In the three sessions that I played of 4e, I wanted to play a con-artist that used a longsword. The GM was kind enough to allow me to use the stats for a dagger, but in the game world it appeared to be a longsword.
This was a solution, but for me, not a very elegant one. I could have thrown my longsword, for instance.
I found it very frustrating to be married to the dagger. Sure, I could throw away a feat and gain proficiency with the longsword, but I would loose a feat plus a +1. In addition, I would not be able to use any of my powers with it.
Has anyone else been frustrated by this? How did you work around it?
The Rogue's weapon restrictions can be limiting if you really really want to play a Rogue, but don't want to use the weapons they are built to utilize.
As a DM, I'd have recommended maybe choosing a different class and multiclassing into Rogue, or possibly using a shortsword instead of a longsword. Perhaps a better resolution would have been to let you use the stats of a shortsword but skin it as a longsword in game.
The difference you're talking about is +1 to hit or +1 to damage (on average) when looking at dagger v shortsword as a Rogue.
Also, another possibility, would be to use a feat to get rapier prof (which is effectively the same as a longsword) but skin it as a longsword ... perhaps the ultimate setup?
Cheers! :)
I had not thought of the rapier gambit. Thanks.
Now, about a bow…
I think it is the flavor that irks me the most. I can understand the need for balance, but none of the arch-typical rogues I like to envision rely so heavily on the dagger. I felt like I was playing a pre-generated character.
Playing a con-man made me pretty much useless in the campaign since I was not filling my appropriate role of trap-finder/disarmer and was a real drag on the rest of the party.
|
I think it is the flavor that irks me the most. I can understand the need for balance, but none of the arch-typical rogues I like to envision rely so heavily on the dagger. I felt like I was playing a pre-generated character.
Playing a con-man made me pretty much useless in the campaign since I was not filling my appropriate role of trap-finder/disarmer and was a real drag on the rest of the party.
What about rolling a human fighter multiclass into rogue and use your second feat to get the bluff skill trained? Then at 2nd level you'll get another feat to add insight.
In the three sessions that I played of 4e, I wanted to play a con-artist that used a longsword. The GM was kind enough to allow me to use the stats for a dagger, but in the game world it appeared to be a longsword.
This was a solution, but for me, not a very elegant one. I could have thrown my longsword, for instance.
I found it very frustrating to be married to the dagger. Sure, I could throw away a feat and gain proficiency with the longsword, but I would loose a feat plus a +1. In addition, I would not be able to use any of my powers with it.
Has anyone else been frustrated by this? How did you work around it?
Out of curiosity what if you chose a weapon proficiency for your 1st level feat is there anything preventing you being able to use a Long Sword as a result of this?
I did not understand the multi-classing. It seemed you just got one of the other class’s feats.
All of the Fighter’s powers were very ‘front line’ and I liked the Rogue’s powers that allowed CHA to add to damage for obvious reasons. I considered the Warlord, I do not remember why I did not try that.
How about an "Urban" Ranger? Multi-class into Rogue at 1st level for the sneak attack 1/encounter and the training in Thievery. Spend your second level feat for Bluff (I can't remember if rangers can have training in Insight).
Don’t really need the Sneak Attack. If I play again, I might check out the Urban Ranger.
I did not understand the multi-classing. It seemed you just got one of the other class’s feats.
All of the Fighter’s powers were very ‘front line’ and I liked the Rogue’s powers that allowed CHA to add to damage for obvious reasons. I considered the Warlord, I do not remember why I did not try that.
For the initial Multi-class feat, yes. You gain a trained skill and class power. (It also opens up the other classes paragon paths).
Then, you can spend additional feats to swap out your normal class's powers with powers from your new class.
So if you were a fighter multiclassing into rogue, and wanted that nifty 3rd level encounter power from the rogue, then you spend a feat and would have the rogue encounter power instead of a fighter power. (You are alos not stuck with that power from then on, but can change which power you swap at every time you level up so it will stay current as you level up.)
In total, you can spend up to four feats on multiclassing. The initial feat, and a power swap feat for encounter, daily, and utility powers.
