Thief Level 1 Daily Power?

37 posts / 0 new
Last post
I've been trying to build a Kenku Thief and it doesn't seem like they get a level 1 daily power.  Is this right or is there a bug with builder?  I also can't find any reference in any of the books as to what powers I should be picking for a level 1 thief so the builder is the only reference i have on it.  :/
This seems more like a problem for the Character Builder boards, or maybe the What's a Player to Do boards even. But since I'm a nice guy, I'll go ahead and help you out anyways

Thiefs are designed to work as melee basic strikers. They don't get powers in the way a classic Rogue build might. Some insider content has given Thiefs feats that allow them to take Encounter Powers in lieu of a use of Backstab, but nothing to give them Dailies yet.

So no, the builder is not broken, you just cannot take any dailies as a Thief to begin with.

Hope this helps. Happy Gaming
This seems more like a problem for the Character Builder boards, or maybe the What's a Player to Do boards even. But since I'm a nice guy, I'll go ahead and help you out anyways

Thiefs are designed to work as melee basic strikers. They don't get powers in the way a classic Rogue build might. Some insider content has given Thiefs feats that allow them to take Encounter Powers in lieu of a use of Backstab, but nothing to give them Dailies yet.

So no, the builder is not broken, you just cannot take any dailies as a Thief to begin with.

Hope this helps. Happy Gaming

Essentials is so uneccesarily convoluted compared to the original 4e.  I think I'm starting to fall into the "I don't like this essentials BS" camp. 

Why is a Theif a Rogue(Thief) and not just a Theif if it has nothing to do with the way Rogues are layed out in the rules?

Which forum should I go to where someone can tell me why(and how) some simple ideas from 4e have been change to be totally confusing in 4.5e?
First, Essentials is not 4.5.  It replaces nothing.

Rogue is now the 'overclass', with Thief and Scoundrel as the subclasses.  Scoundrel is the renamed 'PHB Rogue', so you'll want to select that.

Thieves are Rogues because they can take feats and paragon paths available to rogues (because they're rogues).  They could not, however, take a feat or paragon path that had a prerequisite of Scoundrel.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
First, Essentials is not 4.5.  It replaces nothing.

Rogue is now the 'overclass', with Thief and Scoundrel as the subclasses.  Scoundrel is the renamed 'PHB Rogue', so you'll want to select that.

Thieves are Rogues because they can take feats and paragon paths available to rogues (because they're rogues).  They could not, however, take a feat or paragon path that had a prerequisite of Scoundrel.



See what I mean by convoluted?  And I want to play a Thief not a Scoundrel.  If a class doesn't allow for heiarchical inheritance then is shouldn't be an underclass, it should be a class unto itself.  Just my two cents.  Also, why are Rogue(Thieves) the only class (at least that i've encountered) that don't get a daily power? It does indeed seem like 4.5e because there are new and superceeding rules in the essentals books. 

No, I don't see what you mean by convoluted.  It's really quite simple.

Firstly, none of the Essentials martial class get daily powers, so the thief is hardly alone.

Secondly, what difference does it make what the class is called?  You can be a thief (concept) without being a Thief, and you can be a Thief (class) without ever stealing a thing.  If you want a daily power, then you want to play a Scoundrel, period.  Your character can call himself a thief it appropriate (or scout, or fencer, or ...).

Thirdly, nothing is superceded.  The Rogue was simply renamed to the Scoundrel, and it can exist in perfect harmony alongside a Thief in the same party with no rules concerns.  All the old classes still exist, with the At-Will/Encounter/Daily/Utility structure.  Essentials did not remove any classes, it added them, and you can play the game just fine without them.  Repeat: Not 4.5 by any objective, rational measure ... not that objective, rational measures are common these days.

Fourth, if I understand what 'hierarchal inheritance' means, it does have that.  The Thief is a Rogue, and can take any options that list 'rogue' as a prerequisite because it is a rogue, as is the Scoundrel.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
"Firstly, none of the Essentials martial class get daily powers, so the thief is hardly alone."

But they get them in the PH1.  That sure does sound like rules being changed to me.  Can I play a PH1 Rogue as a Thief with all the Thief specific powers plus the PH1 Rogue Daily?  Who would play an Essentials rogue build if that is the case?

"They don't get powers in the way a classic Rogue build might."

"The Thief is a Rogue, and can take any options that list 'rogue' as a prerequisite because it is a rogue, as is the Scoundrel."

I'm sorry but I find that to be very confusing.  Are they a rogue and therefore can take rogue powers (ie a rogue daily power) or are they a Thief that is a rogue but don't get a daily power like a rogue gets?  Which is it?

"Heirarchical inheritance" means that the subclass inherits all of the properties of the superclass... In other words the Rogue Thief subclass would inherit powers from the Rogue base class and be able to choose from the Rogue powers, including daily powers.  In addition the Thief subclass would have additional powers that would differentiate it from a the base rogue class which other Rogue subclasses could not access.  That doesn't seem to be what's going on here, espeically in the builder where you cannot, even if you wanted to, choose powers from the Rogue superclass.  In practicallity this makes a Thief unrelated to the Rogue class in all but name.  That doesn't make much sense to me.

