4th Ed D&D

[Imperial Overlord]

Crossbows make sense in character for rogues. Real world it takes a lot of time and effort to get good with bows. What kind of city-scum is spending his time at an archery range? Ranger-boy, raised in the country and hunting his own game is a different story. Crossbows are much easier to learn, thus the ranged weapon of rogues.

[lPeregrine]

The paragon path is not mandatory. You can continue to take additional features of your second class or get the benefits of the paragon path. That's a choice.

And what if I only want to continue my second class for a couple more levels? Why should I have to give up the other 8 levels of my paragon path?

The class abilities are balanced within context of overall class performance. Basically, if you're playing a wizard you're giving up things like AC and hit points to be able to smash whole groups at range with your encounter and daily powers, as well as having powerful utilities.

That's assuming I'm playing a standard wizard. What if instead, I'm playing a fighter who has trained in magic to gain access to spells that benefit his melee combat abilities?

And it is at least 9 levels of suck for arcane trickster. Low levels suck for a wizard and you'll be trapped there for some time. In addition, you'll be a semi-competent rogue. You'll spend you're first nine levels unde rperforming and your next nine catching up. Under performing with low hit points and AC. That's a lot more than 9 levels of suck.

Try looking beyond fireball and think about all of the nice utility spells a wizard gets at lower levels. Especially for a rogue, there are plenty of nice ones to have, and even more of them in the various extra books.

Besides, some of us have priorities besides making the absolute most powerful character possible.

It's playable, survivable, but its shitty game design for your character to have to reach 15th level to be on an even footing with the rest of the party just because you wanted to play a Gray Mouser type.

As opposed to 4E, where you can't even do it at all? How is it good game design to go from "possible, but a little weak" to "not possible"?

Asking that the DM decrease the difficulty of encounters is concession that its a bad build.

No, it's a choice of game style. If my group wants to make interesting, but possibly less-powerful characters, it's perfectly reasonable for the DM to reduce the encounter difficulty to reflect that choice. It's no different than a DM observing that the players favor diplomacy and subtle tricks to direct combat, and avoiding "kick the door down, kill everything in the room" type encounters.

[lPeregrine]

Crossbows make sense in character for rogues. Real world it takes a lot of time and effort to get good with bows. What kind of city-scum is spending his time at an archery range? Ranger-boy, raised in the country and hunting his own game is a different story. Crossbows are much easier to learn, thus the ranged weapon of rogues.

And that's what Weapon Proficiency: Longbow represents, the time invested in training for a weapon your background hasn't prepared you to use.


Or, if you're going to appeal to a description to rules translation based on the official class description: what about elves? It explicitly says in their racial description that they are proficient with bows, and have a culture that strongly favors practice with them. Why does an elf rogue suddenly forget all of this?

[Hotfoot]

The problem is how much you have to pay. Compare:

3E: Switch classes at any time, the only price is that you don't advance in your first class.

This completely underscores the fact that certain classes, such as rogue, wizard, cleric, etc. only worked well if you played them to completion. A 20th level wizard or cleric who could not cast 9th level magic was at a huge disadvantage compared to one who could. In fact, the ONLY way to make multiclassing worth a damn in 3.x was to abuse classes that gave huge bonuses in the first two levels and lame-ass prestige classes. In other words, only abuse of a broken system allowed for "Good" multiclassing. In comparison, multiclassing in 4e is much more streamlined, less all-or-nothing, and much more customizable. Instead of having to stay in a class for X levels to get the ability that makes you super-badass, you just pick up two feats and boom, you have the ability. Shit, you want a fighter that can sneak and pick locks? Don't bother with the multiclassing feats, just get skill training twice, once for stealth, and once for thievery. This means a human fighter can get this at first level, and BAM, you're done. No need to pick up sneak attack, or rogue abilities, just get what you want and be done with it.

Now, let's look at what you have to pay in 4th Edition to get the same benefit:

And I'll show you how it's better than 3.x

1) At least two of your existing class features, which are traded for new class features.

And you get free abilities that you wouldn't otherwise have on top of those. Shock, that you would have to GIVE UP abilities you might otherwise get by diversifying. Same shit happens when you multiclassed in 3.x Give up levels in spellcasters, lose spell levels. In Fighter? Lose feat progression. In anything else? Lose special abilities that are class-based. You. Slow. DOWN. That is the price you pay for getting abilities you would not ordinarily get. HOWEVER, instead of swapping high level abilities for shitty low level abilities, you can swap out same-level abilities, which is actually BETTER for you in the long run.

2) Three feat slots. It would be bad enough just having to give up existing abilities, but now you also have to waste 3 feats to do it, costing you even more of your primary class's ability.

Oh no! You have to give up something to get something! Given that you now have several more feats in 4e than 3.x, this isn't that bad, and I would posit that you SHOULD have to give up something to have a fighter who casts fucking fireballs. You're going for versatility, not specialization. The same thing happened in 3.x, by the by, as you had to burn feat slots, skill points, etc. to qualify for the prestige classes that made multiclassing worth a damn.

3) Your paragon/epic path. After all that, now you're finally allowed to have a second class. Too bad you permanently give up advancing in your first class to get it, even if you decide you're finished with the second class and want to work on the primary again.

Um, no. You're just wrong, that's not how it works. You get to choose.

So in short: what you could do for free in 3E, now you have to pay a huge price to do in 4E.

You have a very, very funny idea as to what is "free".

And the lack of higher-level abilities wasn't so bad in 3E, since you had a nice selection of prestige classes. Sure, Wizard 10/Rogue 10 would be pretty weak, but Wizard 5/Rogue 3/Arcane Trickster 12 works just fine.

As IO noted, there is a long period of suck along the way. Prestige classes were often horribly written and balanced, and while some were modestly competitive at max level, they were, overall, shit that was used to patch an overly broken multiclassing system, and did so poorly.

Well, three base-class characters, maybe. But when you consider prestige classes, it's often mandatory to have two base classes, then the prestige class is a third. In 4E, I guess it's less of a problem, since there are no prestige classes, but it does remove your paragon path and epic destiny options. Why? There's no good reason, it's just an arbitrary limit.

Again, no it doesn't. Paragon paths and epic destinies are not removed through multiclassing. In fact, it actually DOUBLES the paragon paths available, and gives you even MORE options.

Why the false dillema here? Who said a character can't have both? Like it or not, some character concepts require abilities from multiple classes to make them work. Obviously you can also do stupidly powerful stuff with rules exploits, but that's where a little thing called DM judgement comes in. Who cares if something like Pun-Pun is technically allowed by the rules, any sane DM is just going to say "that's nice, come back with a real character".

You claimed that somehow having characters with lots of versatility somehow makes them deep. That's bullshit. The depth and "character" of a character is not defined by what they do, but who they ARE. Superman is a character who can do fucking near anything, but he's a boring piece of shit compared to any number of other heroes. You're so focused on making overpowered bullshit that you've lost sight of that.

In 3.x, I couldn't make a fighter who could pick locks or sneak around without massively underpowering the character (or maybe overpowering with a retarded prestige class). In 4e, it's pretty organic, like I said, a human at first level can do it just fine. If I want to continue the concept and go with a guy who does a little dirty fighting from time to time, I could swap in the rogue-multiclass feat, keeping the skill training, but getting a bunch of abilities for free, without giving up any of my fighter abilities. If I then see any rogue abilities I like, I can take them with a feat, which I wouldn't otherwise be able to do. I can also pick up a rogue paragon path, for free.

And you don't think catching someone from behind with a giant axe is going to leave them open to a nastier than normal hit?

That's a flanking bonus, or surprise, or any number of things. Sneak attack is using your agility to slip a blade into a weak spot. Quite simply, a big fucking hammer doesn't slip into weak spots, it's not physically possible. Deal with it. I'm sure there will be a feat later on that will let you use a different weapon with it, but as they have described it, it makes sense. Maybe if you actually tried some practice weapon combat you might better understand this, but whatever.

Or for an even more pointless limit, why are crossbows allowed, but bows not? There's absolutely no reason, besides the fact that crossbows are a "traditional rogue weapon", and bows aren't.

Um, crossbows are easier to aim than bows, for starters? They penetrate armor better? I mean are you really serious? I guess if you've never used any of these weapons and knew nothing about them, you might make that argument, but really? That's just silly. Admittedly, it's silly that they included slings, but crossbows? No, that actually makes sense.

And your point is? Increasing base weapon damage slightly is not a game-breaking effect, especially when a rogue probably has to spend a feat for proficiency with that weapon.

It sure as hell can be. If suddenly rogues can use hand and a half or two-handed weapons, or weapons with high crit ranges, shit can get absolutely crazy. Listen kid, I'm not the addle-brained GM that lets you get away with your usual stupid-ass powergaming bullshit, and I don't know if you're trying to be clever and failing, or if you're really that stupid, but don't pretend there aren't consequences for this shit later on.

A better change would be just increasing the price, so it's not practical to use it every time there's a trap in your path. Limiting it to destinations with pre-set teleport markers makes it an almost completely useless spell. Now teleport has gone from "interesting strategic option that needs to be less-frequently used" to "how to carry all of your loot back to town to sell".

Increasing in price simply means that you get more money to do it. That's not an appropriate solution, as monty-haul games are rife in D&D. Being able to teleport anywhere you fucking well please is OVERPOWERED, full stop.

[lPeregrine]

You have to give up something to get something! Given that you now have several more feats in 4e than 3.x, this isn't that bad, and I would posit that you SHOULD have to give up something to have a fighter who casts fucking fireballs. You're going for versatility, not specialization. The same thing happened in 3.x, by the by, as you had to burn feat slots, skill points, etc. to qualify for the prestige classes that made multiclassing worth a damn.

Who cares if you have more feats in 4E than in 3E. All that means is now the expected power level for a character is based on that new higher number of feats. Losing three feat slots for blank "feats" still costs you heavily. Who cares if you'd be better than a 3E character in some way, you aren't competing with that character.