Thanks for the explanation. Fighter/Rogue seems much more viable now.
I found it very frustrating to be married to the dagger. Sure, I could throw away a feat and gain proficiency with the longsword, but I would loose a feat plus a +1. In addition, I would not be able to use any of my powers with it.
Has anyone else been frustrated by this? How did you work around it?
Perhaps I have missed it, I admit I have not read the rogue very closely, but where does it say you cannot use a longsword with your various powers?
When I read it, I saw the class bonus to hit and damage for daggers as simply a way to level the playing field between the dagger and the long sword, so that people playing a rogue would not feel forced into take a proficency feat to have a accurate weapon, but could instead stick with the more traditional rogue weapon of dagger.
After all, longswords have that very nice +3 proficency bonus to hit, where as daggers are +2, and the bonus point of damage balances out the larger damage die the longsword gets. (Mostly anyways.)
Thanks for the explanation. Fighter/Rogue seems much more viable now.
Glad I could help. I quite like the way they've handled multiclassing, but if you miss the part about the power swap feats it looks like a really cruddy deal.
Playing a con-man made me pretty much useless in the campaign since I was not filling my appropriate role of trap-finder/disarmer and was a real drag on the rest of the party.
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that your choice to focus your character on out of combat abilities limited your in combat abilities? Because 4th ed seems to be explicitly designed to avoid this very thing.
In fact, this seems to be the very character the Artful Dodger rogue was designed to emulate. You gain all sorts of benefits form your high Cha. You get skill training in Stealth and Thievery for 'free' so you can use your other choices for Insight, Bluff, Intimidate and Streetwise. Take Weapon Proficiency: Rapier with your first level feat, and you have a solid character that can both perform his role as a striker, and also fits your concept of the con man. And he does all this from level 1.
So I just don't get your comment that playing a con-man made you useless in the campaign. Or is these something else that I am missing?
Perhaps I have missed it, I admit I have not read the rogue very closely, but where does it say you cannot use a longsword with your various powers?
A lot, if not most, of the rogue powers require the use of a "light blade".
It is specified in the powers.
A longsword is not a light blade.
|
Or create a Feat that allows it to use a non-light weapon for Sneak Attack.
Of course, there is the Issue that most "heavier" weapons use STR instead of DEX.
Either you go with DEX for all weapons or you use STR to hit and DEX for damage. with rogue powers.
Fluff explanation: Instead of using the gaps between the armor as you would do with a dagger, you cut through it with your heavier Longsword, but then you push it directly into the enemies' vital organs.
Mechanic implications: Most rogues will have a higher Dex than Str. So most likely most rogues will have a lower Attak Bonus with the heavier weapon but a higher damage due to the higher average (4.5 for LS and 2.5for dagger).
What do you think?
Perhaps I have missed it, I admit I have not read the rogue very closely, but where does it say you cannot use a longsword with your various powers?A lot, if not most, of the rogue powers require the use of a "light blade".
It is specified in the powers.
A longsword is not a light blade.
Yah, I checked my book when I got home last night and was a bit surprised by just how many of the powers had that restriction. Since I had only read the basics and not the powers, I totally missed this part of the rogue. It's a bit annoying story wise, since you are limited in the kind of weapons they can weild, but then again all the weapons you get are rogue themed weapons.
Course, then I went and looked at what Light Blades actually exist, and I'm less annoyed. There are several light blades, the Dagger, Short sword, and Rapier being the most prominant.
The Short sword has a +3 to hit and does 1d6 damage.
While the Dagger has a +4 to hit and does 1d4 damage in the hands of a rogue. That's extreamly baanced, since you either get a +1 to hit or a +1 to average damage. And it makes the dagger a viable choice for a rogue, where without that bonus there would be absolutly NO reason to play the classic dagger weilding rogue. If you took a dagger over the short sword and didn't have the hit bonus, you'd be crazy. For the rogue, they're a balanced choice.
Is that a bit annoying for CourtFool, who wants to be weilding a nice big sword? Yah, I can see his point. But the rapier can fill that need, while still be thematic for the rogue, and frankly there's a whole lot of people who find the idea of doing a sneak attack with a halberd as crazy talk.
