I'm just going to address this one point.
Well, it's a point about Archetype, so there's going to be a lot of fiddly disagreements. But keep in mind that the Archetype is more reinforced by how it
feels in play than with any fiddly bits. The 3e rogue could feel like Sherlock Holmes, Indiana Jones, and a Devilish Manipulator. The 4e rogue doesn't seem like it will be able to feel like those archetypes (and others) as strongly.
With that "massively subjective" disclaimer, let's dive in.
Sherlock Holmes: In 3e, this was a rogue with an intelligence bonus, and ranks in Search, Spot, Listen, a bunch of knowledge skills, and some obscure feats usually from Dragon Magazine. What makes you think this will not be possible in 4e? Is a rogue trained in Insight, Perception, and Streetwise somehow inadequate in comparison to the 3e version?
In 3e, a rogue was defined in many ways by their massive quantity of skills and which ones they chose to focus on. 4e cuts down on the number of skills, and narrows them to be "adventurer-relevant-only" skills.
Sherlock Holmes was a master of trivia, perception, and logic. Search, Spot, Listen, a bunch of Knowledge skills, maybe even a level of Bard or "some obscure feat" for Bardic Knowledge. Gather Information, Diplomacy, Intimidation. This is D&D, so maybe some levels of cleric or wizard to get some divination spells, to boot (how well this archetype performed in combat probably doesn't matter, a lot of these decisions would fall into 3e's infamous multiclassing traps). A high Intelligence is his defining trait, and he uses it.
The skills might work okay, though they'll be more limited. Still possibly possible, just less satisfying. When I see a Sherlock Holmes character, I want to see a plethora of skills, and I want to be able to use them in nifty ways to help my character solve mysteries.
The big fall-down here for 4e comes in the rogue abilities. Look at 'em. Do ANY of those look like something an early-20th-Century detective would be doing? Holmes wasn't an acrobat, he wasn't athletic, he didn't feint and weave and dodge. We'll need some accomodation because "this is D&D," and it's an action-packed game, not really a mystery game, but there's not even a nod to Sherlock.
Now, maybe in 4e he'll be better represented by a cleric or a wizard (lore and divinations and all that). So the archetype could still be there, it just wouldn't be for the rogue.
Indiana Jones: In 3e, this was a rogue with a whip, which was an exotic weapon that required a feat to use. He probably also had agility skills and one knowledge skill. What makes this not work in 4e? Is a rogue with the 4e equivalent of "Weapon Proficiency: Whip", and training in Agility, Acrobatics and Perception not enough? What more would be necessary that isn't likely to be available?
Indiana might work better than most of the others, actually. Mobility and tricky combat works for him, and he was charismatic, and he doesn't need the preponderance of knowledge that a Sherlock character would need.
I'll cede Indiana is probably still a good rogue archetype (though part of this does depend on how 4e manages to fix the whip!
)
Devilish Manipulator: Again, if this were a rogue, it would be a rogue with a charisma score and a bunch of social skills. What makes this not possible in 4e? Wouldn't a rogue with a good charisma score, and training in Bluff, Insight, Intimidate, Perception and/or Streetwise be pretty darn close? The only thing missing is Diplomacy.
Again, the point is that there's no rogue abilities related to the archetype. The skills might be fine, though I don't know how he's going to forge contracts and make it all "legal on the surface," as the archetype is drawn. He doesn't have favors he can call in, contacts he can make, no abilities to decieve with clever wordplay or to gain help from unwilling adversaries.
Now, maybe in 4e this would be better represented by the Warlock. The archetype is still there, it just also has curses and whatnot. It's not for the rogue.
As a dedicated promoter of the swashbuckler, I am willing to believe that there will be fewer choices in 4e. But these examples seem really weak.
Well, they were off-the-cuff. The general idea is that the rogue will be more narrowly focused in 4e. The designers definately think this is a good idea. I trust them on this, but it does mean that some valid archetypes will be bumped around or abandoned (the Swashbuckler is another one that seems like it'll fall through the cracks).
Is the underlying reasoning something like, "My vision of Sherlock Holmes doesn't included crafty combat tactics, so I'm mad that I'm being given them?" I'm getting that vibe.
Tsk, tsk, ascribing motives.
