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

[Wolfspider]

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.

I wasn't confused. I just wasn't sure what 3.0/3.5 had to do with the quote you posted:

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.

He doesn't mention the prior edition at all. He simply seems to prefer that the new edition not rely so heavily on miniatures. Nothing to do with 3rd edition at all....

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Uh....didn't you JUST do the thing you said would be really hard to do?

 

[Turjan]

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.

[Nitpick] The German equivalent to 1 foot is - surprise - 1 Fuss, which is about the same length, depending on region. 1 Elle equals 2 Fuss, which means that 10 Ellen would be about 6 meters. Except in old D&D, obviously . [/Nitpick]

As to why we get fixed abilities with the rogue? So they have more classes to publish in PHB2, PHB3, and so on .

 

[hong]

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.

It's a reification of the rogue's 8 skill points/level into a new, distinct character concept that is different from what was originally intended. I believe the fancypants jargon for this sort of thing is "emergent gameplay".

 

[Sphyre]

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

Specific armor. Same problem.

I'm holding out until I see more of the rules on this for the following reason:

Weapon 	Prof. 	Damage 	Range 	Cost 	Weight 	Category 	Properties
War pick 2 	d8 	-- 	15 gp 	6 lb. 	Pick 		High crit, versatile

Category: Pick.

Leather and daggers may be a category, which means if you introduce a new weapon, you just need to give it the category of dagger and rogues are automatically proficient with it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

[Nitpick] The German equivalent to 1 foot is - surprise - 1 Fuss, which is about the same length, depending on region. 1 Elle equals 2 Fuss, which means that 10 Ellen would be about 6 meters. Except in old D&D, obviously . [/Nitpick]

GAH! Thanks for correcting me. Indeed, it looks like the translator for the Red Box back then used the wrong unit! Damn, there go my childhood fantasies.

 

[Kaisoku]

He doesn't mention the prior edition at all. He simply seems to prefer that the new edition not rely so heavily on miniatures. Nothing to do with 3rd edition at all....

Do we really need to defend this line of question?

He specifically says that the new edition wouldn't be the same game: "then it might not be the game for me". That's a direct implication that 4e would be different from previous editions, and the reason for it being the minis.

It would be perfectly understandable that this would illicit a question behind the differences of 4e and previous editions.. especially since many people think 3e is extremely mini-centric too.

Wolfspider...
Maybe it's your tone, but you read as being very adversarial. Maybe I'm confused too though, if so.. I apologize.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

He specifically says that the new edition wouldn't be the same game: "then it might not be the game for me". That's a direct implication that 4e would be different from previous editions, and the reason for it being the minis.

It would be perfectly understandable that this would illicit a question behind the differences of 4e and previous editions.. especially since many people think 3e is extremely mini-centric too.

Actually, that's an implication the reader puts there himself, which is what Wolfspider is tying to point out. This "might not be the game for me" doesn't mention D&D in any former edition, it simply talks about "the game for me". He might have compared to Shadowrun, Amber Diceless, Warhammer FRPG, or F.A.T.A.L for all we know, all he's saying is that if the percieved focus on miniature gaming is as heavy in D&D 4E as he thinks it is, it might not be the game for him. It's just as easy to see his post judging D&D 4E on its own (percieved) merits and flaws instead of comparing it to older editions, or other games. No need to unnecessarily drag this into an edition war.

 

[Aus_Snow]

It's hard to place much of it in any meaningful context, but I've tried to anyway, and to me at this stage (admittedly, as a 'non-4e enthusiast') it seems kinda. . . messy.

Compared to the 3e Rogue, it just looks overly convoluted, but also too hand-holdy. This means it might on the one hand intimidate potential new players, and on the other attempt to rather forcefully guide them through. Or something like that.

I don't like how it is 'powered by a martial source', or what have you. Yuk. This may as well be fluff though (?) so I suppose it mightn't matter. And the Rogue probably wouldn't be the only class I would take issue with, for this very reason.

Most of my criticisms (which I won't bother with here) are going to be of the system (and assumptions, implications and 'flavour' therewith) in general, it seems. In that framework (one I am more and more convinced I'll not like much at all) the Rogue will no doubt be effective enough, and stuff. So, from a 4e PoV, I suspect there's nothing wrong with it. It's just, that ain't my PoV.

 

[PeelSeel2]

Do we really need to defend this line of question?

He specifically says that the new edition wouldn't be the same game: "then it might not be the game for me". That's a direct implication that 4e would be different from previous editions, and the reason for it being the minis.

It would be perfectly understandable that this would illicit a question behind the differences of 4e and previous editions.. especially since many people think 3e is extremely mini-centric too.

Wolfspider...
Maybe it's your tone, but you read as being very adversarial. Maybe I'm confused too though, if so.. I apologize.

Agreed. Don't know where he is coming from.