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

[ruleslawyer]

The bard is an arcanist jack-of-several-trades (master of nuns).

Master of nuns? Isn't that like a Mother Superior?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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."

Can't speak for other european players, of course, or anybody who started "recently", but I recall the german Red Box measuring distances in the german equivalent of feet (Elle, for those interested ), with 10 Ellen = 3 meters. This basically trained me and everybody I played with to simply take the english measurement and divide by 3 in my mind without thinking to arrive at meters. No idea how the newer german editions of AD&D/D&D handled this (I switched to english with 2E), but it was a quaint and funny detail that drove home that D&D (back then) dealt with worlds and characters that used quasi-medieval measurements.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

i really dont have a lot to add but i showed this to my rogue player today and he hated it with a passion he didnt even get to the end at sneak attack he was done. he is a skill monkey of the highist order and didnt like what he saw. there was a lot i didnt like fixed hp being a 4e thing and all . i hated very limited weapons and armor. i dislike the limited focus im seeing and how sneak attack has been limited as well as none combat options so for me its a big turn off and yes i hate the movment in sq's we dont use minis and i didnt like it in starwars why would i like it now

 

[JoelF]

Maybe this is being nitpicky about the language choice, but I didn't like that the article says "the two builds are" since this to me means that there's much less customization in character building, since you only have 2 paths of making a rogue (and presumably other characters will have similar limits.) This also is bad word choice if they plan on having future supplements provide new build options.

I also wan't fond of the use of "rogue" in many of the powers - such as rogue tactics, etc. Something more along the lines of the 3E ranger combat styles would be a more generic term.

My biggest issue about the article was that sneak attack is limited to a small set of weapons only. Not only does this limit the rogue's options in general (and for reason I fail to see the logic of), but it seems to me that it strongly limits multi-classing (or training), since sure a 4E rogue could learn to use other weapons from multi-classing or feats, etc, but couldn't sneak attack with any of them.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Maybe this is being nitpicky about the language choice, but I didn't like that the article says "the two builds are" since this to me means that there's much less customization in character building, since you only have 2 paths of making a rogue (and presumably other characters will have similar limits.) This also is bad word choice if they plan on having future supplements provide new build options.

Well, there was even an explanation of what "build" would mean. I guess the explanation will e found at the start of the classes chapter in the PHB, so if someone is still confused about this, well, I don't know what could help him.

I am not sure that the Rogue needed a focus on STR, DEX and CHA. The 3.x Rogue was more DEX, INT, CHA in my mind. But since we're talking about a martial character, a higher focus on physical score makes sense, too. And it's not like "Roguish Charms" aren't an important part of the Rogue concept, either.
And then, I am also not sure if Roguish Wits are actually found in INT, or if CHA isn't better suited to represent it, too.

 

[Mephistopheles]

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:

...

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.

...

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.

I had a mixed response to the preview.

To me it looks like they're trying to ditch the potentially elusive identity of the 3E Rogue and reclaim the more concrete Thief identity of earlier editions to some degree. I like that, but I am still fond of the older editions of D&D which probably colours my opinion on that a little. I can understand why people who like the 3E Rogue might not like the 4E Rogue.

I agree about getting into the many small bonuses territory, but at least it's not situational. I'm not sure what you mean by hard-coded. If you don't want it in your game what's stopping you from removing it?

The powers were actually the part I had the most mixed reaction to. On the one hand I like that it looks like all classes will be getting more interesting things to do in combat (potentially, at least). On the other I hope it doesn't lead to every class being prone to option paralysis that is currently a problem mainly for casters. Additionally with different attacks going up against different defenses there could be a bit of "Is that against AC or Dex?", etc.

 

[Tusz]

Maybe this is being nitpicky about the language choice, but I didn't like that the article says "the two builds are" since this to me means that there's much less customization in character building, since you only have 2 paths of making a rogue (and presumably other characters will have similar limits.) This also is bad word choice if they plan on having future supplements provide new build options.

That struck me as a bit off too, but then I noticed this in the intro:

You’re going to see something called “builds” in the information that follows. Builds present themes that you can use to guide you as you select powers and other abilities. You can follow the advice of a build, or you can ignore it. It’s not a constraint, but instead provides information to help you make informed choices as you create your character. Using a class build isn’t required; builds exist to help guide your decisions through the process of character creation and each time you level up.

Basically, the class chapter will mention that the "builds" are suggestions to people unfamiliar with the class. This also implies that there's a section in the beginning of the chapter on concepts that apply to all classes. Which means that there's likely some vital (or at least interesting) context that the article might not include.

 

[kennew142]

That struck me as a bit off too, but then I noticed this in the intro:


Basically, the class chapter will mention that the "builds" are suggestions to people unfamiliar with the class. This also implies that there's a section in the beginning of the chapter on concepts that apply to all classes. Which means that there's likely some vital (or at least interesting) context that the article might not include.

Some people won't be happy if there is any help for new players in the book. I wonder if they looked at the sample builds in the 3e PHB and complained that all characters would have to have the same skills/feats/equipment/et cetera - or is it just looking for more straw men to assault in 4e?

 

[I'm A Banana]

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

You're thinkin' too SMALL, Steve! Pure acting is small potatoes. If just RPing was good enough, I'd still be playin' 1e where every Fighter with the same Strength had the same abilities!

I want the GAME to be able to reflect my character choice!

That's like saying that "brawny rogue" should just be a matter of having a good STR. There's much more design space than that!

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.

A few mechanical talking points for a 'clever' rogue:

1) Traps. Yeah, the Thievery skill, but there's also an Athletics skill, give us something more.

2) Knowledge of dangerous areas. Dungeoneering and civic lore. Architecture, for the climbing of walls and the bombing of banks.

3) Master of minor magic. Scroll use, Use Magic Device, things that made it clear that rogues are no slouch when it comes to learnin'.

4) A "burglar" motif dealing with "breaking and entering": getting around windows, walls, traps, lights, guards, etc.

5) Random bits of knowledge and skill. Knowing where to place a sneak attack rather than being able to place one HARD.

It looks like the "tricksy" rogue will fill some of this mold, but "brawny"? Seriously?

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Some people won't be happy if there is any help for new players in the book. I wonder if they looked at the sample builds in the 3e PHB and complained that all characters would have to have the same skills/feats/equipment/et cetera - or is it just looking for more straw men to assault in 4e?

The text as it stands now does look a little too definitive. "The trickster rogue and the brawny rogue are the two rogue builds, one relying on bluffs and feints, the other on brute strength."

IMO, that sentence could be improved by changing it to "The trickster rogue and the brawny rogue are two possible rogue builds..."