And you DO give something up: advancement in your primary class. So you're a fighter who can cast fireballs... that means you already gave up a fighter ability of equivalent power, even with a straight swap.

Um, no. You're just wrong, that's not how it works. You get to choose.

Read the damn book. Page 208:

If you have the Novice Power, Acolyte Power, and Adept Power feats for a class, you can choose to continue to gain powers from that class rather than take a paragon path.

Note it says "rather than TAKE" a paragon path, not "rather than advance a paragon path". In other words, multiclass beyond the swap feats, and you aren't allowed to start a paragon path.

Now, if this is somehow supposed to mean that you can do both, it's incredibly poor wording.

Again, no it doesn't. Paragon paths and epic destinies are not removed through multiclassing. In fact, it actually DOUBLES the paragon paths available, and gives you even MORE options.

No, it explicitly says that you are not allowed to take a paragon path if you multiclass beyond the three swap feats. Read the book please.

You claimed that somehow having characters with lots of versatility somehow makes them deep. That's bullshit. The depth and "character" of a character is not defined by what they do, but who they ARE. Superman is a character who can do fucking near anything, but he's a boring piece of shit compared to any number of other heroes. You're so focused on making overpowered bullshit that you've lost sight of that.

Repeating the false dillema doesn't make it any less of one. There is no either-or choice between "versatility in game rules" and "depth of roleplaying character". There's no rule that says "if you make a fighter who casts fireballs, you are not allowed to have an interesting personality". However, you DO have to have versatility in rules classes to properly create some roleplaying concepts.

That's a flanking bonus, or surprise, or any number of things. Sneak attack is using your agility to slip a blade into a weak spot. Quite simply, a big fucking hammer doesn't slip into weak spots, it's not physically possible. Deal with it. I'm sure there will be a feat later on that will let you use a different weapon with it, but as they have described it, it makes sense. Maybe if you actually tried some practice weapon combat you might better understand this, but whatever.

And again, who cares about the real world. The 4E rules clearly describe various non-rogue abilities that invovle accurately hitting weak spots in a target's armor or defense that work with any weapon.

Yeah, sure, if you take the narrowest possible definition of "sneak attack". That big hammer won't slip into a weak spot, but it'll work just fine when you sneak up behind someone and break their spine.

And it's not a flanking bonus. A flanking bonus represents an opponent that is surrounded, but aware of both opponents. They become easier to hit because their attention is split, but they don't become completely helpless. That's entirely different from someone who doesn't even know they're about to attack, and can't even make the slightest attempt to reduce the damage.

Um, crossbows are easier to aim than bows, for starters? They penetrate armor better? I mean are you really serious? I guess if you've never used any of these weapons and knew nothing about them, you might make that argument, but really? That's just silly. Admittedly, it's silly that they included slings, but crossbows? No, that actually makes sense.

Who cares about the real world. This a fantasy game, not the real world. And in this fantasy game, there are non-rogue abilities that very clearly refer to accurately hitting a weak point in a target's armor or defense for extra damage. There is absolutely no reason that these other classes can do it with a weapon, but a rogue can't do it with the same weapon.

Listen kid, I'm not the addle-brained GM that lets you get away with your usual stupid-ass powergaming bullshit, and I don't know if you're trying to be clever and failing, or if you're really that stupid, but don't pretend there aren't consequences for this shit later on.

Did you even bother reading what I said before posting that little rant? I very clearly said that increasing base weapon damage is an advantage, it's just not that much of one. If I wanted to powergame and make a broken character, I wouldn't be wasting my time with a rogue with an axe.

Increasing in price simply means that you get more money to do it. That's not an appropriate solution, as monty-haul games are rife in D&D. Being able to teleport anywhere you fucking well please is OVERPOWERED, full stop.

How is increasing the cost NOT a solution? If using a teleport spell to teleport past the traps and grab the loot costs as much as the loot you gain, who is ever going to bother with it? Now, maybe it needed other limits, but there's a middle ground between "massively overpowered" and "completely useless".





As for the rest, yes, prestige classes and multiclassing in 3E needed some work. That doesn't mean this was the correct solution.

[Imperial Overlord]

Who cares if you have more feats in 4E than in 3E. All that means is now the expected power level for a character is based on that new higher number of feats. Losing three feat slots for blank "feats" still costs you heavily.

If feats are common, it costs you less than if they are rare. This is simple shit. Especially when the feats allow you to have abilities that you would otherwise not possess. And why should min-maxing and gaining the abilities of another class be free? You're adding capabilities that would otherwise be impossible for your character, capabilities that disrupt the balance between classes as written. A cost is to be expected.

And you DO give something up: advancement in your primary class. So you're a fighter who can cast fireballs... that means you already gave up a fighter ability of equivalent power, even with a straight swap.

Um, no. You're just wrong, that's not how it works. You get to choose.

He's comparing it to 3.X where you give up full levels for power swaps which made it much more expensive. You know, the option that you were calling superior.

You claimed that somehow having characters with lots of versatility somehow makes them deep. That's bullshit. The depth and "character" of a character is not defined by what they do, but who they ARE. Superman is a character who can do fucking near anything, but he's a boring piece of shit compared to any number of other heroes. You're so focused on making overpowered bullshit that you've lost sight of that.

Repeating the false dillema doesn't make it any less of one. There is no either-or choice between "versatility in game rules" and "depth of roleplaying character". There's no rule that says "if you make a fighter who casts fireballs, you are not allowed to have an interesting personality". However, you DO have to have versatility in rules classes to properly create some roleplaying concepts.

A poor dodge. The versatility is still there. You're complaint has no basis in anything but wanting to be powered up through broken prestige classes.

And then there's you're whole "sneak attack with a hammer bit" which I'm not going to bother to cut and paste, complete with blurring the lines between a sneak attack and attacking a helpless foe. That's naked min/maxing of fighter and rogue abilities and completely ignoring the flavor of slipping a rapier or a dagger through a gap in the armour by giving the same bonuses to a two handed hammer. That's raping fluff and game rules in an attempt to min-max.

There's other abilities to precision strike with weapons, you argue. Well, why yes there are. Use the ones appropriate to giant hammers, not the ones designed for stilettos.

This is worth repeating, because its so true:

Listen kid, I'm not the addle-brained GM that lets you get away with your usual stupid-ass powergaming bullshit, and I don't know if you're trying to be clever and failing, or if you're really that stupid, but don't pretend there aren't consequences for this shit later on.

And back to teleport:

Increasing in price simply means that you get more money to do it. That's not an appropriate solution, as monty-haul games are rife in D&D. Being able to teleport anywhere you fucking well please is OVERPOWERED, full stop.

How is increasing the cost NOT a solution? If using a teleport spell to teleport past the traps and grab the loot costs as much as the loot you gain, who is ever going to bother with it? Now, maybe it needed other limits, but there's a middle ground between "massively overpowered" and "completely useless".

Can't you fucking read? Cost increase isn't a solution if the players have money to burn. And in too many games, they have money to burn.

As for the rest, yes, prestige classes and multiclassing in 3E needed some work. That doesn't mean this was the correct solution.

It sucked, unless you could start the campaign at level X, where the prestige class was worth it and you didn't have to struggle through levels with lousy feats and two under powered classes. A multiclass character should be a viable choice at low level and it shouldn't be a game breaking overpowered munchkin at high level because you figured out how to combine two classes and two more prestige classes in some ridiculous manner.

[Hotfoot]

Who cares if you have more feats in 4E than in 3E. All that means is now the expected power level for a character is based on that new higher number of feats. Losing three feat slots for blank "feats" still costs you heavily. Who cares if you'd be better than a 3E character in some way, you aren't competing with that character.

The method itself is more efficient than the 3.x way of doing things, and lets you create a character who is comparable in power throughout development, not at level 20 with the aid of a retarded prestige class, and guess what, if feats are more common (they are) and less powerful overall (they are), then losing three isn't that bad.

And you DO give something up: advancement in your primary class. So you're a fighter who can cast fireballs... that means you already gave up a fighter ability of equivalent power, even with a straight swap.

Oh no, you don't get double powers! You clearly have no idea how retardedly overpowered THAT would be if you're seriously arguing that. Moreover it's not like you forgo advancement in your class. Every time you level, you can retrain an ability, skill, or feat for free, plus the times you can replace them.

Read the damn book. Page 208:

If you have the Novice Power, Acolyte Power, and Adept Power feats for a class, you can choose to continue to gain powers from that class rather than take a paragon path.

Note it says "rather than TAKE" a paragon path, not "rather than advance a paragon path". In other words, multiclass beyond the swap feats, and you aren't allowed to start a paragon path.

Now, if this is somehow supposed to mean that you can do both, it's incredibly poor wording.

Did you miss the part about "Choose"? Does that word mean nothing to you? In fact, if you KEEP reading, you'll see it reads as what you can choose to gain at each milestone. Translation, STFU already.

No, it explicitly says that you are not allowed to take a paragon path if you multiclass beyond the three swap feats. Read the book please.

On the very first perk, it says you count as that class for the purposes of choosing a paragon path, you illiterate fuck.

Repeating the false dillema doesn't make it any less of one. There is no either-or choice between "versatility in game rules" and "depth of roleplaying character". There's no rule that says "if you make a fighter who casts fireballs, you are not allowed to have an interesting personality". However, you DO have to have versatility in rules classes to properly create some roleplaying concepts.

It's not a false dilemma, you irritating rash of a man. You specifically cited characters who can do lots of things as, and I quote, "interesting" and "non-traditional". I said that interesting characters are not defined by what they can do, but who they are. You can't grasp this simple fucking concept. This is likely because you are a powergaming simpleton. The VERY FIRST THING you run to when thinking of an interesting character is what they can do, which shows what an utter lack of depth you have.

And again, who cares about the real world. The 4E rules clearly describe various non-rogue abilities that invovle accurately hitting weak spots in a target's armor or defense that work with any weapon.