Now in 4e they have builds... you could make a Rogue builds that were themed, a Brawny Rogue or a Trickter Rogue, for example.  The PH would give you guidance on what powers to take if you wanted to theme your character in such a fashion.  In addition, 4e had the Powers books which game players more options to choose from such that they could create more unique builds.  Had the Thief "subclass" followed this motif, it would have made more sense to call it a "subclass" of rogue (though I use the term subclass very loosly in this case).

Instead, essentials throws a huge monkey wrentch into that system and gives us subclasses that really arn't subclasses in any sense of the term, but rather new classes that are named similarly but which don't follow the general rules of constructing a base character that was outlined in the previous rules books, namely the AtWill/Encounter/Utility/Daily power structure that seems to be outlined for EVERY class.

Honestly this change is extremely confusing.  Each "class" seems to be built according to it's own ruleset that is not at all related to any other rules followed by the other classes.  I didn't play 3e or 3.5e so I have no clue how things were handled there, but this change in Essentials seems to be unnecessarily convoluted and not at all friendly to a beginner player, which is what the Essentials line SEEMED to be geared towards.  From what I hear in the grapevine, Essentials is a move to compete with Pathfinder and to address some the issues that players were complaining about in regards to 4e.  I wasn't one of them and I actually liked the way the origian books were set up. 

Essentials, however, seem to have taken the game in some other direction, which in my opinion, seem exceptionally confusing and disjointed.  There seems to be very little rhythem or flow to it and certainly very little in the way of standards of play.  A lot of the folks I've been playing with have been saying as much over the last year and I always just chaulked it up to them being picky but now that I've had a taste of trying to comply with the essentials rules myself, I'm incline to agree with them.



Looking in the PH1 under "Making Characters" it quite clearly states that at first level you choose....

2 x At-Will Attack Powers
1 x 1st Level Encounter Attack Power
AND
1 x 1st Level Daily Attack Power

There is no mention that this is limited by the class you choose implying that this is the case for every class.  If this is not the case in Essentials then it appears that the rules have indeed been changed.  In my opinion I'd say that makes the Essentials line "4.5e" because they have changed the core rules.

On page 29 of the PH1 there is even a really nice chart for Character Advancement, listing what the Powers, Features and Feats the player get's to take at each level.  Again no mention of any restrictions to the class the player has chosen.  There doesn't appear to be any such chart in any of the Essentials books.  In fact it quite clearly states that the player is to "refer to your specific class entry when it comes to choosing skills, powers, and feats for your character", implying that the rules for such are outlined under each class entry.  If that isn't a rules change I don't know what is.

*scratches head*

I'd like to add that since the Character Builder seems to only follow Essentials ruleset, there is no way to use it to generate the original 4e chartacters with it.

 Okay, that there is your issue - when you make a character in the builder, choose "Home Campaign" rather than just making a quick character...

This will give you all of the options available from every book.

On your other issues...

 A thief can take rogue utility powers, can take any feats that have rogue as a prequisite and can take any paragon path that has rogue as a prerequisite...

 A thief is a rogue who just has different combat mechanics.

    All of the Esentials classes are built on different power structures (to varying degrees) from their parent classes, even though they all still belong to the same overall parent class as their non-essentials counterparts. Some of them contain the standard AEDU powers and some don't - some only get to choose the regular powers of their parent class at certain levels. However, all of them get to pick utility powers from their parent class. Each class has it's own chart at the beginning of it's description in the book which lists the powers and class features it gains at each level, but none of that does anything to change how the original pre-Essentials classes are played.
Essentials added options and new class structures, it didn't change or override the pre-existing rules. (Most of the errata and rules changes printed in the new Rules Compendium actually pre-date Essentials...)
None of the Essentials classes are particularly convoluted or hard to understand if you read them from start to finish with a fresh pair of eyes and without preconcieved notions of what they "should" be like in comparison to the other subclasses within their parent class. The whole idea behind the Essentials subclasses was to explore different areas of character design - to create new and alternate ways of covering the same character archetypes using different game mechanics. The slayer, the knight and the original (weaponmaster) fighter are all just different ways of representing the fighter archetype, even though they have different methods of doing it and the slayer is actually a striker rather than a defender.

    Your main issue isn't that the Essentials classes are "convoluted", it's that you most likely just assumed that a thief(rogue) was built exactly the same way as a rogue(scoundrel), and, as you mentioned, you didn't use the home campaign option on the builder to allow you to choose options from the original books, which would have looked as though the Essentials options superceded all the original classes. Having put your character together in the character builder, I would hazard a guess that you either don't have access to the actual write-up of the class in the Heroes of the Fallen Lands book or you just glanced through it without reading it carefully. The class chart at the beginning of the thef class entry in HotFL gives a complete list of all powers and class features that a thief get at each level.
(To be honest, these forums see a hell of a lot of questions concerning the character builder which are answered in the original text of the classes and feats in question but that aren't adequately explained in the abreviated entries in the builder. The character builder is a great tool, but it's not intended to be a complete replacement for the books themselves.)


