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

[Reaper Steve]

Ahglock,
Thanks for the reply.
I understand your point. Maybe mine could be better stated that '4E focuses on combat.'
IMO, D&D is not a catch-all be-whatever-you-want-it-to-be RPG. It used to be, primarily because their wasn't many other options. It was the catch-all out of necessity.

4E focuses on combat. While WotC publicly states that '4E doesn't require minis' (which is a true statement) I'll bet my mini collection that their business model for D&D and DDM hinges on trying to get D&D players to buy as many packs of DDM as possible. Every 4E module announced so far (that has a detailed listing) has at least one battlemap. I'm not faulting them for it. It's how I've wanted to play D&D since I was a kid.
In pushing the minis, the game will renew its focus on combat. In doing so, balancing non-combat bonuses by using combat negatives would be a poor choice.

 

[Zamkaizer]

Were I a pundit, I'd say, "sounds as though celebrim wants to write a novella, not make a character."

But I'm not, so I didn't?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Except, we can quite easily come up with heroes that don't meet that definition, especially when we understand 'skillful' in the D&D context where spell casting and combat ability are not part of a skill system. For example, a cleric doesn't survive 'by thier wits' and skills, but rather by thier service to a diety and the power they thereby are able to manifest. A warrior doesn't survive 'by thier wits' and skills, but by thier prowess at arms. And so forth. We can separate the classes by asking the question, "What are you most supposed to be good at?"

Now, obviously, we could answer this question with things like, "Throwing daggers." or "Moving quickly and silently" or "Great Cook", and if we aren't careful we'll need a separate 'Throws Daggers class' and a separate 'Moves quickly and silently class' and a separate "Great Cook" class, and so forth. But for a variaty of reasons, our system is more elegant if it finds some set of classes that spans all possible answers to the question while not forcing any one class to do so much and be so flexible that its becomes overly mechanically complicated. Core 3.X did a fairly good (though far from perfect) job of this, and 4E is I think obviously taking a huge step backward.

It's not like we haven't wandered this design space before. Must we repeat the mistakes of the past?

You seem to be assuming that "mistakes of the past" are clear-cut. WotC seems to think it was a pretty big mistake to have a few classes so broadly defined (or perhaps we should say so largely undefined) that it took a great deal of system mastery to make one "work." The 3e fighter and wizard were prime examples of this, with the rogue not far behind.

Take a step back and look at what they've done with 4e. More restrictions on things like armor and weapons when you start out, but more feats as you level to help you define your character as you want. The 4e rogue has 4 optional skills and a free feat at first level. Pick Insight, Bluff, Intimidate, and Streetsmart, and then spend a feat to get Diplomacy. Voila, you have an optimized "face" character. (Or heck, you could start with a warlord or fighter or cleric and probably get to the same level, maybe with an extra feat spent. Yay for options, amirite?)

I think it is safe to say that I'm not one of 'these people'. As I've said before, its ok if this is what you want from a game. But its clear that 4E is not being designed with my needs in mind. Frankly, as you describe it, its being designed with the needs of noobs in mind. I moved past what you describe maybe 20 years ago.

Ya know, I'm trying to stay civil here in enemy territory, but the blatant insults are getting annoying.

News flash: your gaming style isn't inherently superior to everyone else's. Playing D&D primarily for the "tactical skirmish" aspect and only secondarily for the roleplaying opportunities can hardly be called "noobish." If anything, you're the "noob" for forgetting the pre-1e roots of the game. </rant>

Anyway, I don't think this is a big an issue as you're making it out to be. Previously, the base class was very vague and your feat/skill/equipment choices narrowed that base. Now, the base is narrow and your choices expand that base. Advanced players can still make whatever wacky character they want, and beginners have a clear path to make a viable iconic character.

 

[Celebrim]

IMO, D&D is not a catch-all be-whatever-you-want-it-to-be RPG.

I switched from GURPS to d20 because I percieved d20 to be a system that could handle universality sufficiently well without the rules burden of GURPS.