Oh for the love of fuck. Sneak attack is a natural ability of rogues they can use any time they have an opening, using a specific style of weapon.

Yeah, sure, if you take the narrowest possible definition of "sneak attack". That big hammer won't slip into a weak spot, but it'll work just fine when you sneak up behind someone and break their spine.

What happened to "ignoring the real world"? Is that something you only cite when it's useful to your argument?

And it's not a flanking bonus. A flanking bonus represents an opponent that is surrounded, but aware of both opponents. They become easier to hit because their attention is split, but they don't become completely helpless. That's entirely different from someone who doesn't even know they're about to attack, and can't even make the slightest attempt to reduce the damage.

Um, you're a fucking moron? Sneak attacks are done almost entirely when the target is flanked, and in some other rare instances on occasion. Sneak attacks do NOT represent attacks you don't see coming, they represent attacks that slip past your defenses when you attention is not entirely focused on the rogue.

Who cares about the real world. This a fantasy game, not the real world. And in this fantasy game, there are non-rogue abilities that very clearly refer to accurately hitting a weak point in a target's armor or defense for extra damage. There is absolutely no reason that these other classes can do it with a weapon, but a rogue can't do it with the same weapon.

"WAH! Your logic is ruining my arguments! I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want because I say so!" Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Already. Is this how it goes? I cite overbalance in rules, you whine that it somehow doesn't apply, I cite common-sense reasons, you bitch that it doesn't apply. You have no standards, it seems, you're just looking to complain, so shut the fuck up.

Did you even bother reading what I said before posting that little rant? I very clearly said that increasing base weapon damage is an advantage, it's just not that much of one. If I wanted to powergame and make a broken character, I wouldn't be wasting my time with a rogue with an axe.

Oh, so because it's not THAT game-breaking, it should be allowed? Whine harder, you cheesy motherfucker. I can very easily craft some ridiculously overpowered bullshit by breaking one minor rule, then using that to start a chain of bullshit that just spirals out of control. Either you think I'm too stupid to figure that out, or you're too stupid to.

How is increasing the cost NOT a solution? If using a teleport spell to teleport past the traps and grab the loot costs as much as the loot you gain, who is ever going to bother with it? Now, maybe it needed other limits, but there's a middle ground between "massively overpowered" and "completely useless".

Um, did you not understand how teleport could be used to just immediately annihilate a big boss, or ruin entire nations with very little effort at all? Of course not, you didn't think about the further implications of an ability past the "dungeon crawl" mentality. More evidence that you're a powergaming little shit who just doesn't think past the rock in front of him.

As for the rest, yes, prestige classes and multiclassing in 3E needed some work. That doesn't mean this was the correct solution.

Some work my ass. It needed a fucking overhaul because it was a flawed system with a shitty patch that made them okay at max level with the rest of the game being shit. I don't remember starting many games at 20th level, do you? You're just bitchy because you don't get to do the same overpowered shit with a broken system that you used to. Boo-fucking-hoo.

[Jaevric]

Given the huge variety of skills that rogues have, compared to warriors who focus entirely on using weapons and armor and doing bad things to people with them, I fail to see anything "unfair" about rogues being limited to using their ENORMOUS HIGH DAMAGE ABILITIES with weapons that have a fairly low base damage.

Besides, call me crazy, but rogues are primarily city oriented characters who are subtle and low-key, which is hard to pull off carrying a bastard sword or a greataxe.

[lPeregrine]

Did you miss the part about "Choose"? Does that word mean nothing to you? In fact, if you KEEP reading, you'll see it reads as what you can choose to gain at each milestone. Translation, STFU already.

Yes, I see the word "choose". As in at level 11, you choose to either take a paragon path or multiclass. Not both.

And yes, I see the milestones. Those tell you what you can do after you've made the choice, they don't give you a new choice at each level.

Or how about read page 53:

Paragon Multiclassing: You might choose to take on powers from a second class in place of a paragon path. See page 208 for more information on multiclassing.

Now, maybe english isn't your primary language, but that says pretty clearly that you get a one-time choice between a paragon path or a second class.

On the very first perk, it says you count as that class for the purposes of choosing a paragon path, you illiterate fuck.

Projecting much? It says the initiate feats count for purposes of picking a paragon path. This has absolutely nothing to do with the choice of paragon path or second class you make at 11th level. Since you don't seem to understand this, you have three choices at level 11:

1) Enter a paragon path from your primary class.

2) If you have taken the required feat and meet the other prerequisites, enter a paragon path from another class.

3) Multiclass in a second class.

Nowhere does it say that you have the option to do more than one of these. In fact, it very clearly says the exact opposite: you get to pick ONE option, and only one.

It's not a false dilemma, you irritating rash of a man. You specifically cited characters who can do lots of things as, and I quote, "interesting" and "non-traditional". I said that interesting characters are not defined by what they can do, but who they are. You can't grasp this simple fucking concept. This is likely because you are a powergaming simpleton. The VERY FIRST THING you run to when thinking of an interesting character is what they can do, which shows what an utter lack of depth you have.

And in the context of a discussion of the rules, "what they can do" is the only thing that matters. I don't need permission from some rulebook to define my character's roleplaying side. Who my character is will be exactly the same no matter what rules system I'm using, so that's completely irrelevant in a discussion of the changes from 3E to 4E.

Um, you're a fucking moron? Sneak attacks are done almost entirely when the target is flanked, and in some other rare instances on occasion. Sneak attacks do NOT represent attacks you don't see coming, they represent attacks that slip past your defenses when you attention is not entirely focused on the rogue.

Except for you know, invisibility, hiding, getting the first shot in the round... Once again:

Flanking: you can't defend your back and front at the same time, since you don't have two sets of arms and eyes in the back of your head. You can be perfectly aware of your opponents and know exactly what they're doing, but that doesn't help you put your shield in two places at once.

Sneak attack: the rogue catches you unprepared for the attack and hits you in a weak spot. Why is this so complicated? It even says so in the name: "SNEAK attack", not "flanking attack". Most people with a bit of common sense can understand that something called "sneak attack" probably involves some degree of stealth, and that this stealth is the reason why you are able to do more damage.

"WAH! Your logic is ruining my arguments! I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want because I say so!" Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Already. Is this how it goes? I cite overbalance in rules, you whine that it somehow doesn't apply, I cite common-sense reasons, you bitch that it doesn't apply. You have no standards, it seems, you're just looking to complain, so shut the fuck up.

Why the hell is this so complicated?

You and the 4E rules: "a bow isn't accurate enough to hit weak spots in armor".

Me: "look, it clearly says that a ranger can hit weak spots in armor with a bow".

Conclusion: in the D&D universe, it's possible to hit weak spots in armor with a bow, regardless of what your godlike weapons training says. The only reason one class can do it and the other can't is an arbitrary rule.


Now, if you want to argue that sneak attacks with a bow would be unbalanced, fine, but don't try to claim that it makes sense in-character.

Oh, so because it's not THAT game-breaking, it should be allowed? Whine harder, you cheesy motherfucker. I can very easily craft some ridiculously overpowered bullshit by breaking one minor rule, then using that to start a chain of bullshit that just spirals out of control. Either you think I'm too stupid to figure that out, or you're too stupid to.

Let me see...

1) Not everyone is as obsessed with powergaming as you are. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that someone might want to break one minor rule without being compelled to spiral it out of control and break the game.

2) The whole point of having a DM is to deal with problems like that. Either step in and stop the spiral at a level where it's balanced, or increase the game difficulty to counter it.

Um, did you not understand how teleport could be used to just immediately annihilate a big boss, or ruin entire nations with very little effort at all? Of course not, you didn't think about the further implications of an ability past the "dungeon crawl" mentality. More evidence that you're a powergaming little shit who just doesn't think past the rock in front of him.

Let me think past the rock in front of you, and find some solutions that you can't seem to think of:

1) Adjust the game to match this powerful ability. Maybe a game where the party runs around ruining entire nations is what the players want.

2) Have NPCs that actually think, instead of just mindlessly following the rules. Such as you know, realizing that they're fighting powerful opponents and using magic of their own to block the teleport? Or have the players find out that the boss they thought they were teleporting to is actually somewhere else, and they followed a decoy right into a trap? Or have the boss use teleport magic of his own, requiring the party to spend time/effort/risk hunting down information to find him again?

3) Increase the cost and/or difficulty of casting a teleport spell, so that it using it is almost as difficult/expensive as just getting there the normal way.

Of course the real hillarious part here is that I can't even remember the last actual dungeon crawl I played. Some of us just have the creativity to deal with "overpowered" abilities without breaking the story.

But of course I already said very clearly that teleport effects were too good. I honestly have no idea how you get "teleport effects were just fine" from "teleport effects didn't need to be nerfed that much".

You're just bitchy because you don't get to do the same overpowered shit with a broken system that you used to. Boo-fucking-hoo.

And that's just laughably stupid. Maybe if you have a hopelessly incompetent DM, there's a point in doing broken stuff. But any halfway decent DM is just going to increase the difficulty to reflect your "overpowered" character, and you're no better off than if you just played something weaker. Well, maybe you're having more fun, but it's perfectly legitimate to have a personal preference for powerful characters and powerful enemies.


==============================


As for the idea that a direct swap is too easy and too powerful: let's think about some ways in which a fireball-casting fighter is already pays a price in effectiveness:

1) The fighter doesn't have the intelligence of a wizard (or if he does, his fighter abilities are suffering). Since spell damage is now based on intelligence, he's doing less damage than normal with the same spells.

2) The fighter doesn't have the magical enhancement bonuses of a wizard, since he has a magic sword instead of a magic wand. Again, less damage.

3) The fighter either lacks general abilities/items for doing magic, or has given up abilities/items that benefit his combat side. What are the odds that the fighter has taken Astral Fire instead of a feat devoted to hitting things with a sword?