It's quite understandable that you might jump into the thief class with the expectation of having it be almost identical to the rogue, find out that it's built on a different set of combat mechanics and go, "OMG! Everything's changed! I'm so confused...", but if you look at the thief subclass from the perspective that it's similar to the rogue but presents a different (and in some ways separate) approach to mechanically representing the character archetype, and you read the class description from start to finish with the intention of understanding it simply for what it is in and of itself, it's not really all that convoluted or complicated.


Show

I am the Magic Man.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

 

I am the Lawnmower Man.

(I AM GOD HERE!)

 

I am the Skull God.

(Koo Koo Ka Choo)

 

There are reasons they call me Mad...

All that you have just drescribe to me sounds awfully convoluted to me.  Why follow one set of standards (ie that apply to all classes) in the 4.0 edition yet follow a completely new paradigmn (where each class is built entirely different then any other) in a set of books which are suppose to provide a simplified set of rules for beginners?

You are right, however, that I am taking my queue from the original 4e core ruleset books and why shouldn't I?  In PH1 it provides the players with a very simple system to generating a character, yet now that the essentials line has been released those rules are now supplemented surplanted with an entirely new set of rules that don't really follow any of the standards set down previously, namely those spelled out in section 7 of Making Characters on pages 27 and 28 and following the chart on page 29.  So in essense, instead of having one rulebook to reference when building a character I have to consult multiple books and multiple pages, especially if I don't exactly prescribe to the Character Builders enforcement of Essentials rules.

If a thief has a different combat mechanic then a rogue then how is it a rogue.  I really don't understand how you can claim that they are the same class but at the same time claim that they are different.   It doesn't make any sense any way you look at it.


" Okay, that there is your issue - when you make a character in the builder, choose "Home Campaign" rather than just making a quick character..."

I chose "Build a Custom Character".  It doesn't really let you deviate from the essetials path.  Go ahead and try and build a Thief that plays using a 4e core ruleset... it wont let you.  Hell it wont even let you build a straight up rogue... you HAVE to build either a Scoundrel or a Thief. 
The more I look at this the more obvious it is that a Thief is not a Rogue.  Character builder neither lets a rogue choose theif abilities nor a Thief choose rogue abilities.  I'm not sure where either of you are getting your info from but it's not from actually building a Theif in the Character builder.

You cannot generate a Rogue class (Aerialist, Brawny, Cutthroat, Shadowy, or Trickter) that is primarly a theif (lower case).  None of these builds allow for a thief themed character.  Sure I can steal stuff if I want, I can even pick a thievery skill, but at the end of the day they are no more or less a thief then any other class.

If you want to play a theif that is themed as such, with appropriate sounding flare and whatnot, the the only choice is to roll a Theif "subclass" with a different set of character generation rules and apparently different play mechanics then any class as defined in the core ruleset.

As far as mechanics, these changes are very much so convoluted.  You build a set of character classes according to one set of rules and other classes according to an entirely different set of rules.  All of this sound horribly broken to me. 


The essentials classes follow a new class design. Nothing is superceded, though. It's just that the newer classes will be following some new designs. If you want to play a PHB1 rogue as a thief, just write "thief" on your character sheet. Done. Class name doesn't matter. Concept before class. They've done something similar in other editions as well. The kits in 2e were a similar mindset. Bo9S in 3e was a similar mindset.

I'm not a fan of essentials myself (with a few exceptions), but nothing is superceded. The thief does not replace the PHB1 rogue. It's just a new way to design classes under the same system. 
All that you have just drescribe to me sounds awfully convoluted to me.  Why follow one set of standards (ie that apply to all classes) in the 4.0 edition yet follow a completely new paradigmn (where each class is built entirely different then any other) in a set of books which are suppose to provide a simplified set of rules for beginners?


 As you previously stated, you didn't play 3rd edition... When 4th Ed. came out many people complained that the original power structure of the classes was confusing and "convoluted". For most of the history of D&D, class structure was much more similar to the Essentials martial classes - characters got certain class features at certain levels, and only spellcasters got "powers" that they could use a certain number of times per day. Anyone who wasn't a spellcaster simply said, "I hit it with my sword" every turn and made what would be considered a basic melee attack in 4E.
When the original 4e character structure was released, many players of previous editions revolted, claiming, "OMG! Everybody's a wizard now! My fighter has spells!"... A lot of players got overwhelmed with nerd rage and quit the game.
Even now, several years after it's release, we get many people posting on these boards about how they or their players find the AEDU power structure to be "convoluted" and hard to remember.

Consider this carefully -  you learned to play 4E from the original books, so for you, Essentials is releasing a bunch of stuff that goes against how you learned to play the game. Now think about how someone who's never played before and learned from the Esentials books would view them - for them, it's pretty simple since they don't have any baggage and preconceptions about the way the E-classes work. For someone whose first several 4E characters didn't do much other than using basic attacks every round, their first exposure to the original classes would probably provoke a response quite similar to yours on the issue, with them wondering why anyone would want to do things differently when what they already know works just fine.

You are right, however, that I am taking my queue from the original 4e core ruleset books and why shouldn't I?  In PH1 it provides the players with a very simple system to generating a character, yet now that the essentials line has been released those rules are now supplemented with an entirely new set of rules that don't really follow any of the standards set down previously, namely those spelled out in section 7 of Making Characters on pages 27 and 28 and following the chart on page 29.  So in essense, instead of having one rulebook to reference when building a character I have to consult multiple books and multiple pages, especially if I don't exactly prescribe to the Character Builders enforcement of Essentials rules.


