D&D 4E 4E Rogue for non-4E enthusiast

[maggot]

First of all, I'm not a 4e fan. But this this thread isn't for 4e fans.

I read the 4e rogue, thinking it might turn out to be really neat and perhaps change my mind a bit. And I was underwhelmed.

So I thought I'd start a discussion of what's wrong with the 4e rogue as spoiled. If you are a 4e fan, I'd appreciate it if you don't derail the thread.

My problems with the 4e rogue:

Specific lists of weapons. Ick. You add a new weapon, you have to modify all classes.

Specific armor. Same problem.

Hard coded skills. Easy enough to house rule back, though.

Those little bonuses like +1 to attack with daggers, extra damage with shuriken. I thought 4e was supposed to go away from this kind of garbage. (One of my least favorite parts of 3/3.5 is stuff like this.)

Those little bonuses are hard-coded. Harder to house rule away than the skills, and annoying that every rogue in the multiverse is better with a dagger.

The various sets of numbers you get. 12+con hit points at first level, 6+con mod healing surges, 5 hit points/level. Couldn't they have consolidated these into one number?

On the plus side, the powers don't bother me too much. Not as much as I thought they would. Actually, I kind of liked some of them. I realize this is an abbreviated list.

 

[HeinorNY]

Specific lists of weapons. Ick. You add a new weapon, you have to modify all classes.

Specific armor. Same problem.

Why?

 

[Snarls-at-Fleas]

Specific lists of weapons. Ick. You add a new weapon, you have to modify all classes.

Specific armor. Same problem.

Was it different in 3/3.5? And as in 3/3.5 I am sure you can take feats or weapon training or something else to use other weapons or armor as well if need be.

Hard coded skills. Easy enough to house rule back, though.

What's the difference again? It's not that he cannot take other skills it's just means he is better at these (can train them). Want your rogue to be a great... hmm... crafter (?) - I am sure there will be a feat like Favored Skill from SWSE which gives you a +5 to the check.

Those little bonuses like +1 to attack with daggers,

Easy to remeber - you have it in every situation, just add it once and forget.

extra damage with shuriken.

No extra damage - different die. Big difference - you don't add anything - you just use another die (like d6 instead of d4 or something)

The various sets of numbers you get. 12+con hit points at first level, 6+con mod healing surges, 5 hit points/level. Couldn't they have consolidated these into one number?

I've lost you here. They are different things - why should they be the same? You don't complain about attack & damage numbers and bonuses being different from defences, do you?

 

[Kwalish Kid]

So I thought I'd start a discussion of what's wrong with the 4e rogue as spoiled. If you are a 4e fan, I'd appreciate it if you don't derail the thread with 4e apologies.

Translation: I value my opinion and I'm never wrong. Don't bother questioning my reasoning, I just want people to post who will support my opinion.

 

[Lizard]

So I thought I'd start a discussion of what's wrong with the 4e rogue as spoiled. If you are a 4e fan, I'd appreciate it if you don't derail the thread with 4e apologies.

My problems with the 4e rogue:

Specific lists of weapons. Ick. You add a new weapon, you have to modify all classes.

I believe the weapons are mostly 'classes', that there can be several different 'short swords'. So you ought to be able to say 'this weapon counts as a short sword'. This also isn't a 4e issue; in 3e, you had 'simple', 'martial' and 'exotic' weapons...and special lists for the rogue and monk. I'd prefer consistency.

Specific armor. Same problem.

"Counts as leather" works for me. I suspect we'll see "Leather, chain, plate" instead of "Light, medium, heavy".

Hard coded skills. Easy enough to house rule back, though.

Agreed. This likes pure hand-holding of the lowest order. "The poor confuzzled players won't know rogues should be sneaky and thiefy, so we'll make sure they're mandatory."

Those little bonuses like +1 to attack with daggers, extra damage with shuriken. I thought 4e was supposed to go away from this kind of garbage. (One of my least favorite parts of 3/3.5 is stuff like this.)