In the end I think it washes out as far as annoyance goes, as it prevents you from being a Longsword weilding rogue, but it also prevents backstabbing with huge axes.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I'm not a 4e player, but it seems odd to remove the Rapier from the Rogue's weapon list - especially since it is a light weapon that could be used with the Rogue's powers.
As a DM, I would probably house rule the inclusion of the Rapier on the Rogue's weapon list to allow Court Fool to play his character as he envisioned.
I'm not a 4e player, but it seems odd to remove the Rapier from the Rogue's weapon list - especially since it is a light weapon that could be used with the Rogue's powers.
As a DM, I would probably house rule the inclusion of the Rapier on the Rogue's weapon list to allow Court Fool to play his character as he envisioned.
The reason is that the Rapier is now a Superior weapon, (what replaced the exotic weapon category) meaning nobody has the proficency with it from the start.
And to be fair, it is a clearly superior sword when compaired to other Light blades. It does 1d8 and has a +3 proficency bonus. That makes it stronger then any other light blade, and more versitale then the longsword would be since you could swap which stat you used for the attack.
They've made a big push to prevent that kind of "one sword is always better then the rest" syndrome that occurs in 3rd edition.
Are you saying that your choice to focus your character on out of combat abilities limited your in combat abilities?
No. I am saying that since I did not focus on Thievery (yes, I still got it Trained for free but I did not bump the base stat and add Skill Focus) and the adventure was yet another dungeon crawl, I was useless.
I would have been happy with the rapier skinned as a longsword approach.
Are you saying that your choice to focus your character on out of combat abilities limited your in combat abilities?No. I am saying that since I did not focus on Thievery (yes, I still got it Trained for free but I did not bump the base stat and add Skill Focus) and the adventure was yet another dungeon crawl, I was useless.
[skritches head] Hmm. must have been in the early days, before the tables were changed to lower the DC's by about 5 each. They were too high before. Our "shadowfell" group couldn't do crap till the errata came out. DC 20 to Balance on a wooden plank my ass.
DC 20 becomes DC 15, and the Dex 16 rogue with the net +8 needs a 7. Tough stuff that's a 20 DC would be a 12 or better, which isn't great, but doesn't suck either.
Definately, you need to point the GM toward the errata.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
I'm not a 4e player, but it seems odd to remove the Rapier from the Rogue's weapon list - especially since it is a light weapon that could be used with the Rogue's powers.
As a DM, I would probably house rule the inclusion of the Rapier on the Rogue's weapon list to allow Court Fool to play his character as he envisioned.
The reason is that the Rapier is now a Superior weapon, (what replaced the exotic weapon category) meaning nobody has the proficency with it from the start.
And to be fair, it is a clearly superior sword when compaired to other Light blades. It does 1d8 and has a +3 proficency bonus. That makes it stronger then any other light blade, and more versitale then the longsword would be since you could swap which stat you used for the attack.
They've made a big push to prevent that kind of "one sword is always better then the rest" syndrome that occurs in 3rd edition.
Wow! That's quite a buff for the Rapier. I can see why they make you take a feat for it.
I would have been happy with the rapier skinned as a longsword approach.
It's a good choice. A Rapier that looks like a Longsword (same stats, just a Rapier is a light blade). You're giving the +1 to hit with daggers back, but you're getting the +2 average damage.
FWIW, the Bastard Sword and the Greatsword have the same basic stats, so our Dragonborn Paladin visualizes wielding a Greatsword in one hand rather than just using the Bastard Sword.
My Ranger on the other hand, definately wants the visual of two one handed swords.
No. I am saying that since I did not focus on Thievery (yes, I still got it Trained for free but I did not bump the base stat and add Skill Focus) and the adventure was yet another dungeon crawl, I was useless.
I'm sorry, I still don't really understand the problem. You are a rogue, as long as you start off with a 16 in Dex, a not unreasonable assumption, you should be able to fulfill your role in the party just fine, both in combat, and as a trap smith.
Now with 2 stat bumps every 4 levels, there is no reason not to bump Dex and Cha at every opportunity, and in fact that is exactly what an artful dodger should be doing.
