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

[Ebon Shar]

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.

Doesn't 3.0/3.5 have that same problem though? What's so different about miniature focus in 4E?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

As a general impression, the 4E rogue seems to have the more narrowly defined role of the pre-3E thief, while keeping the 3E focus on tactical combat and minis.

In BECMI, your thief had the same skills of any thief of that level. No customization.
In 2E, you had the basic skills, plus some customization (points you were free to spend). You could not be proficient in heavy armor or certain weapons unless multi-classed.
In 3E, you had pretty much free rein to customize. Your rogue could have 0 ranks in Pick Pockets if you wanted, and more ranks in, say, Appraise. Your rogue could also (with the right feats) buckle on fullplate and pick up a greatsword.
In 4E, it appears that skills will be closest to 2E. You'll have a base skill level for the core skills, and potential to be even better at those or to be good at others. Not sure how weapons and armor will work; that might be more like 3E (depending on how the Fighter Training feat works).

And I do see 4E's continued emphasis (from 3E) on minis, battlemats, and precise movement and measuring. Sometimes that's what I'm looking for in an RPG, and sometimes not.

 

[Henry]

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.

There is one advantage that a UK player pointed out: With generic "squares", then players the world over will have a somewhat easier time with game units. We think in feet, so many other people think in meters, and this might make one disconnect for a lot of players go away if we're all using the same units.

"Oh, the distance to that column? About 10 squares, so... 50 feet."
"Oh, the distance to that column? About 10 squares, so... 15 meters."

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

I admit, I'm waiting to see how this plays out, but I'm not liking the idea of moving back to specific lists of weapons, either.

 

[kennew142]

I like the 4e rogue. I like it a lot. My first three character concepts for upcoming 4e games have already been taken by other classes, but if another of my group wants to start up a campaign, I will call the rogue as soon as possible.

Interestingly enough, one of my fellow players immediately changed his character concept in one of the campaigns we're planning from ranger to rogue. We're playing tonight and I'm wondering how many other players are going to start changing concepts. I will have to remind them that every class will have nifty powers available to them. The rogue is just the first we've seen.

 

[ruleslawyer]

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.

All due respect, but I don't think this is a required conclusion at all. Just say that 1 space = 5 feet and you're done; no more reason to use a battlemat than if you already had a real-world unit of measurement.

The ostensible reasons to use spaces instead of feet or what have you are as follows: a) You can scale combats up or down while using a similar measurement (the starship-battle example referenced earlier); and b) you're allowing GMs to use whatever conversion metric they like (2 meters per square, 5 feet per square, 3 feet per square, etc.).

 

[Umbran]

So now there's no such thing as a clever rogue.

It may be that the "clever rogue" option is actually handled by another class - perhaps the warlord, or the bard (if/when it comes out).

 

[I'm A Banana]

It may be that the "clever rogue" option is actually handled by another class - perhaps the warlord, or the bard (if/when it comes out).

Yeah, but the archetype is the strongest with the rogue.

The Warlord is a fighter with charismatic boosts. The bard is an arcanist jack-of-several-trades (master of nuns). They have baggage.

Just being smart & sneaky is off the table for now.

 

[Reaper Steve]

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?)

Maybe 'clever' and 'sneaky' will just be a matter of roleplaying?

 

[Toben the Many]

I am very disappointed in the increased emphasis on tactical maps. Understand that I've always used tactical maps and minis, even back in 1e. However, it was very nice to have the option of not using them.

Mistwell is right to an extent. Knocking someone 10 feet away is not too hard to describe without a map. However, i'm concerned when multiple abilities/feats adjust PC and NPC positions on the battle field.

For example, the rogue knocks a Bad Guy 2 spaces (10 feet) away. Then, the rogue slide 10 feet in this direction. Afterwards, the Warlocks spell shifts the bad guy in that direction. With so many abilities shifting opponents' or PCs' positions on the battlefield, it will be just that much hard to do non-map battles.

Also, I'm concerned for the DMs out there who don't use maps at all (and they are definitely out there).

Other than that, the rogue looks...okay. I definitely like that the class information about the rogue really fits into a few paragraphs. Everything else is extra. It takes me back to 1e, when a character could fit on the top half of a piece of notebook paper.

 

[Stone Dog]

It may be that the "clever rogue" option is actually handled by another class - perhaps the warlord, or the bard (if/when it comes out).

It may also be that the "clever rogue" is actually handled by the rogue. The Scoundrel seems to do a good enough job after all.

Maybe 'clever' and 'sneaky' will just be a matter of roleplaying?

Always was as far as I could see. I don't understand what was so mechanically superior about other rogues that made them more clever.