Do you honestly think the essentials classes completely changed how characters are made? The only difference between an Essentials class and any other class is their selection of class features - they didn't change a single thing about your ability scores, calculating your defenses or attack numbers, picking your skills or buying equipment. It's no different than it was when 4E started - as a player creating a character, you only need the one book your class is in in order to create your character. Both Heroes of the Fallen Lands and Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms contain all the rules you need to create a character: they include all the rules about how to read a power, attacks, damage and combat.
And to be quite honest, any class released pre-Essentials that came from any book other than the Player's Handbook 1 required you to have at least two books to create it. None of the character creation rules printed in the PHB 1 were in Player's Handbook 2 or 3, the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide or the Ebberon Campaign Player's Guide - all of which contained new classed and races, as well as new powers and feats for older classes.
(And for the record, the psionic classes in the Player's Handbook 3 were actually the first to begin to alter the rules of the "standard" AEDU power structure with the introduction of the power point mechanic and the fact that they don't get encounter powers as such, only higher-level at-will abilities that they can augment to be more powerful using their power points.)
The character builder was released quite some time after 4E came about. The builder is a helpful tool, not a definitive rules source.
 None of the rules updates since the beginning of the game, nevermind any that were released in order to blend the original 4E rules with the new Essentials classes, really changed anything so massively that you can't simply recalculate any number on your character sheet by hand to reflect the fact that you prefer to play using the original versions of the rules without any changes or errata. (Just as an addendum, the origianl offline version of the character builder gave you some fairly wide leeway in being able to add in houseruled material.)


If a thief has a different combat mechanic then a rogue then how is it a rogue.  I really don't understand how you can claim that they are the same class but at the same time claim that they are different.   It doesn't make any sense any way you look at it.



 It is not the same subclass. It is, however the same class - whether you want to acknowledge it or not, both the thief(rogue) and the scoundrel(rogue) are subclasses of the overall class called the Rogue. The original PHB class called the rogue has been officially renamed the scoundrel, and is now one of the two rogue subclasses. (There is quite a bit of precedence for this - in original AD&D the fighter, paladin and ranger all fell under the heading of "Fighter", the cleric and druid were both "Clerics" and the magic-user and the illusionist were both considered "Magic-User"s despite all having separate class write-ups in the AD&D Player's Handbook and some of the subclasses that fell under the same heading having markedly different class features and game mechanics.)

This is currently the way the class system of the game is structured...

Class        Subclasses
Fighter      Weaponmaster (original PHB fighter with weapon talent, tempest, arena, brawler and battlerager builds), Knight and Slayer
Cleric        Templar (original PHB cleric) and Warpriest
Druid         Original druid and Sentinel
Rogue       Scoundrel (original) and Thief
Warlock     Original, hexblade and Binder
Ranger      Original, Hunter and Scout
Paladin      Original, Cavalier and Blackguard


" Okay, that there is your issue - when you make a character in the builder, choose "Home Campaign" rather than just making a quick character..."

I did.



I forgot one step... Click on "Custom Character" and then "Home Campaign" - this allows your character to select any classes, races, feats, powers or other material in the game that they're eligible for (by vertue of class, race, level, etc.) regardless of which book it comes from or which campaign world. It's still not going to get your thief a daily power, but it will give you the option of choosing any rogue utility powers and paragon paths from other sources as well as access to any other feats/items/etc from outside the essentials books.


Show

I am the Magic Man.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

 

I am the Lawnmower Man.

(I AM GOD HERE!)

 

I am the Skull God.

(Koo Koo Ka Choo)

 

There are reasons they call me Mad...

You are right, however, that I am taking my queue from the original 4e core rule set books and why shouldn't I?  In PH1 it provides the players with a very simple system to generating a character, yet now that the essentials line has been released those rules are now supplemented supplanted with an entirely new set of rules that don't really follow any of the standards set down previously, namely those spelled out in section 7 of Making Characters on pages 27 and 28 and following the chart on page 29.  So in essence, instead of having one rulebook to reference when building a character I have to consult multiple books and multiple pages, especially if I don't exactly prescribe to the Character Builders enforcement of Essentials rules.



I'm failing to understand what the problem here is. Some class builds would replace older options with newer ones before. The Thief just does this in a way that provides everything you need in a single location, rather than making you have to look through PH1 and MP1 or 2 options to build your character.

You can make a Thief using the HotFL book and nothing else just like you can make a classic Rogue with PH1 and nothing else. If you choose not to, you're going to be looking through a mountain of books no matter what.

If a thief has a different combat mechanic then a rogue then how is it a rogue.  I really don't understand how you can claim that they are the same class but at the same time claim that they are different. It doesn't make any sense any way you look at it.