This is the advantage of 4th edition, you get your role in the party for free, you can now actually take feats and options that are more story or roleplaying focused, rather than needing to spend all of them on raw combat ability.
Also, the role of the rogue has subtly shifted in 4th. No longer are you just a skill monkey and trap smith. You are now also a striker. Even without never disarming a single trap, you should still have more than held your own in combat, in fact in the 4th ed game I am Dming, the rogue is by far the highest damage dealer. In a dungeon crawl, that would seem like the most important element.
|
Thanks for the explanation. Fighter/Rogue seems much more viable now.
Except, you still can't sneak attack with the longsword or use any rogue powers with the longsword, which is very annoying and unsatisfying. I understand the need for balance, but I think the limitation on what weapons can be used with sneak attack and rogue powers goes too far into the pigeonholeing all rogues into dagger-wielding sneaks. Untyped bonuses to hit are too hard to come by in 4E to give up because you would like a rogue that uses a sword instead of a dagger. Why should I be punished if I want to play a rogue that doesn't want to use daggers all of the time?
|
|
Except, you still can't sneak attack with the longsword or use any rogue powers with the longsword, which is very annoying and unsatisfying.
The limit on weapons for sneak attack makes quite a bit of sense. Sneak attack is about speed and agility. Why should a rogue be able to sneak attack with a maul or great axe?
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Except, you still can't sneak attack with the longsword or use any rogue powers with the longsword, which is very annoying and unsatisfying.The limit on weapons for sneak attack makes quite a bit of sense. Sneak attack is about speed and agility. Why should a rogue be able to sneak attack with a maul or great axe?
A great axe is a little extreme, but why shouldn't a Rogue be able to sneak attack with a long sword or a maul? They're one handed weapons that aren't that difficult to wield.
Personally, I can't wait until they come up with a 4E version of the sap (I hope they will.) I enjoyed playing a rogue who didn't want to kill his foes, just thump them unconscious.
Thanks for the explanation. Fighter/Rogue seems much more viable now.Except, you still can't sneak attack with the longsword or use any rogue powers with the longsword, which is very annoying and unsatisfying. I understand the need for balance, but I think the limitation on what weapons can be used with sneak attack and rogue powers goes too far into the pigeonholeing all rogues into dagger-wielding sneaks. Untyped bonuses to hit are too hard to come by in 4E to give up because you would like a rogue that uses a sword instead of a dagger. Why should I be punished if I want to play a rogue that doesn't want to use daggers all of the time?
Well, there is some pigeon holing going on, but Light Blades is not just daggers. Rogues have a half dozen swords and dagger types they can use with their attacks, and i think they can also use things like the sickle. (Don't have my books, so can't be sure right now.)
The bonus to daggers is just designed to make them a viable option for the rogue.
A great axe is a little extreme, but why shouldn't a Rogue be able to sneak attack with a long sword or a maul? They're one handed weapons that aren't that difficult to wield.
Well, as crosswiredmind says, it's about the speed and agility of the weapon involved in using the weapon. While a long sword and maul may be one handed weapons that aren't difficult to wield, they are used in a very different style then something like a rapier. A dagger or rapier does it's damage by striking in vital locations and bypassing armor. The longsword and maul rely upon impact to do damage more then they do about hitting a specific spot. You can see that difference reflected in the fact that a person using short sword has the option of using Dex to attack, not Str.
Do I think that using a Longsword or Maul for sneak attack would in any way break the game? Nope. And I wouldn't be surprised to see a feat called something like "Brutal Sneak" that allowing a rogue to to use all one handed weapons to make a sneak attack.
This is just a case of theme, and to some degree balancing, dictating what weapons a rogue can use.
Personally, I can't wait until they come up with a 4E version of the sap (I hope they will.) I enjoyed playing a rogue who didn't want to kill his foes, just thump them unconscious.
Well then your wait is already over. The basic combat rules have changed with regards to knocking folks unconscious in battle. When a PC strikes the blow that drops a monster, you always have the option of making it a non-lethal blow. No more penatlies to hit when pulling your punches like in 3rd edition.