4) The fighter can't cast it as often. Sure, the spell you pick up might be one/encounter for a wizard as well, but the wizard has several other spells that do essentially the same thing. The fighter gets one shot and that's it.

[Imperial Overlord]

Except for you know, invisibility, hiding, getting the first shot in the round... Once again:

Flanking: you can't defend your back and front at the same time, since you don't have two sets of arms and eyes in the back of your head. You can be perfectly aware of your opponents and know exactly what they're doing, but that doesn't help you put your shield in two places at once.

Sneak attack: the rogue catches you unprepared for the attack and hits you in a weak spot. Why is this so complicated? It even says so in the name: "SNEAK attack", not "flanking attack". Most people with a bit of common sense can understand that something called "sneak attack" probably involves some degree of stealth, and that this stealth is the reason why you are able to do more damage.

Is this an argument? It in no way invalidates Hotfoot's argument. It doesn't even dispute that most sneak attacks are flanking attacks. Hotfoot never argues some other instances sneak attack occur, just that flanking is the most common instance. Sneak attacks occur when the attacker has combat advantage, which may come from flanking or stealth. Sneak

Why the hell is this so complicated?

You and the 4E rules: "a bow isn't accurate enough to hit weak spots in armor".

Me: "look, it clearly says that a ranger can hit weak spots in armor with a bow".

Conclusion: in the D&D universe, it's possible to hit weak spots in armor with a bow, regardless of what your godlike weapons training says. The only reason one class can do it and the other can't is an arbitrary rule.

Now, if you want to argue that sneak attacks with a bow would be unbalanced, fine, but don't try to claim that it makes sense in-character.

Different kinds of precision attacks, different kinds of rules. From a realism point of view, precision strikes with a bow at optimum range are different than stabbing a guy in the side with a stiletto. Your attempt at obfuscation and power gaming fails.

Oh, so because it's not THAT game-breaking, it should be allowed? Whine harder, you cheesy motherfucker. I can very easily craft some ridiculously overpowered bullshit by breaking one minor rule, then using that to start a chain of bullshit that just spirals out of control. Either you think I'm too stupid to figure that out, or you're too stupid to.

Let me see...

1) Not everyone is as obsessed with powergaming as you are. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that someone might want to break one minor rule without being compelled to spiral it out of control and break the game.

You clearly are focused on having all sorts of super powers. Your words below are quite revealing.

2) The whole point of having a DM is to deal with problems like that. Either step in and stop the spiral at a level where it's balanced, or increase the game difficulty to counter it.

This is funny. What you're saying here is that the DM should let me get as powerful as I feel like and then adjust the game to that level instead of keeping you at the same power level as the rest of the players. Munchkin.

Let me think past the rock in front of you, and find some solutions that you can't seem to think of:

1) Adjust the game to match this powerful ability. Maybe a game where the party runs around ruining entire nations is what the players want.

Yeah, lets have the base game be that of out of control munchkins who stomp kingdoms and effortlessly dispose of their enemies. That's good design. So much for not obsessing over powergaming.

2) Have NPCs that actually think, instead of just mindlessly following the rules. Such as you know, realizing that they're fighting powerful opponents and using magic of their own to block the teleport? Or have the players find out that the boss they thought they were teleporting to is actually somewhere else, and they followed a decoy right into a trap? Or have the boss use teleport magic of his own, requiring the party to spend time/effort/risk hunting down information to find him again?

This is "continue to allow rampant teleport abuse" plan that allows their enemies to survive only if they have access to high level magic. Handy for your "lay waste to kingdoms" base games.

Of course the real hillarious part here is that I can't even remember the last actual dungeon crawl I played. Some of us just have the creativity to deal with "overpowered" abilities without breaking the story.

I'm sure you are too busy knocking over kingdoms to bother with dungeons. Unlimited teleports are so handy for that.

You're just bitchy because you don't get to do the same overpowered shit with a broken system that you used to. Boo-fucking-hoo.

And that's just laughably stupid. Maybe if you have a hopelessly incompetent DM, there's a point in doing broken stuff. But any halfway decent DM is just going to increase the difficulty to reflect your "overpowered" character, and you're no better off than if you just played something weaker. Well, maybe you're having more fun, but it's perfectly legitimate to have a personal preference for powerful characters and powerful enemies.

You've made clear that your personal preference is for a character that sacrifices no abilities for even more power. You want to play end level prestige classes right from the start, paying no price for as much power as possible. You want to bend the rules and the possibilities to the max and even break them when allowed with your great axe sneak attack and using feats to extra daily and encounter powers from other classes with no sacrifices (hint: there aren't even feats to give you extra daily and encounter powers from classes you already have until epic, and they only allow you to get extra uses out of ones you already possess). You're a power gaming munchkin.

As for the idea that a direct swap is too easy and too powerful: let's think about some ways in which a fireball-casting fighter is already pays a price in effectiveness:

1) The fighter doesn't have the intelligence of a wizard (or if he does, his fighter abilities are suffering). Since spell damage is now based on intelligence, he's doing less damage than normal with the same spells.

2) The fighter doesn't have the magical enhancement bonuses of a wizard, since he has a magic sword instead of a magic wand. Again, less damage.

3) The fighter either lacks general abilities/items for doing magic, or has given up abilities/items that benefit his combat side. What are the odds that the fighter has taken Astral Fire instead of a feat devoted to hitting things with a sword?

4) The fighter can't cast it as often. Sure, the spell you pick up might be one/encounter for a wizard as well, but the wizard has several other spells that do essentially the same thing. The fighter gets one shot and that's it.

Let's forget that this same fighter has all the fighter advantages and none of the wizard weaknesses. Let's forget that he might have a magic implement as well as magic sword. He combines his slightly weaker, less frequent fireball with fighter hitpoints, armour, and strong melee abilities and then cries about his weakness for being able to roast his enemies at range, en masse.

[Hotfoot]

Did you miss the part about "Choose"? Does that word mean nothing to you? In fact, if you KEEP reading, you'll see it reads as what you can choose to gain at each milestone. Translation, STFU already.

Yes, I see the word "choose". As in at level 11, you choose to either take a paragon path or multiclass. Not both.

Way to move the goalposts. Which is it? You lose it and never have the opportunity to get it? Or you can take or leave it as you please? It's all about scalability. How dedicated are you to multiclassing? How much of your original path do you want to give up for the sake of multiclassing? There's no forcing involved, and retraining is still a fucking option for you.

And yes, I see the milestones. Those tell you what you can do after you've made the choice, they don't give you a new choice at each level.

Even when you choose a paragon path, you don't HAVE to pick up the abilities they've listed for you, it's an option you can take or leave, all the while selecting powers from your primary class. Now, instead of spending feats to swap powers, you just choose a different set of powers to choose from. So basically, you get TEN sets of "Paragon Paths" to choose from, four from your normal class, four from your secondary class, and one that IS your secondary class, or just pick powers from your regular class as per normal.

Now, maybe english isn't your primary language, but that says pretty clearly that you get a one-time choice between a paragon path or a second class.

One time, save for the fact that you can take back the multiclassing feats and slowly replace them with other feats.

Projecting much? It says the initiate feats count for purposes of picking a paragon path. This has absolutely nothing to do with the choice of paragon path or second class you make at 11th level. Since you don't seem to understand this, you have three choices at level 11:

1) Enter a paragon path from your primary class.

2) If you have taken the required feat and meet the other prerequisites, enter a paragon path from another class.

3) Multiclass in a second class.

...it has nothing to do with selection of a paragon path...except it lets you select paragon paths you otherwise wouldn't be able to select. You're clearly insane.

Nowhere does it say that you have the option to do more than one of these. In fact, it very clearly says the exact opposite: you get to pick ONE option, and only one.

Out of....double the options you would normally have. Yeah, that's lame, having more choices and all that.

And in the context of a discussion of the rules, "what they can do" is the only thing that matters. I don't need permission from some rulebook to define my character's roleplaying side. Who my character is will be exactly the same no matter what rules system I'm using, so that's completely irrelevant in a discussion of the changes from 3E to 4E.

I'm sorry, I guess I get more enjoyment from the act of roleplaying than the the act of munchkinism. Steve Jackson Games has the perfect game for you, by the by.

You specifically cited the best games you played as being ones where you could get away with cheesy shit. In any event, multiclassing is actually easier and more organic in 4e than 3.x, allowing for more varied characters who are of equivalent power to other classes. Where in 3.x you had to perform the RPG character construction equivalent to jumping through flaming hoops, here you take a few feats, and blammo, instead of rolling +1 to hit with a weapon type, or getting a +2 to damage, you can disable traps, or throw a fireball, or rally your allies...

The list goes on.

Except for you know, invisibility, hiding, getting the first shot in the round... Once again:

Invisibility is virtually unknown at lower levels, and isn't even that common for rogues to be able to do at higher levels, and until improved invisibility, was a one-shot. Hiding in combat is a near-impossibility, and the first shot in a round is....a one shot. So, let's review, what's the most COMMON way to qualify for sneak attacks in 3.x and 4e? Flanking, that's right, so shut the fuck up. The vast majority of sneak attacks will result from flanking, and even the rest of those work on the same concept, slipping in through someone's defenses while their attention is not fully focused on you, just like flanking.

Flanking: you can't defend your back and front at the same time, since you don't have two sets of arms and eyes in the back of your head. You can be perfectly aware of your opponents and know exactly what they're doing, but that doesn't help you put your shield in two places at once.

Um, yeah, perfectly aware of what both your opponents are doing. Sure. Right. This, after you told me that you don't have eyes on the back of your head. Fucking hell you're dense. Flanking has nothing to do with shields and everything to do with the fact that you can't focus your defense on two people on opposite sides of you. This bit, by the way, is disingenuous because you are suppling your OWN definition for this, not one used by the game.

Sneak attack: the rogue catches you unprepared for the attack and hits you in a weak spot. Why is this so complicated? It even says so in the name: "SNEAK attack", not "flanking attack". Most people with a bit of common sense can understand that something called "sneak attack" probably involves some degree of stealth, and that this stealth is the reason why you are able to do more damage.

