Does anyone else find it odd that the Rogue powers all restrict your weapon selection? Surely lack of proficiency is enough to balance out the powers?
The one that most concerns me is the ranged weapons. You must have a crossbow or sling. One of the elf races gets free proficiency with bows (short and long i believe) but because of the wording of the powers you cannot use a short-bow. I see nothing that would imbalance this usage of a bow? What if I want to play a multi-class ranger/rogue who is an archer; must I use a crossbow?
The same idea applies to something light light hammers vs light blades. I suppose this make more sense intuitively, but still makes little since from a balance perspective.
Granted this is simple to house-rule but my group would like to try things using the rules as written for a while. Does anyone see a mechanical reason for these restrictions?
Not really. Rogues have restricted weapon proficiencies to start with. I don’t see why they *need* to be punished if they want to pick up something else with feats. I would not allow it if they use bows and are not proficient though.
Bows are kind of non-sneaky, maybe that is the reason that crossbows are there - I don’t really know why they limited it like this. There is no longer any game mechanical difference between bows that would favor or disfavor xbow or normal bows. There used to be in 3.5e when you could not get any stat bonus to xbow damage - I am glad that is gone.
I still recommend to take rapier proficiency as a feat if you want something heavier for a melee rogue.
I could just allow normal bows for rogues as a house rule, I see no trouble with that.
I believe the concept behind this design is to keep rogue powers rogue-focused. In this case, limiting the powers to be used only by designated ‘rogue-type’ weapons ensures that multi-classing doesn’t become the ultimate exploitation of these designs. If these powers didn’t have that kind of limitation, then it would encourage too many players to take advantage of this kind of character building because it would be optimally better than not doing so. Multi-classing should be an option, not an optimal standard the way it was in 3rd Edition.
That said, I think the best way to address this in a fair and balanced manner (speaking in game terms, of course) is to introduce a feat that will allow a specific character to bend the rules towards his advantage. For example, a Sniper Bowman feat will allow a character who is proficient with a longbow or shortbow to work around this restriction. Just don’t make it cheap and give it away at first level, either. This may be better suited as a Paragon Tier feat when true multi-classing begins. Just a thought.
Like Rothe indicated, even a short bow (which by comparison is what most bows made today are) is not sneaky in any way. A long bow even less so. Try taking a compound bow down the street without it getting noticed. Then try taking something like a sawed-off shotgun. You’ll note that the shotgun is a lot more concealable.
Well put Louminator. Rothe, what you said reminded me of another issue I was pondering with 4e - two-weapon fighting. I was wondering my Rangers were the only class to make use of it and that there was a good reason (I feel) for rogues to make use of it. But after reading your response it dawned on me, they do. They carry two weapons to be able to use the best weapon for the situation. I am probably wrong, but that’s how I’d play it and it make me happy, so
Well put Louminator. Rothe, what you said reminded me of another issue I was pondering with 4e - two-weapon fighting. I was wondering my Rangers were the only class to make use of it and that there was a good reason (I feel) for rogues to make use of it. But after reading your response it dawned on me, they do. They carry two weapons to be able to use the best weapon for the situation. I am probably wrong, but that’s how I’d play it and it make me happy, so
This actually brings up an interesting point…
Ever since 2nd Edition (IIRC), two-weapon fighting has become a signature of the ranger class for some unexplainable reason other than “it just is”. Now, it’s become the exclusive class feature of rangers, forsaking all other classes from using that ability as effectively or in the same manner. At least, that’s my understanding as far as I’ve read thus far.
Not trying to derail the thread, but it does reinforce the idea that certain abilities and functions of the past are now being fully owned by a single class, which seems to better define them. On the downside, clearer definitions usually mean less room for interpretations, and hence cries about restrictiveness, lack of options, and so forth. There was definately a price to pay for it, but for some, it is a worthwhile price.
Jim you make a great point, but he was a fighter first (not sure if 2nd was out when the dark elf trilogy hit so that might), a class that is now defensive. I am wondering, now, how characters like Drizzt and to a greater extent Zak will be classified. The concept of a Striker with no real fluff or utility to their features, just hit often and hit hard. But that is derailing...sort of.