As to the direction 4E is moving in, I agree with your assessment. That is in fact a big part of my problem. Again, it may be a good game, but its not the game I need or was looking forward to.

 

[kennew142]

In your game...

I don't want a game system that tells me how to play. I want a game system that gives me the tools to play the game how I want to play.

You still haven't explained how the 4e rogue tells you how you have to play the character. You assert that it is true. Exactly what in the 4e rogue information we've been given indicates that rogues (or any character for that manner) will be forced to counter every threat with force? They have bluff, insight and streetwise on their class skill list. We don't know for sure what the last two skills are, but given that streetwise is a CHA based skill, it would make little sense for it to be useful only in combat. As for bluff, it would be hard to imagine that this skill is only for combat.

I would also argue that it is objectively bad design to nerf a character class in combat just so you can make it better in non-combat areas.

This argument doesn't prove what you think it proves. I'm quite willing to accept that 3E is also flawed in this manner to one extent or the other. In fact, I already acknowledged that it was when I explicitly critiqued 3E. The fact that 3E also had this flaw doesn't make me want to accept 4E, especially when it appears to me that far from trying to fix this flaw, it is in fact increasing it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you been arguing that this design is a step backwards for the rogue? I fail to see how it is a step backwards for the class to not be completely ineffectual in such a major component of the game as combat? Especially when there is no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that the class has lost any non-combat effectiveness. I guess you could argue that they don't have diplomacy (the non-magical mind control skill) anymore. They still have bluff, which can be used to trick opponents. At least that's the way the skill works now, and it's the denotative meaning of the word.

Again, this argument doesn't imply what you seem to think it implies. Nor for that matter do I understand why you are claiming that it is a straw man argument. As long as we are on the subject of logical fallacies, try parsing this reasoning:

Me: "Fourth edition is flawed in this manner."
You: "No it isn't, because third edition is too."

It is a straw man argument because you are arguing that it is a step backwards in the design of character classes in 4e. It can't be a step backward if the previous edition is just as bad, or worse, in the same ways. You claim that the class has been nerfed in non-combat situations and that all rogue players will be forced to deal with every encounter using force. None of these arguments can be logically construed from the preview material given. Therefore, you are arguing against a false construction of the 4e rogue class that you have created. It is the very definition of a straw man argument.

 

[Celebrim]

kennew142: I would really appreciate it if you actually read and responded to what I wrote.

You still haven't explained how the 4e rogue tells you how you have to play the character.

Yes, I have. At length. I'm many things, but concise is not one of them.

You assert that it is true. Exactly what in the 4e rogue information we've been given indicates that rogues (or any character for that manner) will be forced to counter every threat with force?

None, but this is not in fact relevant to anything I said. It would only be relevant if I had claimed that 4E rogues would have no out of combat ability, and I can't imagine anyone thinking that I claimed that. Yet, here we are.

I would also argue that it is objectively bad design to nerf a character class in combat just so you can make it better in non-combat areas.

Define 'nerf'. I believe you are using a hidden absolute here. No 3E core class presents the option to forgo all hit points, BAB, improved saving throws, and other combat related abilities in exchange superior out of combat abilities. It would not be objectively bad design to provide such a class, but it might be useless given the premise of most campaigns.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you been arguing that this design is a step backwards for the rogue?

Yes.

I fail to see how it is a step backwards for the class to not be completely ineffectual in such a major component of the game as combat?

Ok, I'll give you a hint: 'completely'.

Especially when there is no evidence whatsoever for your assertion that the class has lost any non-combat effectiveness.

I never asserted that. I asserted that there would be no non-combat centric build.

It is a straw man argument...

You've probably made that statement four times in this thread so far. I'm beginning to think you don't know what the term means.

...because you are arguing that it is a step backwards in the design of character classes in 4e. It can't be a step backward if the previous edition is just as bad, or worse, in the same ways.

I never claimed that the previous edition was just as bad, or worse. In fact I explicitly stated that I thought the new edition was worse. Hense, by compounding an existing flaw, a step backward because 3E had done a good job of reducing the problem compared to prior editions.