An Artful Dodger and a Burtal Scoundrel both may have been Rogues, but they have never really played in a similar fashion. A Battle Cleric and a Pacifist Cleric are both Clerics, but they too both have drastically different play styles. A Weapon Master Fighter and a Brawler Fighter also do not play similarly. The changes could be anything from minor (in the case of the Rogue options) to major (such as the Cleric options). What you're upset with is not how the class plays, but how the class grows. A Thief gains abilities at a different rate and value than a Scoundrel, and this can throw off many players of the classic builds into thinking they need a mountain of stuff to work the class. You do not. You need only one book. All adding more books does it provide you with more options to build a character as you like. If you want to play a Rogue that gains attack powers instead of making basic attacks, play a Scoundrel Rogue instead of a Thief Rogue. If you want to play a Rogue that has excellent options for a Melee Basic Attack and isn't weighed down with too many power options, play a Thief Rogue instead of a Scoundrel Rogue. Pretty simple if you ask me.
The more I look at this the more obvious it is that a Thief is not a Rogue.  Character builder neither lets a rogue choose theif abilities nor a Thief choose rogue abilities.  I'm not sure where either of you are getting your info from but it's not from actually building a Theif in the Character builder.


The character builder is not a rules source. Read the Essentials rulebooks - it specifically states that when a character gets a choice of powers that they can specifically choose to select powers from their parent class from other sources. Thieves can select Rogue powers when they are allowed a choice of powers. Thieves don't get a choice of encounter powers (they get one but gain multiple uses of it) and no daily powers, but they do gain utility powers. A thief is allowed to take any rogue utility power he wants to whenever he is allowed to select a utility power.
The fact that thieves do not gain daily powers the same way as a rogue doesn't somehow invalidate the fact that the thief and the scoundrel (the original PHB rogue) are both Rogues.

You cannot generate a Rogue class (Aerialist, Brawny, Cutthroat, Shadowy, or Trickter) that is primarly a theif (lower case).  None of these builds allow for a thief themed character.  Sure I can steal stuff if I want, I can even pick a thievery skill, but at the end of the day they are no more or less a thief then any other class.


Um, exactly how the hell does having the word "Thief" as your class title make you any more thief-like than a rogue - the thief doesn't get any special abilities that somehow inherently make him better at stealing things than the rogue. All of the class features of the thief revolve around combat, not stealth or stealing things. They both get the Stealth and Thievery skills for free, and any utility power that makes the character better at stealing things or being stealthy can be taken by either one, since they both have access to rogue utility powers.
 If you want a "thief" that's all about sneaking around, then build a Cunning Sneak rogue whose special class feature actually makes them better at stealth.

As for "horribly broken" game mechanics, long experience of actually playing Essentials characters by hundreds if not thousands of people have proven that the Esentials rules you seem to have so much hate for are actually quite well balanced with the original character creation rules and interact with them just fine.


Show

I am the Magic Man.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

 

I am the Lawnmower Man.

(I AM GOD HERE!)

 

I am the Skull God.

(Koo Koo Ka Choo)

 

There are reasons they call me Mad...

The essentials classes follow a new class design. Nothing is superceded, though.



Nothing except how I roll any character of any class in the core rules is superceeded by the rules of how to roll a Thief in Essentials.  

I chose "Build a Custom Character".  It doesn't really let you deviate from the essetials path.  Go ahead and try and build a Thief that plays using a 4e core ruleset... it wont let you.  Hell it wont even let you build a straight up rogue... you HAVE to build either a Scoundrel or a Thief.

The 'Scoundrel' is just the Rogue with a new name-plate, you can get all the Rogue options with it.  The Theif is a largely-incompatible sub-class, you can safely ignore it.  Just build a 'Scoundrel,' it's actually a straight-up Rogue (with a little bit of errata here and there - like being able to use SA every turn instead of 1/round).

You cannot generate a Rogue class (Aerialist, Brawny, Cutthroat, Shadowy, or Trickter) that is primarly a theif (lower case).  None of these builds allow for a thief themed character.  Sure I can steal stuff if I want, I can even pick a thievery skill, but at the end of the day they are no more or less a thief then any other class.

There's nothing particularly more Thief-themed about the Theif, other than the name.   The Aerialist makes a good second-story man as does the Cunning Sneak; the Artuful-Dodger an excellent pick-pocket & conman; the Brutal Scoundrel Undecided and Cutthroat straightforward thugs.  All get Theivery automatically.  The Artful Dodger build is probably most like the Theif in general theme and feel.


 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

The essentials classes follow a new class design. Nothing is superceded, though.



Nothing except how I roll any character of any class in the core rules is superceeded by the rules of how to roll a Thief in Essentials.  



No. No it is not. You creating a Theif has no impact on creating an Aerialist Rogue, since that concept is handled in the Scoundrel subclass. Theives do not replace rogues. I'm not sure where you picked up this misconception.
I'm looking to play something more along the lines of a burgler/pick pocket style character which none of those builds seemed to address.

 Your character's class abilities are largely how they fight - their combat style. Unless you're planning to spend the entire combat picking the opponents' pockets or running away from the fight to go dig through their stuff, burglary and pickpocketing are both completely covered by SKILLS and are generally going to be participated in outside of combat.
The rogue and the thief both address this by giving you the thievery and stealth skills for free, which is how any character in 4E represents being a "thief/burglar/pickpocket", and if that's not enough you can take feats like skill training and skill focus and use magic items or powers that give you various bonuses to those skills, as well as gaining bonuses to them from your race, your background or your theme.

