should not overreach and speculate on the reasoning and motivation of the designers, but taking a feat to gain access to another classes skills or per encounter abilities is in fact nothing like multiclassing in 3.X, or even 1e or 2e, to the point that calling it multiclassing is in fact highly misleading.  My elfin thief 5/M-U 4 in 1e was fully a thief 5 and fully a M-U 4.  A wiz4/rog5 in 3.X was fully both a rogue and a wizard.  Anyone with prior experience in any edition of the game is going to initially understand multiclassing to mean things like, 'Having the full benefits of more than one class' and 'Not being any more a member of class X than class Y, save to the extent of disparities in levels between the classes.'


----------



## Crashy75 (Feb 28, 2008)

I seemed angry?  Must be the avatar.    I assume they are not being deceptive and m/c is more than just a feat.  EDIT:  I see.  I should have said, "... would be deceptive."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 28, 2008)

Crashy75 said:
			
		

> I seemed angry?  Must be the avatar.    I assume they are not being deceptive and m/c is more than just a feat.  EDIT:  I see.  I should have said, "... would be deceptive."



What a luck I didn't waste a precious feat slot on Angry Posting then.  

But what other name should they give it? It is the 4E implementation of "having abilities of other classes", which was previously called dual/multi-classing. 

And I think the implementation makes a lot of sense - if most class abilities are now packaged in powers, you really don't need much else besides taking a feat and getting a power different from your class. (If that's what the feats do. It might be different, but I hope it comes at least close  ).


----------