The reason I said sort of is to expand on my previous point. There are two feats that make two weapon fighting worth while, especially for a rogue - sorry but I forget their names and I’m at work so I’ll just summarize. There is the feat that adds +1 to attacks if you have two weapons and one that adds +1 AC/ref. Now compare this to just wielding your main weapon; works nicely but no benefit except for the free hand which helps most implement users. Add a light shield and you have that same bonus as one of the feats (with minor penalties), add a heavy shield and you get a great bonus but you loose the free hand (with considerable penalties). Use a second weapon and you loose your free hand so I will compare it to a heavy shield; you can get half the defensive bonus but a equally good offensive bonus, but at the cost of feats. This seemed off balanced to me (even if you don’t suffer the penalties), but Rothe’s comment sent my mind down a path where it dawned on me, you also get the option of having two weapon types which (power choice depending) greatly increase your combat options.
All in all it seems balanced to me now, but it is odd that there would be feats that hint that martial combat is not just a single blow or swing (unless you are to think of it as your offhand just adding distraction/defense...which is lame), but then Ranger powers break it down to just such a level. It works, but it’s just odd.
Louminator - 18 June 2008 04:04 PM
Not trying to derail the thread, but it does reinforce the idea that certain abilities and functions of the past are now being fully owned by a single class, which seems to better define them. On the downside, clearer definitions usually mean less room for interpretations, and hence cries about restrictiveness, lack of options, and so forth. There was definately a price to pay for it, but for some, it is a worthwhile price.
I would beg to differ, though only slightly. I don’t this they are being fully owned, just mostly owned. The question I am waiting to see be answered is if mostly might as well be fully.
For a rogue, two weapons are great if you use a magical main hand weapon and then something that you can (and dare) to throw in the other - most likely a dagger to get the +1 AC from the feat. They might both be daggers, or maybe main hand weapon could be a rapier. This way you can use both ranged and melee powers without having to switch weapons.
Jim you make a great point, but he was a fighter first (not sure if 2nd was out when the dark elf trilogy hit so that might), a class that is now defensive. I am wondering, now, how characters like Drizzt and to a greater extent Zak will be classified. The concept of a Striker with no real fluff or utility to their features, just hit often and hit hard. But that is derailing...sort of.
The books began during 2nd Edition. The rules then did not allow for the multi-classing versatility that 3rd Edition offered, so he was allowed nothing more than ranger status back then. Obviously, they afforded themselves a different interpretation when the new ruleset arrived, giving him more options to redefine his development (i.e. character build). And now that I’ve been reminded of where the two-weapon ranger model originated from, I’m pretty certain that this current model is even more influenced by that literary figure/abomination. My guess is to appease every dork and dorkess who’s ever thought, printed, or uttered those damning words: “I want to play a character like Driz’zt!”. (It just so happens, they’re likely the same people who said playing dragonborn and tieflings was so cool, it just HAD to be in the next edition!)
I would beg to differ, though only slightly. I don’t this they are being fully owned, just mostly owned. The question I am waiting to see be answered is if mostly might as well be fully.
I’ll consider it only mostly owned since other classes can still wield two weapons to some effect. However, I haven’t noticed any other classes with powers that let them utilize the two-weapon style as effectively as the ranger does. The two-weapon style is now more of a class feature for the ranger and is still offered the same options to enhance his usage through feat selections just like any other class. He’s only sharing very little this time.
That’s for the time line, that does change things from my perspective. I can’t fault WotC for designing to the fanbois that will home a completest mentality towards D&D and buy every source and splat book they release, but I can sure find it annoying.
Louminator - 19 June 2008 09:23 AM
I’ll consider it only mostly owned since other classes can still wield two weapons to some effect. However, I haven’t noticed any other classes with powers that let them utilize the two-weapon style as effectively as the ranger does. The two-weapon style is now more of a class feature for the ranger and is still offered the same options to enhance his usage through feat selections just like any other class. He’s only sharing very little this time.