If you're looking for a class whose whole schtick is that they fight by stealing things or playing some sort of pranks on opponents, then you won't find it in D&D. As mentioned in the other thread, however, the Scoundrel gets plenty of powers that trip, blind, daze, immobilize or move around their opponents - they even have a power that allows you to knock someone out in one shot.

Show

I am the Magic Man.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

 

I am the Lawnmower Man.

(I AM GOD HERE!)

 

I am the Skull God.

(Koo Koo Ka Choo)

 

There are reasons they call me Mad...


If you're looking for a class whose whole schtick is that they fight by stealing things or playing some sort of pranks on opponents, then you won't find it in D&D. As mentioned in the other thread, however, the Scoundrel gets plenty of powers that trip, blind, daze, immobilize or move around their opponents - they even have a power that allows you to knock someone out in one shot.



It's simply a matter of theming the character with the appropriate flare.  Yes a Thief should be using thief like abilities in combat to "trip, blind, daze, immobilize or move around their opponents..." which in my opinion Wizards did extremely poorly in their implementation of the Thief class in Essentials.  Had they chosen to not go down the route of the new character design paradigmn of Essentials, however, they could have provided a Thief build for Rogues, which could have followed the simple and elegant design philosophy of the corresponding Players Handbooks for 4e.  

The combination of not having a well themed Theif class as well as this rediculous notion of "simplification" where they changed the character generation rules for classes, namely not allowing access to some of the Rogue's abilities which would have given the Thief a more thiefish feel, was an extremely poor  design choice, in my opinion.  It seems that in the interest of poor business practices (ie trying to please all customers all the time) they've gone and made a horrible mess of what was a good game design overall.

Sure I could play a Scoundrel as a thief, and role play myself as a burgler, and try to make my character fit the role despite the lack of thiefish combat abilities, but I can do that on my Invoker as well (and be diverse in my abilities in combat to boot!). 
 
Sure I could play a Scoundrel as a thief, and role play myself as a burgler, and try to make my character fit the role despite the lack of thiefish combat abilities, but I can do that on my Invoker as well (and be diverse in my abilities in combat to boot!). 

 

Being a burglar or pick pocket (that is just thief and stealth skills) and really honestly says nothing much about how you fight.... what is a thiefish combat ability.... a thief runs.... 


  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Fluff is mutable.

Your dislike and inability to grasp that the Thief and a thief are not the same thing, despite sharing a title, is irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with the Thief. He doesn't pick anything but at-wills and utilities. But your gripe is dailies. if you want to play a Rogue as a thief, with appropriately themed powers, just flavour those powers appropriately. You don't need the game to tell you how to roleplay, and when 4E launched, it was made abundantly clear you had to find much of your own fluff in the system.

You're absolutely right, you can flavour your Invoker as a thief and have combat diversity! No one is stopping you. But what you want just doesn't happen. There are no powers that let you attack and steal from creatures. At all. Ever. The Thief subclass has absolutely nothing to do with actual Theft. It's a callback to OD&D and AD&D, wherein there was no Rogue. There was the Thief. Backstab is a callback to the ability of the same name, having a positional requirement, and having to jump through hoops to activate it. It is not a 'well themed thief' because it's not trying to be a Thief in the literal sense, but within the terms that have been defined in D&D in previous editions.

The Thief has access to some of the Scoundrel's powers. But it is it's own subset. Ignore it's Archtype. Entirely. Then, scribble out "Rogue" in your PHB, or Martial Power, and rewrite in Scroundel. Tada! Two different classes that share nothing.

Essentials has classes follow their own class progression. Casters tend to follow AEDU, while Martial types have a much stricter development, eschewing Dailies.

Effectively, you want to define your character mechanically. Which is silly. Define him through personality. If he's a thief, have him be a thief. Fight like a thief. Think like a thief. You don't need powers to do that.
 
Sure I could play a Scoundrel as a thief, and role play myself as a burgler, and try to make my character fit the role despite the lack of thiefish combat abilities, but I can do that on my Invoker as well (and be diverse in my abilities in combat to boot!). 

 

Being a burglar or pick pocket (that is just thief and stealth skills) and really honestly says nothing much about how you fight.... what is a thiefish combat ability.... a thief runs.... 





Smoke Bomb,  A Poke in the Eye, A Subtle Distraction, etc...  Feel free to "reskin" these titles to some game play mechanic that works in combat...

*shrug*






 
Sure I could play a Scoundrel as a thief, and role play myself as a burgler, and try to make my character fit the role despite the lack of thiefish combat abilities, but I can do that on my Invoker as well (and be diverse in my abilities in combat to boot!). 

 

Being a burglar or pick pocket (that is just thief and stealth skills) and really honestly says nothing much about how you fight.... what is a thiefish combat ability.... a thief runs.... 





Smoke Bomb,  A Poke in the Eye, A Subtle Distraction, etc...  Feel free to "reskin" these titles to some game play mechanic that works in combat...