It was a pretty small rule change, designed to remove the nessesity for things like subdual damage, and a lot of folks have missed it.
|
|
A great axe is a little extreme, but why shouldn't a Rogue be able to sneak attack with a long sword or a maul? They're one handed weapons that aren't that difficult to wield.
Have you ever swung a long sword? They are not finesse weapons. Oh, and in 4e the maul is a great hammer - not a one hander. Even so - bludgeoning weapons are all about the big smash.
If you get the Adventurer's Vault you'll find even more light blades (albeit, they are superior weapons), such as the kukri.
Or a character that wields a bastard sword in the main hand and a dagger in the offhand - when they have combat advantage, they stab the enemy using rogue powers and getting Sneak Attack. When they don't have combat damage, they use some multiclassed fighter powers and the bastard sword for the bigger damage die. Not the most optimized builds, sure, but certainly viable ones.
Actually... I think that combo could work really well. In the Adventurer's Vault there's a new kind of Dagger called a Blocking dagger. It's one of the new defender items that gives you a bonus to AC like it was a shield when using it in your off hand, and it counts as a dagger for the rogue to hit bonus.
Since rogue's can't use shields, a longsword/blocking dagger might make a really great combo. Use the dagger for your rogue powers, and the longsword whenever you have to make a basic attack like when you charge or make an oppertunity attack. Add in the bonus AC from the dagger and you'd be looking at a pretty good combo there.
|
|
Now, I think there are weapons that would be reasonable (balance and flavor wise) to allow to be used for Sneak Attack despite not currently being on the list. You could make arguments for Unarmed Attacks, Improvised Weapons, Clubs, Short Bows, Longswords... and some would agree with you, and others might not. But the rules clearly could allow for more weapons to be used for this purpose.
Except... a line needs to be drawn somewhere. And focusing on specific categories - Slings, Light Blades, Crossbows - gives a very reasonable starting point. And one that encourages rogues to use appropriate weaponry, instead of running around with mauls. And it leaves them open to make exceptions on a case by case basis - Martial Power might include an "Eladrin Rogue" feat that lets Eladrin sneak attack with Longswords, or a "Dirty Fighter" feat that lets you sneak attack with improvised weapons and unarmed attacks. Or it might not - but I'd prefer to start with the clear-cut restrictions and then add exceptions rather than throw balance to the winds right out of the gates.
Now, don't get this wrong - a rogue can still wield a longsword or a longbow or a maul. They just can't Sneak Attack with those weapons. You could build a rogue/fighter hybrid who fires off a hand crossbow at the start of combat, nailing a few enemies through the eye - and then breaks out his greataxe and wades into the fray. Or a character that wields a bastard sword in the main hand and a dagger in the offhand - when they have combat advantage, they stab the enemy using rogue powers and getting Sneak Attack. When they don't have combat damage, they use some multiclassed fighter powers and the bastard sword for the bigger damage die. Not the most optimized builds, sure, but certainly viable ones.
Yeah, a rogue could use weapons besides light blades, slings, etc. if he wants to do nothing but use basic attacks with no extra sneak attack damage, thereby gimping himself into utter uselessness. There are practically no rogue powers (maybe completely none) that let you use "non-rogue" weapons. This is far from a viable concept. It is pigeonholeing in the extreme, and should be done away with. You'd think that the least they could do is put a feat in the PHB to let a rogue use his powers with any one-handed weapon or possibly have some rogue powers that state that brawny rogues can use a non-rogue weapon with the power.
|
|
Yeah, a rogue could use weapons besides light blades, slings, etc. if he wants to do nothing but use basic attacks with no extra sneak attack damage, thereby gimping himself into utter uselessness. There are practically no rogue powers (maybe completely none) that let you use "non-rogue" weapons. This is far from a viable concept. It is pigeonholeing in the extreme, and should be done away with.
So there is your first house rule.
Character classes in 4e are thematic. This is not 3.5 where characters are built by selecting level combinations from numerous classes until you mix them in some optimized form or another.
If you want to be a martial archer in 4e you need to be a ranger. If you want to be a longsword wielding con artist you need to be a fighter with the bluff skill.