Again, this is not how a sneak attack is defined in 3.x or 4e, so why should you make this argument. It may be called sneak attack, but even back in 3.x, it is defined as follows:
"If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage."

So this is you trying to subvert the original wording of the rules, and their intent, with something YOU want to be true. Want to go back to sneak attacks being based on absolute surprise? Fine, go back to playing 2nd edition, when rogues could hit once per combat, barring exceptional circumstances.

Why the hell is this so complicated?

You and the 4E rules: "a bow isn't accurate enough to hit weak spots in armor".

Me: "look, it clearly says that a ranger can hit weak spots in armor with a bow".

Conclusion: in the D&D universe, it's possible to hit weak spots in armor with a bow, regardless of what your godlike weapons training says. The only reason one class can do it and the other can't is an arbitrary rule.

Well let's look at that, shall we? The two abilities you mentioned look for a weak point in the target's defenses, not armor specifically, and double weapon damage. The other two, the melee ones, don't even do any extra damage, you just hit them more easily. Clearly, these are not the same effects being described, but hey, some of the words are the same, so that must mean the same thing, right?

Now, if you want to argue that sneak attacks with a bow would be unbalanced, fine, but don't try to claim that it makes sense in-character.

Yeah, sure, whatever. Master of the bow who is defined by that mastery being better with a bow than a rogue who gets by on stealth, skills, and dirty fighting, whatever.

Let me see...

1) Not everyone is as obsessed with powergaming as you are. I don't see why it's so hard to understand that someone might want to break one minor rule without being compelled to spiral it out of control and break the game.

Oh, so because you might not use it for ill gains, it should be cool to make that allowed for everyone? By that logic, give everyone in the game a fucking nuke. I mean, you clearly won't abuse it, so it must be awesome and balanced, right? I'm not obsessed with powergaming, but I can see how a rule change here or there can lead to shit getting insane. That you can't or won't speaks volumes about you. If you want do to more damage with sneak attacks, pick up brutal rogue.

2) The whole point of having a DM is to deal with problems like that. Either step in and stop the spiral at a level where it's balanced, or increase the game difficulty to counter it.

So....the purpose of a DM is to take an inherently broken system and fix it? Bitch please. The purpose of the DM is to tell a story, set up conflicts, and if necessary, resolve conflicts with the rules as they arise. A good system should have as few problems as possible. Arguing to make a system more broken then dumping the responsibility on the DM to fix it is retarded.

Let me think past the rock in front of you, and find some solutions that you can't seem to think of:

1) Adjust the game to match this powerful ability. Maybe a game where the party runs around ruining entire nations is what the players want.

Translation: Don't fix it, make it impossible to live without. Yeah, that's awesome. Nukes for everyone. Everyone wants nukes, because you do, after all.

2) Have NPCs that actually think, instead of just mindlessly following the rules. Such as you know, realizing that they're fighting powerful opponents and using magic of their own to block the teleport? Or have the players find out that the boss they thought they were teleporting to is actually somewhere else, and they followed a decoy right into a trap? Or have the boss use teleport magic of his own, requiring the party to spend time/effort/risk hunting down information to find him again?

Or I could use teleport to utterly annihilate a party, because I had an ancient dragon teleport over the party while silenced, with improved invisibility, then ate the wizard, crushed everyone else, and tore them apart while they were sleeping and had no warning whatsoever. Awesome. Pro-tip: There wasn't a counter to teleportation worth shit in 3.x, but I'll let IO school you more there.

3) Increase the cost and/or difficulty of casting a teleport spell, so that it using it is almost as difficult/expensive as just getting there the normal way.

Um, dumbass, it's not expensive to get from place to place, it takes TIME. Teleport removes the time involved, the random encounters along the way, and so on. Unless teleporting can kill half the party nearly every time you use it, it's generally too powerful, and again, money is barely a concern at higher levels, especially if you rule your own kingdoms.

Of course the real hillarious part here is that I can't even remember the last actual dungeon crawl I played. Some of us just have the creativity to deal with "overpowered" abilities without breaking the story.

Um, okay, I'm not sure what you're bragging about here. Your DM made broken stuff less broken? Um, hooray? I mean, you're bragging that you haven't played in a while, so...this makes you an expert in playing? What's the deal, chief?

But of course I already said very clearly that teleport effects were too good. I honestly have no idea how you get "teleport effects were just fine" from "teleport effects didn't need to be nerfed that much".

Um....How do YOU get "too good" to coincide with "just fine"? Huge difference in statements here, buckaroo. It's either overpowered, underpowered, or about right. Choose one and make a stand.

And that's just laughably stupid. Maybe if you have a hopelessly incompetent DM, there's a point in doing broken stuff. But any halfway decent DM is just going to increase the difficulty to reflect your "overpowered" character, and you're no better off than if you just played something weaker. Well, maybe you're having more fun, but it's perfectly legitimate to have a personal preference for powerful characters and powerful enemies.

Translation: RPGs should allow for stupid shit because a good GM can just compensate. Ergo, we shouldn't bother talking about rules and stuff because none of it matters, GM house rules matter more.

I mean, what's the point to arguing about the stock rules if you say you're going to ignore them anyway?

Moreover, when one player does something retarded and broken, it ends up affecting the entire group if they don't follow suit, and then what? Then the other players that went their way get fucking boned by a retarded player and the GM who has to up the difficulty to keep him interested.

As for the idea that a direct swap is too easy and too powerful: let's think about some ways in which a fireball-casting fighter is already pays a price in effectiveness:

1) The fighter doesn't have the intelligence of a wizard (or if he does, his fighter abilities are suffering). Since spell damage is now based on intelligence, he's doing less damage than normal with the same spells.

The stat bonus to damage is often not that much compared to the damage or effect of the ability in question. The difference between +4 and +2 isn't that much when you're rolling 3d6 (range 3-18)

2) The fighter doesn't have the magical enhancement bonuses of a wizard, since he has a magic sword instead of a magic wand. Again, less damage.

Um...what? Orb = nastier saving throws, staff = defense, wand = accuracy, but you get those as implements anyway when you multiclass. Not sure what you're talking about here.

3) The fighter either lacks general abilities/items for doing magic, or has given up abilities/items that benefit his combat side. What are the odds that the fighter has taken Astral Fire instead of a feat devoted to hitting things with a sword?

Why, yes, Virginia, you have to choose which class to support and which class to not, or split them evenly. You will be outclassed by someone who single-classed in that area, but you've got more utility in general. What's your complaint?

4) The fighter can't cast it as often. Sure, the spell you pick up might be one/encounter for a wizard as well, but the wizard has several other spells that do essentially the same thing. The fighter gets one shot and that's it.

Um, what? Are you really going back to the absolutely retarded argument that multiclass characters should be more powerful than single class characters? If a fighter picks up fireball, he can use that JUST AS OFTEN as a wizard can. That he can't cast OTHER spells, well shit, if you want to cast that much, make a fucking wizard, it's a simple solution. He still can use his fighter abilities, something a pure class wizard can't do.

I fail to see how this is all somehow bad, or worse than in 3.x where a fighter/wizard couldn't stay competitive because of absurdly low AC, low BAB, and shitty spell selection at any given level.

[lPeregrine]

Is this an argument? It in no way invalidates Hotfoot's argument. It doesn't even dispute that most sneak attacks are flanking attacks. Hotfoot never argues some other instances sneak attack occur, just that flanking is the most common instance. Sneak attacks occur when the attacker has combat advantage, which may come from flanking or stealth.

And the point is yes, flanking lets you do it, but SNEAK attacks are kind of implied to involve you know, stealth. The reason you get extra damage is because you're a sneaky rogue who just caught your opponent unprepared, not because you have some special weapon that lets you do it. I fail to see the conceptual difference between sneaking up behind someone and slipping a dagger in the joints of their armor for extra damage, and sneaking up behind someone with a warhammer and breaking their spine before they can get a shield up to deflect the blow. In both cases, you use stealth to slip an attack through your opponent's defenses.

Different kinds of precision attacks, different kinds of rules. From a realism point of view, precision strikes with a bow at optimum range are different than stabbing a guy in the side with a stiletto. Your attempt at obfuscation and power gaming fails.

And I quote:

Armor-Piercing Thrust Fighter Attack 3
You drive your weapon through a weak point in your foe’s
defenses.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Reflex
Weapon: If you’re wielding a light blade or a spear, you gain
a bonus to the attack roll equal to your Dexterity modifier.
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Weapon: If you’re wielding a light blade or a spear, you gain
a bonus to the damage roll equal to your Dexterity modifier.

Hey, looks like a fighter can drive a spear through a weak spot in an opponent's armor, even if they're perfectly aware of him. But somehow a rogue can't do the same thing, even if he comes up behind the target while invisible and catches them completely helpless?

If you want to insist on sneak attacks only representing slipping a blade in a weak spot in armor, and not a general surprise attack that your opponent can't counter, you have to accept the fact that other classes can do the same weak-spot-slipping tricks, but without the rogue's weapon limitations.

This is funny. What you're saying here is that the DM should let me get as powerful as I feel like and then adjust the game to that level instead of keeping you at the same power level as the rest of the players. Munchkin.

No, that's a massive strawman of what I actually said. I said the DM has two options, one of which you conveniently ignore:

1) Allow it, and adjust the game difficulty to match.

OR. And this is the key part here, OR. There is a second choice listed.

2) Stop the spiral at a level where it's balanced.


Obviously if it's a case of one overpowered character while the rest of the party is much weaker, you take the second option. If it's a case of an entire party of "overpowered" characters, you take the first. Why is this so hard to understand?

Yeah, lets have the base game be that of out of control munchkins who stomp kingdoms and effortlessly dispose of their enemies. That's good design. So much for not obsessing over powergaming.