*shrug*


there is a feat called "underhanded tactics" that allows you to transform a die of sneak attack damage into an imparing condition giving your enemy -2 on attacks for the next round
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I just tried to roll up my "thief" as a Trickster Rogue.  Artfull Dodger is not a build available to choose from in the Character Builder so I'm still at a loss of where you guys are coming up with that name for a build, except that it's part of the Trickster Rogue build to take Artfull Dodger.  All of the rogue powers that are available are more themed towards a ninja style character then that a of a thief.  I'm just not satisfied with it being a character I'd want to play in a thief fashion.

The Builds you select in the character builder are completely irrelevant - The builds are just suggestions for beginners on how you might build their character at 1st level to reflect a certain archetype. You can choose any build you want and pick any of the rogue class features.
 It's the class features themselves, the Rogue Tactics - Artful Dodger, Brutal Scoundrel, Ruthless Ruffian and Cunning Sneak - that are the defining elements of how you play the rogue. Each class feature has a different effect, and many of the rogue powers have different rider effects depending on your choice of rogue tactics.
When you see anyone here on the boards refer to a "build", it's the character's choice of Rogue Tactics that they're referring to. The Artful Dodger gets it's charisma mod as a bonus against opportunity attacks, the Brutal Scoundrel adds it's strength to it's Sneak Attack, The Ruthless Ruffian uses a club or mace instead of light blades, and the Cunning Sneak's features make it much more stealthy. Each represents a different archetype of the rogue. Compare any two of them and they'll play remarkably differently in-game.

 Now...

Smoke Bomb,  A Poke in the Eye, A Subtle Distraction, etc...  Feel free to "reskin" these titles to some game play mechanic that works in combat...

*shrug*



 I'd actually suggest you do exactly what you yourself suggested - "reskin" the existing powers to be the effects you'd like them to have - any power that causes you to gain concealment or distract someone could be reflavored as a smoke bomb, any power that blinds someone could be explained as throwing powder in their eyes, etc...


Show

I am the Magic Man.

(Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.)

 

I am the Lawnmower Man.

(I AM GOD HERE!)

 

I am the Skull God.

(Koo Koo Ka Choo)

 

There are reasons they call me Mad...

All of the rogue powers that are available are more themed



You can flavor the powers however you like.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'm sorry but you guys just don't get it.  In fact it simply seems that you want to argue for Essentials regardless of what's being presented in the discussion.

Enjoy.
I'm sorry but you guys just don't get it.  In fact it simply seems that you want to argue for Essentials regardless of what's being presented in the discussion.

Enjoy.


Actually most are ignoring essentials ... at least I was. 

If they were targetting the thief of earlier editions you are right I think going for less striker focus even a a bit of a martial controller might have made more sense.

But I thought they failed on flavor grounds making a knight as an uneducated instinctive brute too.

And the lack of flexibility in essentials interfered with you having a thief of the flavor you like,most of us are focusing on the fact that it is entirely possible with the original rogue to do what you are thinking.... between a feat or two and power selections like duelists strike, blinding flurry etc   yup, can be done.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Thanks Garthanos.

I'm sure I could build a thief like character from the rogue and play it as one well enough, it just wouldnt be the same as playing an "official" thief.  From looking at a lot of the early ability choices, however, verything looked like a slice-n-dice build with nothing really available for a player who wants to do something outside of blade work.

I'm probably going to continue playing with the Theif class regardless.  The "less is more" method of Essentials Thief doesn't really work for me in this case and I just wanted to vent about my disappointement in the class and how the new Essentials design paradigmn made playing the character less fun then playing a character based on the core rules.  Misery loves company and all.  I had no idea that there were so many staunch defenders of the Wizards Way and how much it seems I've rocked the boat for them.

I just got to wondering if it woudl be possible to simply use the Thief abilities as presented in the Essentials book as options for Rogue builds.   In other words, following the core rules for generating a Rogue character but choosing some of the utility powers in Essentials to add some flavor to a "thief" build.  Cut down on the over abundance of dagger related powers and add in the footwork related stuff from Essentials.  That might make it a bit more interesting. 
Thanks Garthanos.

I'm sure I could build a thief like character from the rogue and play it as one well enough, it just wouldnt be the same as playing an "official" thief.  From looking at a lot of the early ability choices, however, verything looked like a slice-n-dice build with nothing really available for a player who wants to do something outside of blade work. 

Faral, level 1
Kenku, Rogue
Build: Aerialist Rogue
Rogue Tactics: Artful Dodger
Rogue: Sharpshooter Talent
Sharpshooter Talent: Sharpshooter Talent (Sling)
Background: Apprentice of Sinister Cabal (Apprentice of Sinister Cabal Benefit)
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
Str 8, Con 11, Dex 18, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 18.
STARTING ABILITY SCORES
Str 8, Con 11, Dex 16, Int 13, Wis 10, Cha 16.