See, I like this level of crunch. I want to see more.

Those little bonuses are hard-coded. Harder to house rule away than the skills, and annoying that every rogue in the multiverse is better with a dagger.

Agree here -- better would be "+1 with a single rogue weapon of player choice".

 

[Piratecat]

Translation: I value my opinion and I'm never wrong. Don't bother questioning my reasoning, I just want people to post who will support my opinion.

Translation: despite having been at EN World as long as Piratecat can remember, I choose not to follow the same rules we've always had.

Out of the thread, KK. Threadcrapping works both ways. If someone starts a thread to bitch about rules, and it doesn't appeal to you, then just go read something that does.

Maggot, you'll find that you have much more success if you don't use loaded language like "4e apologies." That makes a thread much more likely to be derailed, and could have easily been stated without the implied insult. Please avoid that in the future.

 

[helium3]

Translation: I value my opinion and I'm never wrong. Don't bother questioning my reasoning, I just want people to post who will support my opinion.

Could we please stay on topic?

 

[Filcher]

I was disappointed to see so much focus on "spaces." I'm fine that 4E is largely minis-centric, but if it REQUIRES minis for combat resolution, then it might not be the game for me. To each his own.

 

[Xethreau]

Specific lists of weapons. Ick. You add a new weapon, you have to modify all classes.

Specific armor. Same problem.

I am not sure what you mean exactly, but I think I do, so let me give it a try. If you add a specific kind of armor (for example, Drow Chiten Armor), one has to reevaluate all the proficencies for all the classes. Same with weapons; I add Elven Thinblade, now I have to reevaluate proficencies.

If that is the case, I think you might be mistaken. To my understanding, proficiencies for weapons and armor are by categories, and if you want to create a new kind of armor or something, just slip into a previously made category. Anything beyond that will require a bit more HR's, and rightly so.

 

[AllisterH]

My problems with the 4e rogue:

Specific lists of weapons. Ick. You add a new weapon, you have to modify all classes.

Specific armor. Same problem.

I don't think weapon/armour proficiency means the same thing it did in AD&D/3.x. I state this given the fact that Sneak Attack references LIGHT Weapons (as does other powers) yet the rogue isn't proficient in LIGHT weapons but has specific weapon categories.

What I suspect is that EVERYONE has the same ATK bonus (1/2 level) and that being proficient in a weapon allows you to use "special options" for said weapon. You can see some of this in the Rogue Weapon Talent tree where the special option is an increased damage die or a small bonus to atk.

Same thing probably applies to armour where being proficient in Leather armour grants a bonus and being non-proficient simply grants nothing.

I think this goes well with WOTC's mentioning of wanting to make weapon choice more substantial/important other than damage die (especially given we no longer have critical hit ranges)

Hard coded skills. Easy enough to house rule back, though.

Personally, I do wonder why WOTC insisted on having Stealth and Thievery be non-optional. If Trained gives the same +5 bonus as it does in SWSE (and I imagine it does if the Pit Fiend was anything to go by), there must be a reason why WOTC simply stated all rogues must have stealth and thievery.

Those little bonuses like +1 to attack with daggers, extra damage with shuriken. I thought 4e was supposed to go away from this kind of garbage. (One of my least favorite parts of 3/3.5 is stuff like this.)


Those little bonuses are hard-coded. Harder to house rule away than the skills, and annoying that every rogue in the multiverse is better with a dagger.

The difference is that these little bonuses don't change from what I see. For shuriken for example, you always use the same die and for daggers, you always have +1 to atk. My impression was that WOTC was trying to lessen (not "eliminate entirely" as some people have inferred) the effect of non-static bonuses that can potentially change round by round

As for every rogue being better with a dagger, um, every rogue is already better with a dagger, dont see the change in this one.

EDIT: Spaces

Yeah, I do wonder how D&D plays without the use of minis. but this might simply be a cost of trying to make non-spellcasters actually have more options than "I swing, do I hit?" every round.