If your players are teleporting around killing everything, maybe you should take the hint and recognize that that's the type of game they enjoy. If it's just one player ruining the game, sure, that's a problem, but not everyone likes to play the game the same way as you do.

And if they're effortlessly disposing of their enemies, maybe you should consider that your failure as a DM, and try and do a better job? Munchkins are not that hard to deal with.

This is "continue to allow rampant teleport abuse" plan that allows their enemies to survive only if they have access to high level magic. Handy for your "lay waste to kingdoms" base games.

Why the hell should an enemy without access to high level magic be expected to survive against a high-level party? Is it my fault if you make the king a 1st-level commoner and the 20th level party kills him?

This is just as stupid as complaining that an enemy without high-level magic weapons/armor can't survive in melee against a high-level fighter. Make the enemies appropriate for the party's level, and you don't have this problem.

I'm sure you are too busy knocking over kingdoms to bother with dungeons. Unlimited teleports are so handy for that.

You know, repeating this strawman endlessly doesn't make it any more valid. I've very clearly said that teleporting was too powerful and needed changes. Maybe you should read the part where I said that a solution is to make teleporting straight to the end just as difficult and/or expensive (but in different ways) as doing it the long way?

I repeat:

Good game design: "teleport can take you right to the boss, but to cast it, you need rare ingredients. Oh, and by the way, the only stash within a thousand miles is deep inside a dungeon that's almost as risky as fighting your way through the boss' fortress the hard way."

Good game design: "teleport can take you right to the boss, but to cast it, you need expensive ingredients worth more than any treasure that boss has. I'm so glad you're willing to spend time adventuring to get the money to pay for this wonderful act of charity towards our kingdom."

Good game design: "teleport can take you right to the boss, but to cast it, you'll need to find him first. He has anti-scrying spells in place, so you'll have to get the information the hard way."

Bad game design: "teleport can't take you anywhere useful".


See a difference? It's very possible to make teleport spells harder to abuse without going to the far other extreme and making them useless.

Let's forget that this same fighter has all the fighter advantages and none of the wizard weaknesses. Let's forget that he might have a magic implement as well as magic sword. He combines his slightly weaker, less frequent fireball with fighter hitpoints, armour, and strong melee abilities and then cries about his weakness for being able to roast his enemies at range, en masse.

Yeah, sure, the fighter will just nicely ask his enemies to wait while he changes equipment so he can cast that fireball.

And you forget that while the fireball-fighter has most of the fighter advantages without the wizard weaknesses, he also doesn't have most of the strengths of a wizard.

Again, let's compare:

Hit-Really-Hard is a 10th level figher ability. A 10th level fighter is well-prepared to use it as effectively as possible.

Fireball is a 10th level wizard ability. A fighter is NOT well-prepared to use it, and might only use it as well as a dedicated wizard's 8th level abillities.

Now, if the fighter makes the trade, he's giving up raw power as a fighter to gain versatility. He's trading a 10th level ability for an 8th level ability, which is just fine, and the whole point of multiclassing. The problem is under 4E, in addition to making that trade down, he also has to give up a feat slot. There's no good reason for this, the trade itself is enough of a downside.




And as for your whole "powergamer" attack, that's just laughably stupid. Not everyone enjoys playing the game the same way as you. Get over it.

If a group of players want to play "overpowered" characters and fight "overpowered" enemies, that's their business, and it's very easy to scale up the difficulty to reflect any level of character power.

If a group of players wants to play "underpowered" characters and fight weaker enemies, that's their business, and it's very easy to scale down the dificulty to reflect that level of character power.

If it's a case of one problem player, the DM already has plenty of tools for stopping that. "I admire your rules knowledge, and look forward to seeing how creative you can be with your more balanced replacement character" ends this whole "powergamer" spiral you're paranoid about.

So stop whining about "powergamers". There isn't some One True Power Level that every D&D game is supposed to have, so enough with the paranoia about characters leaving your ideal level.

[lPeregrine]

Hotfoot, either you're massively strawmaning what I actually said, or you're just misreading things.

My complaint is NOT with the initiate feats that let you qualify for paragon paths. Those are mostly fine, I'm not 100% happy with it being limited to a once/day use, but the general concept is fine.

I have two problems with the multiclassing system:

1) The swap feats, which cost you too much to pick up limited abilities. You're already trading down by getting another class ability that your character isn't built to use as effectively, having to pay with feat slots is just overkill.

2) It's a one-time deal, that completely replaces your main class. Once you make that level 11 decision, that's it. There's no option to take some levels in a second class, then continue on with a paragon class from your original class.

These are two separate issues. I have no idea why you seem to think I'm arguing that the swap feats have anything to do with the one-time deal issue.

You specifically cited the best games you played as being ones where you could get away with cheesy shit.

And you're reading way too much into that statement. The characters in question were actually somewhat WEAKER than average because of their multiclassing, they were just more fun to play. And they were nowhere near the kind of stuff I could do if I was actually trying to see how much powergaming I could get away with.

Oh, so because you might not use it for ill gains, it should be cool to make that allowed for everyone? By that logic, give everyone in the game a fucking nuke. I mean, you clearly won't abuse it, so it must be awesome and balanced, right? I'm not obsessed with powergaming, but I can see how a rule change here or there can lead to shit getting insane. That you can't or won't speaks volumes about you. If you want do to more damage with sneak attacks, pick up brutal rogue.

I can see how it could lead to problems if you have a poor DM. If you have someone who actually knows what they're doing, it's very easy to cut off this supposed out of control spiral at a power level that the entire group is happy with.

Um, dumbass, it's not expensive to get from place to place, it takes TIME. Teleport removes the time involved, the random encounters along the way, and so on. Unless teleporting can kill half the party nearly every time you use it, it's generally too powerful, and again, money is barely a concern at higher levels, especially if you rule your own kingdoms.

Unless of course the difficulty of casting the teleport spell ALSO involves time and random encounters and such. See the previous post for examples.

And it's hardly my fault if you've given your players too much wealth, without giving them anything else to spend it on. But then there's more to just cost than a GP total, there's no rule that says the players have to be allowed to buy anything and everything they want at the local town market.

Um....How do YOU get "too good" to coincide with "just fine"? Huge difference in statements here, buckaroo. It's either overpowered, underpowered, or about right. Choose one and make a stand.

You two are arguing against some strawman that has me claiming that teleport effects were fine as-is. They were not, they were too effective and too easy to use.

However, they didn't need to be nerfed as much as 4E did. I really don't see how this is such a hard point to understand.

The stat bonus to damage is often not that much compared to the damage or effect of the ability in question. The difference between +4 and +2 isn't that much when you're rolling 3d6 (range 3-18)

Except it's going to be a lot wider than +4 and +2. Base stats alone will be more of a gap than that, and then you have to add in the stat increases at higher levels and magic items.

Um...what? Orb = nastier saving throws, staff = defense, wand = accuracy, but you get those as implements anyway when you multiclass. Not sure what you're talking about here.

Err, you do know that those implements give enhancement bonuses to spell attack rolls and damage, right? A fighter isn't going to drop his magic sword and pull out a staff just to cast a single fireball.

Why, yes, Virginia, you have to choose which class to support and which class to not, or split them evenly. You will be outclassed by someone who single-classed in that area, but you've got more utility in general. What's your complaint?

No complaint. My only point here is that there are already drawbacks to making those power swaps, so wasting feat slots is not necessary.




And I give up on the sneak attack issue. In my opinion, none of the points you've made justify the arbitrary rule, but we're just not going to agree on this.

[Hotfoot]

Hey, dumbass, you're arguing that you want more power. That makes you a fucking powergamer. Deal with it.

Defenses != Armor. If it did, AC would be nothing BUT armor. It's not, so shut the fuck up about it already.

The abilities you have listed do not, in fact, in any way mimic the same thing as a rogue's natural ability to add damage on top of any ability they use. They are, at best, pale imitations of what a Rogue can do all the fucking time under the right circumstances.

Being invisible grants combat advantage, you dumb shit.

Okay, you know what? I'm going to stop you here. You've been running around in circles repeating the same asinine bullshit over and over again. You can't read, you can't fucking argue, all you want is more power, and 4e is evil for not giving you the ability to break the rules like you want. You twist definitions to say whatever you want them to say, instead of what they actually say, you make arguments with little to no basis in reality, and you're being just a generally annoying shithead. Fine, you want to play horribly overpowered games with stupid GMs that let you get away with it, maybe even with people who enjoy the same thing. Great. Go right ahead and do just exactly that. Shit, you don't listen to the rules of the system anyway, so why bother commenting on any system? Why not just say that your GM lets you do whatever you want and his house rules, which have basically made a new system, are what you prefer? That's where this discussion is going anyway, so why don't we just cut to the fucking chase already.

If you've got a group of people you enjoy playing with, and you all enjoy playing the same style of game, huzzah, you win. The problem is when people like you join games with other types of people and expect them to adhere to your style of play, which is not supported by the core rules.

[Imperial Overlord]

And the point is yes, flanking lets you do it, but SNEAK attacks are kind of implied to involve you know, stealth. The reason you get extra damage is because you're a sneaky rogue who just caught your opponent unprepared, not because you have some special weapon that lets you do it. I fail to see the conceptual difference between sneaking up behind someone and slipping a dagger in the joints of their armor for extra damage, and sneaking up behind someone with a warhammer and breaking their spine before they can get a shield up to deflect the blow. In both cases, you use stealth to slip an attack through your opponent's defenses.

Yeah, how could we possibly see a difference between precision attack with a thin blade angling for a gap in the armour and smashing them with a big hammer? You're a fucking dishonest douchebag. And still with the fucking sneak attacks verbage, despite all the times you've been schooled on it. Sneak attack is just a nice name for the advantage a rogue gets at stabbing an off guard enemy. Because classes are funner to play when they have nice sounding names for their abilities as opposed to sucky one. The target in question helpless and waiting for you to kill them, that's a coup de grace. Stop trying to trick us into believing taking advantage of a distracted or off guard enemy is the same thing as swinging a hammer in a slaughter house.