That’s true, and it just goes as more evidence towards an attempt to appease the drizztaholics - the love/hate people have for that character has really ruined in some ways for me a collection of stories I really enjoy (if for no other reason they are the reason I found D&D and TSR/WatC and RPGs).
Kind of full circle, back to the rogue. How is TWF much different then backstab? If it isn’t which one is implemented incorrectly (where’s my backstab feat)? From a fluff perspective this question has merit but from a balance perspective (I’ve failed home brewing my own systeme enough times that) I understand why they made the decisions they made.
Oddly, Drizzt was given a level of Barbarian in 3E to explain away “The Hunter” mindset. I’ve never thought of it as a rage, so that bothered me.
IIRC in 2E Drizzt was dual classed fighter at like 18th level and then retrained all his levels into ranger. after he met Mooshie. But then, you have to take R.A. Salvatore’s word for good when he said that it’s stupid to try to pigeonhole Drizzt into classes.
I actually liked the first 3 or 4 Drizz’t novels.
I got bored of them when they started repeating themselves too much.
I also got older and noticed how shabby the content of the later books is compared to some actually good
(fantasy) literature.
Regarding TWF vs. backstab. I agree. Both are things that take training. Why would you get full training to either with feats? Or why not? The 4E system of multiclass feats is good enough to grab some TWF or sneak attack, but not fully steal them from the other classes.
Kind of full circle, back to the rogue. How is TWF much different then backstab? If it isn’t which one is implemented incorrectly (where’s my backstab feat)? From a fluff perspective this question has merit but from a balance perspective (I’ve failed home brewing my own systeme enough times that) I understand why they made the decisions they made.
Not sure I understand what you’re getting at. Two-weapon fighting and backstabbing implies two different things, unless you’re referring to the feat benefits: Two-weapon Fighting and Backstabber. Two-weapon Fighting gives you a +1 bonus to damage with your main weapon, but it doesn’t allow you to make two attacks. Backstabber increases your sneak attack dice from d6 to d8, which is an entirely different mechanic altogether.
Keep in mind that two-weapon fighting does not allow you to make two attacks. You still have to choose which weapon you are striking with, designating one as the main and the other as the off-hand. And you only gain the +1 damage bonus IF you actually have the two-weapon fighting feat. Rangers do not have this feat for free, but they do have the unique advantage of being able to wield any one-handed weapon in their off-hand AND have specific powers that allow them to make secondary attacks with their off-hand weapons.
Backstabbing, or Sneak Attack, allows the Rogue to add a significant amount of damage if a) he is using a rogue-style weapon (i.e. light blade, crossbow, or sling when b) he has combat advantage over an enemy. He can only do so once per round, but if a character takes the Student of Shadow multi-class feat, he is allowed to do this once per combat.
By contrast, a character that multi-classes into the ranger class gains a similar ability, called Hunter’s Quarry; not the two-weapon fighting style. But if he takes the other feats that allow him to swap his class powers for Ranger powers, then he’ll have access to some of those two-weapon abilities. We no longer get all the starting benefits of a class just for taking a level here and there, which was really a major flaw in 3e design. It really spoiled the fanbase, much like dark elf rangers and things of that nature.
(I don’t even know if I’m on-topic anymore. Little help?)
What I meant by difference is not in the affect of the ability but in the sort of training needed to utilize it.
Another example would be casting rituals...no one expects a non-caster (though this term is somewhat obsolete now) to be able to use rituals without a feat, just as it isn’t unexpected that TWF requires feats (ignoring the bonus Rangers receive; and pardon the double negative). My point was to imply that maybe the sneak attack ability should be acquirable (to a limited extent) via feats as well. Though then you have to answer, where does it end???
The same thing can be said about any ability for any class. I wanted to drive discussion towards finding out where that magical line was on what are expected feats and what are expected to be class features. All these questions come up when you have classes (why I’d prefer to have a classes system, but you make other concessions then that more people have issue with...like the loss of a feeling of accomplishment as “level becomes subjective).
Technically we should be talking about rogue weaps and abilities but Rothe pretty much nailed that in the 2nd post so I’m happy where we’re at.