For better or worse class customization is more limited in 4e than it was in 3e.
There are a number of ways to go about it - a fighter or ranger with the right feats, the right skills and the right attitude. A rogue multiclassing into those classes for powers, perhaps choosing ones designed for their weapon - Armor-Piercing Thrust from the PHB for a spear wielder, or Hesitation Slash from the Mithrendain article for someone who uses a heavy blade.
However, in this case it would mean having a significant chunk of your abilities be for weapons that are not the weapon they are focused on if it were a rogue multiclassing into fighter or ranger. It isn't like there are any rogue non-utility powers (in the PH) can be taken that could be used with spears.
What I prefer is what the fighter powers do. It isn't like using Armor-Piercing Thrust requires a spear or light blade. However, it does give a extra benefit for those that chose those.
That is what I would have preferred to see for rogue powers. Or at least for a handful of them.
|
|
Fafhrd would be a very unhappy rogue in 4th and Grey Mouser would have to spend a lot of Feats for his multiclassing and the Rapier proficiency...
Anyway, I think in the new edition we have to clearly distinguish between the Character Concept and the Class Role of a PC.
To Illustrate this, I will try to put classes to the two Iconic Rogues of Fritz Leiber.
The obvious choice seems to be rogue for both.
But that does not really fit somehow.
- Fafhrd is easier to create as a Dual-Blade Ranger. His weapons are the Longsword Greyawand and the Dagger Heartseeker. He clearly hs some outddor skills due to his living in the northern wilderniss. But the rest of his skills are clearly urban.
So here we have to change the trained skills he can take to the roguish ones.
And already we have Fafhrd who relies more on his great strength than on his also considerable Dexterity.
- Grey Mouser is clearly a rogue. A Ranger would fit because he uses a Rapier (Scalpell) and a dagger in his off hand weapon (Cat's Claw). But he relies more on Dexterity than on strength. So we give him the Rogue powers. Although he was a Wizards apprentice, he never uses magic. So we just give him traning in arcane knowledge.
Done.
To create a Great Axe wielding roguish PC I suggest to take the Fighter Class but change his skillset to that of a rogue.
As to the powers: Change the Flavour Text. From "spinning sweep" to "crafty hamstring": "Crouching you swing your weapon with perfect accuracy and hamstring your opponent".
Of course there is still the armor issue. Scale Mail won't do for a roguish PC. Use Leather but do not act like a defender (ie. enemy lodestone) but as a Striker. Now you should be effective in combat and have a roguish skill set.
|
|
You could build a rogue/fighter hybrid who fires off a hand crossbow at the start of combat, nailing a few enemies through the eye - and then breaks out his greataxe and wades into the fray. Or a character that wields a bastard sword in the main hand and a dagger in the offhand - when they have combat advantage, they stab the enemy using rogue powers and getting Sneak Attack. When they don't have combat damage, they use some multiclassed fighter powers and the bastard sword for the bigger damage die. Not the most optimized builds, sure, but certainly viable ones.
You know, that actually sounds like a fun character concept. Might have to combo that with the Tempest build from Martial Power.
Yeah, a rogue could use weapons besides light blades, slings, etc. if he wants to do nothing but use basic attacks with no extra sneak attack damage, thereby gimping himself into utter uselessness. There are practically no rogue powers (maybe completely none) that let you use "non-rogue" weapons. This is far from a viable concept. It is pigeonholeing in the extreme, and should be done away with. You'd think that the least they could do is put a feat in the PHB to let a rogue use his powers with any one-handed weapon or possibly have some rogue powers that state that brawny rogues can use a non-rogue weapon with the power.
So, what you're saying is that unless a class is designed to allow things that are totally outside the concept of the class, then they are badly designed? I'll get right on my lance weilding Wizard then.
Your claim of pigeonholeing is frankly just wrong. Light Blades is not just the Dagger. Rogues have an array of thematic weapons which work with their powers, and they even made the most classicly underpowered weapon of the dagger viable for the rogue. Even some of the double weapons can be used with rogue powers, since their off hand side is a light blade.