AC: 14 Fort: 10 Reflex: 16 Will: 14
HP: 23 Surges: 6 Surge Value: 5
TRAINED SKILLS
Stealth +11, Thievery +9, Arcana +7, Perception +5, Bluff +11, Athletics +4
UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +4, Diplomacy +4, Dungeoneering +1, Endurance, Heal, History +1, Insight, Intimidate +4, Nature, Religion +1, Streetwise +4
FEATS
Level 1: Underhanded Tactics
POWERS
Rogue at-will 1: Duelist's Flurry
Rogue at-will 1: Palming Strike Sly Flourish
Rogue encounter 1: Dazing Strike
Rogue daily 1: Blinding Barrage


Duelists Flurry is barely damaging (but some basic control) if you apply underhanded tactics (its even less) .... Palming Strike might be useful = not sure - but Sly Flourish works with a sling ...  I was thinking grey mouser with the Arcana Background some of the new themes one was magicians apprentice? I think could go a step further and give an encounter power that dazzles the enemy

Bilbo Baggins was the expert sling user that inspires the sharpshooter part.

Being a thief is very much a "official" flavor of a rogue... the Rogue has many varieties of fighting styles it supports including making fine rapier wielding noblemen duelists.

Here is an odd idea give the essentials ranger who is a controller build a rogish background (burglar) and be sure to train thieving.... or perhaps multiclass in to rogue for additional roguish delights.

And if you really wanted you could build a non-combatant burglar basically you use LazyLord Powers flavor the warlords powers as diving behind your allies blades letting them do the killing (it might be fun if that is your schtick)  and ofcourse give him the Cat Burglar background (scales of war enables thieving), multi-class or hybrid both alternatives too. There are a few incentives even for a Warlord to put dex fairly high.(a few powers good for the LazyLord give dex riders)

 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Awesome Response Garthanos.  Thanks for the insights into the Rogue possibilities and the constructive feedback.  Since I only have the PH1 as a Rogue reference I didn't get to see the possibilities with the Martial Powers options.  This looks like a nice start to a character I'd be more willing to consider.  Still, I'm pretty disappointed that the official "Thief" class leaves a little to be desired coming from the Essentials design paradigmn.  I'm going to continue trying to play the Thief class and see where I get with it despite it's short comings.  I may, however, roll up a Rogue with the build you have outlined here for a future adventure.

Thanks again.   
It sounds like what you're going for is a sneaky character who has a variety of mobility- and distraction-based abilities to use in combat, and a versatile skill selection out of combat.  Given those goals, the Thief i probably the worst possible Rogue build choice, since all its abilities tend to center around stacking damage (it has lots of mobility, sure, but most of it is focused on getting you into the right spot with CA so you can sneak attack).  Of course, if you're interested in giving the Thief a try, you should go ahead, but based on everything you've been complaining about for four pages, it really sounds like you'd be much happier with an Artful Dodger.  As Garthanos demonstrated, the Artful Dodger will have way more combat tricks (due to their choice of encounter power and their having dailies), and many of them are focused around impeding enemies, blinding them, dazing them, knocking them over, or at high levels, even making them attack each other.  If you're looking for a trickster/thief character to do surprising, underhanded things in combat, the Artful Dodger is perfect.  I have a feeling if you play the Thief, and every combat round is deciding on which one of your 3 tricks to use to get yourself CA or bonus damage, you're going to get bored and resentful, and come back here to complain more about E-class design.

And honestly, I somewhat agree with you.  I understand the purpose of the E-martial classes, and people who have used them widely say they generally balance pretty well (which I commend the designers for--balance is one of the hallmarks of 4e over other editions, and it's harder to maintain with varied class construction), but I just have no desire to play one, because I love the breadth of options that 4e O-classes get.  I loved Rogues in 3e, but I always wished they could be "trickier" and do more complex things in combat, and now they can!  I saw you were asking before about ways to do "thief-like" stuff outside of combat through your class features, and I strongly recommend looking through the Rogue utility powers in PHB1, MP and MP2.  Like all classes' utility powers, they're generally combat focused, but some of them have out of combat use that's both helpful and flavorful for a thief (the level 2 at will utility that lets you move at full speed while stealthing with no penalty comes to mind).  If you're looking for more, check out Skill Powers in PHB3--for any skill you're trained in, you can choose a skill power instead of a utility power from your class at the appropriate level.  I haven't looked lately, but there are probably some interesting Thievery powers that could help you feel more like your Thief(or Scoundrel)'s thieving is actually supported by his class features.

Hope that helps! 

So you can make the character you want to play with the rules provided, but you're disappointed that it doesn't say "thief" on the character sheet when you do so.  Is that about the shape of it?

"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
Yes a Thief should be using thief like abilities in combat to "trip, blind, daze, immobilize or move around their opponents..." ...Sure I could play a Scoundrel as a thief, and role play myself as a burgler, and try to make my character fit the role despite the lack of thiefish combat abilities...

What lack?
The Rogue has (according to quick Compendium search):

26 powers that knock Prone (trip)
4 powers that blind
19 powers that daze
12 powers that immobilize
24 powers that Slide, 11 that push, & 3 that pull (move opponents around).

That's 85 of the 231 Rogue attack powers that are 'thief-like' - better than a third.

The "less is more" method of Essentials Thief doesn't really work for me in this case and I just wanted to vent about my disappointement in the class and how the new Essentials design paradigmn made playing the character less fun then playing a character based on the core rules.  Misery loves company and all. 

Sure, I hear you.  But, 4e is still a pretty good game, if you ignore some of what Essentials has done to it (which can be hard with the on-line CB, I know). 

Maybe if the CB had a 'Core' option as well as the default Essentials-only option?

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Sign In to post comments