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

[AllisterH]

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..."

Er, didn't the WOTC guy on the Ampersand thread itself mention WHY they did this? Paraphrasing him, he said,

They had "no builds" in initial playtests but noticed the problem of player confusion/indecision at picking powers so they came up with builds.

 

[Mad Mac]

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

The builds themselves look well thought out, but I'm not sure who decided Brawny Rogue was a good build name. Looking at how the build actually works, it's more like a purely physical striker who relies on a balance of speed, strength, and dirty tricks, while the name conjures up the image of a bumbling brute. Even "Thug" would probably be a better name.

 

[Campbell]

The builds themselves look well thought out, but I'm not sure who decided Brawny Rogue was a good build name. Looking at how the build actually works, it's more like a purely physical striker who relies on a balance of speed, strength, and dirty tricks, while the name conjures up the image of a bumbling brute. Even "Thug" would probably be a better name.

Better Names

• Cuisinart
• Ninja
• Executioner
• Prince of Persia
• Hit Man
• Assassin
• Slice and Dice Artiste

See Wizards. This isn't so hard.

 

[Brother MacLaren]

Er, didn't the WOTC guy on the Ampersand thread itself mention WHY they did this? Paraphrasing him, he said,

They had "no builds" in initial playtests but noticed the problem of player confusion/indecision at picking powers so they came up with builds.

Right. And I'm saying that there's a middle ground between "no builds" and appearing to state that these two are the only possible builds. It's really just the use of the article "the" that makes the difference.

 

[occam]

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.

I think you're probably right about that. It sounds excessively gamey at first, but after all, we don't describe effect durations as, for example, "18 seconds plus 6 seconds per point of Wis modifier".

space:5 feet::round:6 seconds

 

[Wolfspider]

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

What's 3.0/3.5 got to do with the discussion at hand?

 

[Wolfspider]

The builds themselves look well thought out, but I'm not sure who decided Brawny Rogue was a good build name.

I agree. When I hear the word "brawny," I think of this:

Considering that "Brawny Rogue" is probably going to be written as "Brawny Rouge" by thousands of D&D 4e players throughout the world, I imagine I'm going to be reminded quite a bit of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO1HEyxjlNA&feature=related

 

[Imp]

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.

Yep. The 3e rogue is one of the best classes of that edition, and felt like a complete liberation from the earlier thief classes in terms of power and what roles you can make the class fill. The 4e rogue appears to be a shining example of the philosophy of "if it ain't broke, beat the freaking tar out of it with a claw hammer."

I mean, it's nice that 4e is going to be customizable and all, but if I have to rebuild a bunch of the core classes from the ground up, what's the point?

 

[Ebon Shar]

What's 3.0/3.5 got to do with the discussion at hand?

I was merely responding to the post lamenting the new emphasis on miniature use in 4E by stating that the prior edition did, in fact, emphasize the use of miniature moreso than any previous edition. Sorry to confuse you.

 

[Campbell]

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.

Since Insight uses Wisdom I'm going to guess that cleverness is more a function of Wisdom than Intelligence.