If you want to weild a long sword, weild a dagger in the other hand. That's a very classic rogue combo, and you'll get the best of both worlds, using the longsword for basic attacks and the dagger for your
rogue powers.
If you want to be a single sword weilding rogue? Then the rapier is for you, just like it always has been.
Well then your wait is already over. The basic combat rules have changed with regards to knocking folks unconscious in battle. When a PC strikes the blow that drops a monster, you always have the option of making it a non-lethal blow. No more penatlies to hit when pulling your punches like in 3rd edition.It was a pretty small rule change, designed to remove the nessesity for things like subdual damage, and a lot of folks have missed it.
Thanks for the catch. I know some folks would poke me for not being as thorough as I should be...
Honestly, though, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I like the image of a rogue carrying around a blackjack, and there's not much reason to do this by 4th ed rules, if you can KO anyone with anything, without penalty. I know, I could houserule it, or just give the sap the same stats as a dagger or rapier and call it a sap, but it's... meh. Not the same, somehow.
|
|
Yeah, a rogue could use weapons besides light blades, slings, etc. if he wants to do nothing but use basic attacks with no extra sneak attack damage, thereby gimping himself into utter uselessness. There are practically no rogue powers (maybe completely none) that let you use "non-rogue" weapons. This is far from a viable concept. It is pigeonholeing in the extreme, and should be done away with. You'd think that the least they could do is put a feat in the PHB to let a rogue use his powers with any one-handed weapon or possibly have some rogue powers that state that brawny rogues can use a non-rogue weapon with the power.So, what you're saying is that unless a class is designed to allow things that are totally outside the concept of the class, then they are badly designed? I'll get right on my lance weilding Wizard then.
Your claim of pigeonholeing is frankly just wrong. Light Blades is not just the Dagger. Rogues have an array of thematic weapons which work with their powers, and they even made the most classicly underpowered weapon of the dagger viable for the rogue. Even some of the double weapons can be used with rogue powers, since their off hand side is a light blade.
If you want to weild a long sword, weild a dagger in the other hand. That's a very classic rogue combo, and you'll get the best of both worlds, using the longsword for basic attacks and the dagger for your
rogue powers.If you want to be a single sword weilding rogue? Then the rapier is for you, just like it always has been.
The rogue class, as well as every core class should be designed to portray an archetype, but should be broad enough for a reasonable amount of customization. 4E makes characters conform to a tightly defined, constraining class. Want to use a longsword or your fists to hit things in the vitals? Sorry you can't. Want to be good with a bow? You have to be a ranger. Want to fight with two weapons and have it mean something mechanically? You have to be a ranger. It just seems way too restrictive.
The rogue class, as well as every core class should be designed to portray an archetype, but should be broad enough for a reasonable amount of customization. 4E makes characters conform to a tightly defined, constraining class. Want to use a longsword or your fists to hit things in the vitals? Sorry you can't. Want to be good with a bow? You have to be a ranger. Want to fight with two weapons and have it mean something...
Then you have a radically different idea of what reasonable customization amounts to then I, and evidently the designers, do. I can think of six weapon combos of the top of my head that allow someone to use a long sword and still use their rogue abilities.
Long sword / Dagger
Long sword / Short sword
Long sword / Shruikens (for the ninja out there)
Long sword / Hand Crossbow
Long sword / Blocking dagger
Long sword / Spiked shield
And there are other's I'm sure, and that's assuming you don't just take the Rapier and use that.
We both agree that a class should be defined by an archetype, and that's what 4th edition has done. I think the rogue class does a good job of displaying the archtype of the trickster or thug-like theif.
And using a longsword is simply not part of those themes. Nor is using your fists to hit vital points. they go directly against that archtype of the Rogue. That's much more like a fighter or a monk, not the rogue. Are you seriously claiming that unarmed combat is in any way themeatic with the rogue?
They don't have all the archtypes covered yet, and that's quite annoying. There is no monk yet for the unarmed combatant, or a second class which is good with the bow. But saying that the rogue class is badly designed because it does not allow you to build an adventurer which go directly against the archtype of the rogue is stretching things.