And I quote:

Armor-Piercing Thrust Fighter Attack 3
You drive your weapon through a weak point in your foe’s
defenses.
Encounter ✦ Martial,Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength vs. Reflex
Weapon: If you’re wielding a light blade or a spear, you gain
a bonus to the attack roll equal to your Dexterity modifier.
Hit: 1[W] + Strength modifier damage.
Weapon: If you’re wielding a light blade or a spear, you gain
a bonus to the damage roll equal to your Dexterity modifier.

Hey, looks like a fighter can drive a spear through a weak spot in an opponent's armor, even if they're perfectly aware of him. But somehow a rogue can't do the same thing, even if he comes up behind the target while invisible and catches them completely helpless?

Note the "helpless" as you again conflate sneak attack and coup de grace, because you're a lying douchebag. And note how you deliberately confuse a Strength based smashing through armour weakpoints with a Dex based slipping a blade through weakpoints. Lying, dishonest douchebag.

This is funny. What you're saying here is that the DM should let me get as powerful as I feel like and then adjust the game to that level instead of keeping you at the same power level as the rest of the players. Munchkin.

No, that's a massive strawman of what I actually said. I said the DM has two options, one of which you conveniently ignore:

1) Allow it, and adjust the game difficulty to match.

OR. And this is the key part here, OR. There is a second choice listed.

2) Stop the spiral at a level where it's balanced.


Obviously if it's a case of one overpowered character while the rest of the party is much weaker, you take the second option. If it's a case of an entire party of "overpowered" characters, you take the first. Why is this so hard to understand?

Lying piece of shit. The option of "not letting the power gamer break the rules and start an arms race between the players and escalate the power levels of the GM's campaign" also exists and is the superior option. Why should I grant you the ridiculous premise that giving a player extra power denied by the rules is somehow fair, let alone a good decision?

If your players are teleporting around killing everything, maybe you should take the hint and recognize that that's the type of game they enjoy. If it's just one player ruining the game, sure, that's a problem, but not everyone likes to play the game the same way as you do.

I have better players than you, but that's another issue. If the GM and the players want to wank their players to the stars, they can do that. That's not the base game and your obfuscations to the contrary do not change that. I'm glad to see you have no counter argument that teleport was too powerful, which was the point being argued.

And if they're effortlessly disposing of their enemies, maybe you should consider that your failure as a DM, and try and do a better job? Munchkins are not that hard to deal with.

My players are laughing at you now, having read that post. They know I can make their lives hell or end them. They earn their victories and are justly proud of them. Munchkins are indead easy to deal with. The ask for special favors to break the rules and I say "no" so I and the rest of the players don't have to deal with their bullshit.

This is "continue to allow rampant teleport abuse" plan that allows their enemies to survive only if they have access to high level magic. Handy for your "lay waste to kingdoms" base games.

Why the hell should an enemy without access to high level magic be expected to survive against a high-level party? Is it my fault if you make the king a 1st-level commoner and the 20th level party kills him?

And here comes the "20th level party" when teleport is available at 9th level. Why am I not surprised that you argue dishonestly? I'm not worried about my 20th level party being able to kill kings. Hell, they took the High King of the most powerful nation in the game world hostage at 21st. A much more pressing concern is players killing every duke and baron in their sleep at 9th. Magic that blocks teleport is extremely hard to get in 3.X, something you conveniently didn't argue against when Hotfoot mentioned it earlier, you point dodging munchkin.

This is just as stupid as complaining that an enemy without high-level magic weapons/armor can't survive in melee against a high-level fighter. Make the enemies appropriate for the party's level, and you don't have this problem.

Bullshit. There are plenty of counters to a melee monster. Teleport into the king's bedroom while he's sleeping is hard to counter. You keep dodging that point.

I'm sure you are too busy knocking over kingdoms to bother with dungeons. Unlimited teleports are so handy for that.

You know, repeating this strawman endlessly doesn't make it any more valid. I've very clearly said that teleporting was too powerful and needed changes. Maybe you should read the part where I said that a solution is to make teleporting straight to the end just as difficult and/or expensive (but in different ways) as doing it the long way?

Yeah, and we've rebutted it. Multiple times. Cost doesn't solve the problem. Of course, you'll ignore that in favor of some snappy sounding solution and pat yourself on the back. Then your characters will buy the expensive component and whammo.

Yeah, sure, the fighter will just nicely ask his enemies to wait while he changes equipment so he can cast that fireball.

Yeah, good thing he can cast in full armour and have the gear in hand, you dishonest prick.

And you forget that while the fireball-fighter has most of the fighter advantages without the wizard weaknesses, he also doesn't have most of the strengths of a wizard.

Again, let's compare:

Hit-Really-Hard is a 10th level figher ability. A 10th level fighter is well-prepared to use it as effectively as possible.

Fireball is a 10th level wizard ability. A fighter is NOT well-prepared to use it, and might only use it as well as a dedicated wizard's 8th level abillities.

Now, if the fighter makes the trade, he's giving up raw power as a fighter to gain versatility. He's trading a 10th level ability for an 8th level ability, which is just fine, and the whole point of multiclassing. The problem is under 4E, in addition to making that trade down, he also has to give up a feat slot. There's no good reason for this, the trade itself is enough of a downside.

You're either stupid or dishonest. He has all the fighter advantages of hitpoints and armour and weapon skill, plus the kickass fighter abilities in melee and then he adds on an ability in a completely different specialty of mass killing, an ability so powerful another class pays for it in armour, weapon, and hitpoints. And that's a fair trade? Either you're stupid or you're a liar. Actually, you're both.

So stop whining about "powergamers". There isn't some One True Power Level that every D&D game is supposed to have, so enough with the paranoia about characters leaving your ideal level.

Actually, the game is meticulously designed to support specific power levels, you lying douchebag. Monsters, treasure, traps, social encounters, xp awards, magic items, and so on are all rated at what level they are appropriate for under the standard rules and character generation procedures. That you can enjoy playing at a different level is nothing but a smokescreen. You're a dishonest piece of shit who wants to try and foist his munchkin desires off as the base level of the game and how it was designed.

[Hotfoot]

Hotfoot, either you're massively strawmaning what I actually said, or you're just misreading things.

My complaint is NOT with the initiate feats that let you qualify for paragon paths. Those are mostly fine, I'm not 100% happy with it being limited to a once/day use, but the general concept is fine.

I have two problems with the multiclassing system:

1) The swap feats, which cost you too much to pick up limited abilities. You're already trading down by getting another class ability that your character isn't built to use as effectively, having to pay with feat slots is just overkill.

Um, no, it's not. Because feats are overall less useful than they used to be, so giving a melee class a bunch of ranged/AoE options can be more useful than a simple +2 to damage with the melee.

2) It's a one-time deal, that completely replaces your main class. Once you make that level 11 decision, that's it. There's no option to take some levels in a second class, then continue on with a paragon class from your original class.

It doesn't completely replace your main class, and even so, it's not a one time deal. Newsflash: retrain your initiate feat, and you no longer qualify. Guess what happens next, jackass?

These are two separate issues. I have no idea why you seem to think I'm arguing that the swap feats have anything to do with the one-time deal issue.

You're arguing that they're both bad. I'm arguing that both are good. This is hard to understand?

And you're reading way too much into that statement. The characters in question were actually somewhat WEAKER than average because of their multiclassing, they were just more fun to play. And they were nowhere near the kind of stuff I could do if I was actually trying to see how much powergaming I could get away with.

Yeah, except that's not how you originally framed the statement. You framed it by complaining that mutliclassing was less powerful this time out, and that you missed the power available from the last edition. The only way to get power from multiclassing was unbelievable cheese, ergo, the logical conclusion.

I can see how it could lead to problems if you have a poor DM. If you have someone who actually knows what they're doing, it's very easy to cut off this supposed out of control spiral at a power level that the entire group is happy with.

Once you make a special exception for one person, you generally have to make a special exception for everyone, and being able to balance that without extensive playtesting is a tenuous affair at best. Moreover, this game is being marketed to everyone, not just people with awesome GMs. The rules should be easy to understand, simple to clarify, and not horribly broken out of the box.

Unless of course the difficulty of casting the teleport spell ALSO involves time and random encounters and such. See the previous post for examples.

That more or less removes the point of a teleport spell in the first place, if it's no different from walking or riding.

And it's hardly my fault if you've given your players too much wealth, without giving them anything else to spend it on. But then there's more to just cost than a GP total, there's no rule that says the players have to be allowed to buy anything and everything they want at the local town market.

There generally are rules for what is available for sale at different towns, cities, and so forth. A GM can make a ruling, but again, the game should be made easy for the GM to run, not rely entirely on one to fix any problems.

You two are arguing against some strawman that has me claiming that teleport effects were fine as-is. They were not, they were too effective and too easy to use.

Your only argument was that it should be more expensive, which is hardly a limitation at the higher levels anyway. Only now that we've pointed out some of the more broken ways it could have been used have you been scrambling to make it more and more nerfed.

However, they didn't need to be nerfed as much as 4E did. I really don't see how this is such a hard point to understand.

That's a finer point to argue, but again, teleport as it was was horribly broken, and making it more expensive didn't change what you could do with it. You have to change the way the spell works at a basic level to make it so you don't have the crazy-ass bullshit you had in 3.x

Except it's going to be a lot wider than +4 and +2. Base stats alone will be more of a gap than that, and then you have to add in the stat increases at higher levels and magic items.

Base stats will be more of a gap than that? Really? By what metric? You need 13 Int base to multiclass to wizard, and any gamer worth his salt knows to get even numbers when possible. 14 = +2. When making a starting character and using point buy with even remotely balanced stats, 16+2 is as high as you're going with a dedicated stat. At best, you have 18+2. 18 = +4, 20 = +5, a +2 or +3 is not overly significant when your average damage is 10.5 to multiple targets at the same time.

