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

[Tharen the Damned]

Looking at the rogue I see the emphasis on encounters. All of the rogue abilities are handy in combat.
But I see nothing that supports the skill type rogue.
Compared to 3rd it seems that the customization of skills for 4th edition is different and it seems narrower.
If I want to create a cat-burglar who climbs every wall, goes unseen in every house, opens the locks and disarms findish traps without resorting to violence I could create this in 3rd edition in maxing out the used skills.
In 4th edition I get training in skill groups.
I hope there are rules to emphazise some skills like open locks or even pick pocket.
If every rogue is trained in thievery, that rogues will only have different skill bonuses due to their Abilities or magic items.

To sum my impressions up: The encounter mechanics seem neat to me and there are some kewl actions. But the out of encounter ability stuff is almost gone it seems.

I hope th PHB will prove me wrong

 

[ZoA2]

What bugs me is absence of any IC explanation or rationalisation of why Positioning Strike, Tortuous Strike, Tumble and Chrisom Edge are limited on one per encounter use (or one per day in the case of the last). It looks awfully metagamey, they appear to be such only for balance sake with no story explanation.

 

[JeffB]

I had a similar reaction: I was excited for 4e but this reveal slammed on the brakes for me..

+1. I am/was very excited for 4E, but this article also is bothersome to me..for a lot of reasons mentioned here by others...fiddly bonni and the total martial emphasis being the big offenders.

I think I may have just jumped from "pre-order" to " cancel my pre-order and wanna wait til its been out for a bit and see" mode.

 

[MichaelK]

+1. I am/was very excited for 4E, but this article also is bothersome to me..for a lot of reasons mentioned here by others...fiddly bonni and the total martial emphasis being the big offenders.

and another +1. (do these modifiers stack?)

I was really excited about 4E from the initial press, but the more I read anything that's actually from it the less impressed I am. Whereas going from 2e, 3e was the opposite, I got more excited the more I read.

It's shocking me a bit, I love Bo9S, I thought the parrallel race/class levelling up idea was pure genius and it seemed like 4E would be exactly right from me... but I just can't get excited about what I'm seeing.

I'll still buy it just out of curiosity and the hours of entertainment from reading it and picking it to pieces, but I'm doubtful whether I'll actually play it.

 

[JoelF]

What bugs me is absence of any IC explanation or rationalisation of why Positioning Strike, Tortuous Strike, Tumble and Chrisom Edge are limited on one per encounter use (or one per day in the case of the last). It looks awfully metagamey, they appear to be such only for balance sake with no story explanation.

It's possible there is an explanation in a section on per encounter and per day powers. Not sure if it will be a good explanation, but that would be a logical place for it, instead of having it under each power.

 

[keterys]

I actually am excited for 4E and liked many of the things in the article, but... just the stuff I didn't like:

Weapon restrictions feel too tight. I'm all for no greatsword or ballista sneak attacks, but no cudgel-like weapon at all? And what about duelists with rapiers? Maybe rapier is a short sword.

What happened to the Cunning Rogue? Why is Strength more important to -any- rogue? Leave that to the fighter with rogue training, and put some kind of mental (Int/Wis) base in.

Why no Diplomacy on the skill list? Why is Stealth required? I hardly ever take Stealth with the rogues I've played in 3.x - partially for opportunity cost, but for other reasons too.

I very much hope a 'Swashbuckler' class will follow this one, with more of a focus on Wit, Diplomacy as a class skill, and a more open weapon list.

Clarifications (no 4E support attached, just noting mistakes in this thread):
* There is no light/medium/heavy armor now, it's cloth / leather / chain / scale / plate, and your 'chitin armor' would fit into a category, much like 'Leaf Armor' fits into leather.
* Spaces are not an indication of more mini/map focus. They're a game term that allows everyone to use feet or meters or wombats - whatever kind of measurement they like. It's also _easier_ to multiply spaces by 5 feet when relevant than it is to divide by 5 feet due to the quirkiness of the human brain. Would you have been happier if they shifted the whole thing to metric (especially 1.5m each, bleah) instead of spaces, for the '5 feet' supporters?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Looking at the rogue I see the emphasis on encounters. All of the rogue abilities are handy in combat.
But I see nothing that supports the skill type rogue.
Compared to 3rd it seems that the customization of skills for 4th edition is different and it seems narrower.
If I want to create a cat-burglar who climbs every wall, goes unseen in every house, opens the locks and disarms findish traps without resorting to violence I could create this in 3rd edition in maxing out the used skills.

I don't see how you can't do this in 4E. The skills to the stuff you described are all there.
Even in 3E, combat abilities where "forced upon" you - BAB, weapon & armor proficiencies, Sneak Attack...

Further customization or specialization isn't in the class write-up, which might mean it doesn't exist, but that doesn't have to be true. (I guess it would be found in the skills & feat chapters...)

 

[Ahglock]

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.

No it will be much harder in 4e without minis than in previous editions. In every edition up to now, you moved up to the target and you whacked him. After that it was fairly static until you whacked someone again. When maneuvers will move the foes around there are a lot more variables of location popping up in every encounter. Yeah you can still wing it, but it will be harder by a large margin if you care for any degree of accuracy in your descriptions.

Edit to add, since I am the only non-mini person in my current group it will pan out fine for us, since I was planning on folding and starting to use battle maps etc consistently now instead of just large chaotic encounters.

 

[Ahglock]

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

He described it happened, didn't describe where the guy is in relation to everyone else now. It's much more movement to keep track of than before, if you care for some degree of accuracy it will be harder to not use the battlemap. Also whenever you can move your foe the location of every static object becomes much more important, where the roof edge, where is the tree to slam him into. If you just want free wheeling action you are still good, the tree is where tis coolest. If you want some consistency and accuracy while not being bogged down with miniatures you may be in a bad spot.

 

[Ahglock]

I do not like the small weapons list especially when it leaves out what I'd see as iconic rogue weapons like the club or sap.

I don't like how sneak attack works with a crossbow but not a bow.

I want them to spend more time to describe per encounter abilities so I have at least a shred of a reason why its per encounter other than for class balance.