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

[Mistwell]

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.

I think that is one of those initial reactions we will all have, that will go away with a small amount of practice. You can still describe knocking someone 10 feet away without a mini, just as you could in 3e. There might be more of it in 4e, but I think with practice a verbal description of what is happening and where people are relative to your PC will still be adequate to run combat without minis and grid.

 

[maggot]

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.

My bad. I was even trying to avoid such language. I've edited the original post.

 

[nem z]

I had a similar reaction: I was excited for 4e but this reveal slammed on the brakes for me. I'd much rather see classes as a concept hit the burn pile but had resigned myself to accepting them as a D&Dism... so long as they were ability groups, not video-gamey job titles.

Color me frustrated.

Weapons/ armor groups is a good thing... but hard-coding them into a class is not. I can see the justification for sneak attacks and such needing a piercing weapon, but why just crossbow and light blades? Why not a short spear, normal bow, light pick, etc? And just where the hell is rapier?

Consolidated skills is also a good thing. Forcing them upon a class is not, and having a class skills list is something I really hoped was going away.

Little bonii everywhere... if they were more consistent in application and applied to whole weapon groups rather than specific ones I'd be happier. I'd also be happier if this is a feat that anyone can pick up.

 

[kennew142]

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.

It should be easy enough to remember that a space is 5 feet. Wouldn't it be pure hand-holding of the lowest order to do the math for the players. Counting by fives is a skill taught in preschool in Tucson.

I seriously doubt that 4e will require the use of minis, ay more than any other edition has. IMO tactical combat has always been easier with the use of minis. I've used them from my AD&D days for that reason. Some class abilities will likely be more difficult for the GM to adjudicate without some method of knowing exactly where each character is. GMs who use this style are usually pretty proficient with describing the action cinematically. The types of abilities listed for the rogue may make the job a little harder, but it shouldn't make it impossible.

 

[maggot]

Clarifications:

Specific weapon list - I like the weapon categories of 3e, at least conceptually if not in exact execution. When you introduce a new weapon, say an atlatl for an Aztec themed game, you can just say: This is a simple weapon, or this is a martial weapon. Then all classes follow suit. Of course, 3e didn't go all the way and use these classification for some classes, thus breaking the model. But the model was good. The 4e rogue now either breaks a similar model, or indicates it was removed entirely. So every new weapon needs to list every class. Not a good system. Not at all.

Specific Armor: Same problem as weapons, but potentially less annoying. Maybe they just renamed light armor as "leather", but in my ice age game, I might not like that designation. "Counts as leather" might suffice. It is a bit annoying, but it would work.

Annoying little bonuses like +1 to hit with daggers: Yes, if you are a rogue dagger fighter, you will have the +1 to hit calculated into your stats. But what if you are a rogue short sword fighter that happens to grab a dagger. Now you can easily forget the bonus. Same with a shuriken, but to a lesser extent.

Three different numbers (first level hit points, per level hit points, healing surges): Star Wars saga edition had only one number per class - the hit die type. You got 3x maximum at first level, you got that hit die type per level after that (easy to house rule to non-random), and your "second winds" restore 1/4 your hit points (not even class related). One number is simpler than 3. You don't end up looking up each number when generating characters, and you don't end up with a class that has high hit points but low recovery.

 

[Lizard]

It should be easy enough to remember that a space is 5 feet. Wouldn't it be pure hand-holding of the lowest order to do the math for the players. Counting by fives is a skill taught in preschool in Tucson.

Yup. Besides, using 'spaces' implies an easy shift to large-scale battles. A starfighter can 'shift' 1 space, or 2 spaces if it's 'agile', perhaps.

I never knew anyone to get bent out of shape over the use of 'hexes' instead of '2 meters' in Hero, for example.

I seriously doubt that 4e will require the use of minis, ay more than any other edition has.

What do people think dice and legos are for?

The only RPG I've played w/no figures was Sailor Moon, since combat was REALLY abstract, and 95% ranged anyway.

 

[Filcher]

It should be easy enough to remember that a space is 5 feet. Wouldn't it be pure hand-holding of the lowest order to do the math for the players. Counting by fives is a skill taught in preschool in Tucson.

Sure, but Tucson schools are the envy of the nation. What will the rest of us do?

Agreed that minis have always aided tactical battles. But, given what we've seen, I'll be punishing my players if I don't draw out a tactical map for every .... single .... conflict so that their PCs can use their "space-related" abilities.

Drawing out maps makes sense for the climatic battle w/ the dragon, but if I'm sketching out taverns every time my PCs get into a bar brawl, it will take forever, and we'll be seeing a lot less bar brawling ...

... which might not be a bad thing, all considered.

 

[kennew142]

Sure, but Tucson schools are the envy of the nation. What will the rest of us do?

Agreed that minis have always aided tactical battles. But, given what we've seen, I'll be punishing my players if I don't draw out a tactical map for every .... single .... conflict so that their PCs can use their "space-related" abilities.

Drawing out maps makes sense for the climatic battle w/ the dragon, but if I'm sketching out taverns every time my PCs get into a bar brawl, it will take forever, and we'll be seeing a lot less bar brawling ...

... which might not be a bad thing, all considered.

I always draw out the taverns for bar brawls (I keep a couple of maps handy for just such an occasion). My characters like to use elevation, furniture and cover during these fun interludes.

On Tucson schools, they're great - for Arizona. I'm slinking off in shame now....

 

[AllisterH]

Clarifications:

Specific weapon list - I like the weapon categories of 3e, at least conceptually if not in exact execution. When you introduce a new weapon, say an atlatl for an Aztec themed game, you can just say: This is a simple weapon, or this is a martial weapon. Then all classes follow suit. Of course, 3e didn't go all the way and use these classification for some classes, thus breaking the model. But the model was good. The 4e rogue now either breaks a similar model, or indicates it was removed entirely. So every new weapon needs to list every class. Not a good system. Not at all.

.

My point is that I think the term weapon proficiency has changed Let's say you introduce the atlatl as a martial weapon. This automatically meant that characters without martial weapon proficiency were at -4 to hit.

What I suspect has changed is that weapons themselves have changed so that if you added atlatl to your campaign, EVERYONE would have the same Atk bonus but that people with proficency in it, would gain a bonus to hit (probably +1 or +2, a la the dagger) or increased weapon die (a la the shuriken) or non-numeric bonus (for example, if you're proficient with a polearm, you automatically gain the benefit of the Short Haft feat from PHB II).

This makes EVERY weapon unique and useful yet at the same time, you don't get that "total failure" with a non-proficient weapon (for example, the -4 to attack with a non-proficient weapon would actually drop a rogue's first attack 5 levels...)

This goes with WOTC wanting to make weapons/armour more important especially given that threat ranges are gone.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I like the new rogue overall, I think I'm still digesting it.

One thing I'm not a huge fan of is the decreased emphasis on Int. Int and Dex have always been the "rogue ability scores" for me, with a dusting of Cha, but it seems that Str has replaced Int.

So now there's no such thing as a clever rogue. Just one that focuses on bluffs, and one that focuses on beat-downs. Not a huge fan, and I might have to add a "Clever Rogue" build almost right off the bat (and perhaps an Int-based Rogue Tactic) (or just replace all instances of Str with Int?)

But that's really it. Other stuff is just digesting, I think.