After that, any bonuses a wizard can get, a wizard/fighter can get as well. The wizard/fighter may choose not to, but the option is there should they choose it.

Err, you do know that those implements give enhancement bonuses to spell attack rolls and damage, right? A fighter isn't going to drop his magic sword and pull out a staff just to cast a single fireball.

Even so, hey, look, a wizard paragon path that lets you use a sword as an implement! Amazing....

No complaint. My only point here is that there are already drawbacks to making those power swaps, so wasting feat slots is not necessary.

They're not wasted feats though, and frankly you're a moron for assuming they are. They let you get a power you would otherwise not have. Again, being able to burn multiple enemies at range as a fighter is a hell of a lot better in many respects than getting a +2 to damage with your sword.

And I give up on the sneak attack issue. In my opinion, none of the points you've made justify the arbitrary rule, but we're just not going to agree on this.

No, you refuse to even bother looking at how the ability has been defined by the rules. Instead, you want to look to "reality" and say it makes sense, using your OWN definition of the ability, AFTER yelling at me for doing the same thing using the given definition of the ability. Nice double standard, by the by.

[lPeregrine]

It doesn't completely replace your main class, and even so, it's not a one time deal. Newsflash: retrain your initiate feat, and you no longer qualify. Guess what happens next, jackass?

Absolutely nothing happens next, because, to quote from p.28 under "retraining":

You can’t replace a feat if it’s a prerequisite for any other attribute you have (another feat or a paragon path, for example)

So no, you can't just retrain and switch paragon paths.

That more or less removes the point of a teleport spell in the first place, if it's no different from walking or riding.

No, it doesn't. Teleporting gives you an option to pick your difficulty. Maybe your party sucks at dealing with traps, and would rather go kill the dragon and take the rare ingredients so they can teleport past the evil king's trap-filled fortress. Maybe your party would prefer to spend time sneaking around and spying on the king's minions to get a reliable teleport location instead of smashing the gates down and fighting through the guards. Etc.

The 4E spell is the one that's no different than walking or riding, since the only places you are really ever going to get to are the ones you could get to by simply walking there. Instead of trying to find a way to make it useful but balanced, they just killed it.


But as for the rest, I give up. We obviously have different playing styles in mind, and this is just going around in circles. So I'm done, have fun with your wonderful new system, I'll probably just go back to 3.5E.

[Hotfoot]

Absolutely nothing happens next, because, to quote from p.28 under "retraining":

You can’t replace a feat if it’s a prerequisite for any other attribute you have (another feat or a paragon path, for example)

So no, you can't just retrain and switch paragon paths.

Fair enough. You can, however, get rid of every other feat that is built on that one if you so choose. But hey, if you can't decided the general direction you want your character to go by 11th level, well hey. It's still one choice out of ten that you have, compared to the usual five.

No, it doesn't. Teleporting gives you an option to pick your difficulty. Maybe your party sucks at dealing with traps, and would rather go kill the dragon and take the rare ingredients so they can teleport past the evil king's trap-filled fortress. Maybe your party would prefer to spend time sneaking around and spying on the king's minions to get a reliable teleport location instead of smashing the gates down and fighting through the guards. Etc.

Um, so, you want to completely re-write teleport now, as opposed to just upping the cost? Way to go. Goalposts haven't moved this far in a long time.

The 4E spell is the one that's no different than walking or riding, since the only places you are really ever going to get to are the ones you could get to by simply walking there. Instead of trying to find a way to make it useful but balanced, they just killed it.

Um, it lets you bypass anything in between, including time and dangers. That's "no different from walking or riding"? Please. It's a powerful spell that lets you flit around the world as you need. It's been made less retarded by not letting you have free reign of choosing where you go with no problems whatsoever.

Meanwhile, I suggest you look at "True Portal". Most of what you want, but without the stupid crap of being able to teleport three feet from a sleeping king and being able to slit his throat.

But as for the rest, I give up. We obviously have different playing styles in mind, and this is just going around in circles. So I'm done, have fun with your wonderful new system, I'll probably just go back to 3.5E.

Playing styles be damned, this is about what a system should be when it comes out. According to you, a system should be broken as soon as possible and it should all be up to the GM to make the system, thus the system in question barely matters, because it's all tuned up to 11 from the get-go.

Yes, GMs do make adjustments to their games, by and large, but the number and severity of the adjustments they have to make is a measure of how well suited the system is to the play system of the group and the GM. The fewer that need to be made, the better.

[Oskuro]

Sorry to interrupt the rules discussion, but I was wondering if any of you know about this....

Are they planning on releasing 4th Edition versions of the other d20 variants? I personally use the d20 Modern/Future ruleset for my games, and I must say that the new class structure is something I'm liking.

[LadyTevar]

Sorry to interrupt the rules discussion, but I was wondering if any of you know about this....

Are they planning on releasing 4th Edition versions of the other d20 variants? I personally use the d20 Modern/Future ruleset for my games, and I must say that the new class structure is something I'm liking.

Pat Booze, WoTC's Sutomer Service Manager, told the panel at Marcon "at this time, there were no plans for third-party offerings" when this question came up, IIRC.

IPeregrine? Just... stop. You're turning my thread into a HoS Special by not knowing what you're talking about. Just this comment alone was bad enough:

Well, I'll concede the real world comparison, since I will admit I haven't used the real weapons to know for sure. I find it hard to believe that a historically accurate crossbow would have such amazing accuracy, but it's not entirely relevant.

If you'd like, I'll dig up the records from the last 5 years of SCA archery championships and show you the scores for Crossbow, with the stats for Longbow and Recurve for comparison. See... *I* have shot both crossbow and Recurve, and yes, crossbow is more accurate, with less strain on my arms

[Rhoades]

I'm really looking forward to the changes in 4th edition. Mainly, the skill system, magic item dependecy, magic system and the multiclass rules. I even like some of the fluff changes to the world-building, such as the cosmology. I think the great wheel just too crowded with all these elemental and alignment planes.

Case in point about the multi-classing. I once played a warlock/wizard/eldritch theurge with the intention of gaining some of the versatility of the wizard with the staying power of the warlock. It was a fun character too from level 1. But, as I discovered, he was behind the power curve because the price I paid was a lower spell progression, eldritch firepower, and other resources (i had to carefully choose my spells, feats, ability scores and magic items to compensate). A lot of times, in 3.5, multi-classing just felt like a chore.

At least with 4e, I don't have to miss out on the good magic powers to flesh out my concept. The price of four feats is well worth it.

[loomer]

Personally, I'm in favour of allowing sneak attacks with all weapons, in certain circumstances and if the player can adequately describe how.

Jumping out of an open window and landing with your warhammer on someone's skull, if they're unaware of you? Sneak attack.

Creeping up behind them and whacking them with it? Not a sneak attack.

Or long bows? Yes, sure, have a sneak attack, but only if your character has invested sufficiently in said bows.

It's all a matter of fluid circumstance.

[Oskuro]

Jumping out of an open window and landing with your warhammer on someone's skull, if they're unaware of you? Sneak attack.

Actually, catching someone unaware means they can't avoid your attack and as such get hit... wich in 3.5 was reflected by the flatfooted rule.

Sneak attack, as has been explained, requires intentionally hitting a weak spot to cause more damage, like slitting a throat or puncturing the spine. Large unwieldy weapons can hardly be used for such a task, hence the limitation on them.

As for the jumping out of a window, as a GM I'd give a circumstantial damage bonus due to inertia, as well as a to-hit penalty due to the complexity of the attack... wich is pretty similar to declaring a charge through the window (as per 3.5 rules).

[loomer]

I'd still personally grant the sneak attack, just because the character has declared intent to hit the weak spot to cause said damage. Slamming a warhammer down onto someone's skull with that inertia ought qualify.

[Hotfoot]

I'd still personally grant the sneak attack, just because the character has declared intent to hit the weak spot to cause said damage. Slamming a warhammer down onto someone's skull with that inertia ought qualify.

You'd have a damage equal to the falling damage the attacker should take, plus the hand a half, plus in my mind what should be a HUGE negative to hit for falling through the air. If the target is unaware, flatfooted applies. If you manage to, through all that, manage a fucking headshot, hey look, that's a REALLY GOOD hit, to a critical location. You might even call it...a critical hit.

Please stop trying to twist sneak attack into something other than what it is described as being. There's a reason something is called a sneak attack, something else is called a critical hit, and so forth. This is an abstraction of the rules that I myself don't particularly like, but it's one that is likely to remain a legacy for some time, and at the very least, it's there for a reason. The rule and the fluff distinction is in place to keep things from becoming overpowered. After all, granting a sneak attack to the described attack means that now, if they get a crit, you get that extra damage too, plus whatever other extra damage you can weasel out of the GM, which just gets stupid, because you're then powergaming for advantages that other players don't get.

Look, sneak attack is meant to be limited. It's one of the more powerful abilities out there, because a rogue at 1st level gets weapon damage + 2d6 + any other modifiers from various abilities and feats, and if that rogue plays intelligently, they can pull off this extra damage damn near every round. Combat advantage is granted when a target is prone, blind, flanked, stunned, running, or any number of other status ailments. Numerous Rogue abilities grant the Rogue combat advantage, and allies can give combat advantage to the Rogue through flanking or ability use.

Okay, so you have to use it intelligently. You can also only use basic rogue weapons. On no, rogues can't effectively use other weapons than their basic set. This is true for just about any other class anyway. Fighters, Rangers, even Warlords have abilities that are limited by what weapon they are carrying at the time. Until a feat comes out that says "treat heavy blade as light blade" or some shit, you wouldn't be able to use most of your rogue abilities anyway. Since Rogues attack with DEXTERITY and do bonus damage based on that stat, this isn't that unreasonable a situation, especially given that in the previous edition, rogues had to suck at to-hit until level three, when they could pick up weapon finesse and even then would still have to use their normally shitty strength bonus for extra damage.