You claim that the class has been nerfed in non-combat situations and that all rogue players will be forced to deal with every encounter using force.

No, I don't. That phrase 'straw man argument' that you are so fond of. Perhaps you should look it up.

None of these arguments can be logically construed from the preview material given.

Or anything I actually wrote.

Therefore, you are arguing against a false construction of the 4e rogue class that you have created. It is the very definition of a straw man argument.

Ahem.

 

[Imp]

Now, obviously, we could answer this question with things like, "Throwing daggers." or "Moving quickly and silently" or "Great Cook", and if we aren't careful we'll need a separate 'Throws Daggers class' and a separate 'Moves quickly and silently class' and a separate "Great Cook" class, and so forth.

Reasonably sure that not being careful about that part is the 4e business model.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Celebrim meet kennew142 my personal 4e tormentor on these boards. I see you're getting along exactly as expected.

That said I agree with everything Celebrim has posted and if you want my opinions on the issue typed out more clearly and articulately check what he just said. If the rest of the classes are this bad 4e will be more like 2e and leave me wondering about the Inverse Star Trek rule.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

In your game...

I don't want a game system that tells me how to play. I want a game system that gives me the tools to play the game how I want to play.

D&D has been and will always be the game of killing things and taking their stuff. Pretty much all the WOTC employees will tell you that. Pretty much every official published adventure has been primarily about that.

The default method of playing the game is pretty much: A string of combat encounters with a periodic social encounter strung together with at least a thin plot(sometimes a complex plot).

Whenever the system is pushed to be used in other ways it pretty much always required large numbers of house rules or playing fast and loose with the rules at least. In pretty much all editions. You CAN stretch it to be a system to do other things, but it wasn't really designed for that.

And part of the problem with 3rd Edition is that they finally decided to stretch it into a full blown physics simulator to allow it to be used for EVERYTHING. It promised that you could finally do all the things you couldn't in previous editions. However, it wasn't actually good at it. Because there's no way to make a rule system that can simulate everything without it becoming extremely complex.

Making an extremely complex system is fine for some people, however it slowly pushes new people away as the amount of things they need to know to play is fairly large.

Compare 2nd Edition leveling to 3rd Edition(assuming you don't have things memorized):

2nd:
-Find the chart for your class in the book
-See if your THACO, hitpoints and saves change and change the values on your character sheet
-Choose new spells if you get them

3rd:
-Decide what class you want to go up in
-Search the books for your possible options in order to decide(look through all the base classes, PrC, alternate class abilities, etc)
-Find your number of skill points and spend them after looking up what your new class skills are
-Check the chart to see if you gain new feats
-Choose a feat from amongst a couple of hundred
-Add BAB, saves, hitpoints
-Write down your class abilities, making any choices as to which ones to get and how they will work
-Choose spells

The question is, what do you gain by all the added complexity that makes it worth it? And what effect does it have on actual play?

In my experience the main benefit to all these choices is that people look at all the options and say "Wow...I could build whatever sort of character I want. I could be a guy who dabbled in necromantic magic before becoming a fighter then learned the strange art of psionics and then became a pacifist and a commoner and no longer uses his powers. That's so awesome. And I can get numerical bonuses for being a pacifist!"

And I admit, it's good at simulating that nearly precisely. Although its almost near certain that the character dropped into the AVERAGE game of D&D will be near impossible to play, or no fun, or will die quickly.

I've seen it in play a number of times. People who multiclassed in order to make the EXACT right character for them ending up with the ability to magic missile at 10th level as a 4th level caster and using it as their primary attack every round. Then having their entire group get mad at them because they all die to a dragon when they only needed to do 10 damage to it but the character was incapable of getting past the dragon's spell resistance or hitting it with any weapons.

In actual play most of those options are BAD ideas. Great for roleplaying, poor for actual play. I've also seen new players completely paralyzed by options, even with just the core rules. And when they do choose, it is fairly often something that is tactically a bad idea for them because they don't know that skill focus(knowledge(nature)) is not a good feat.

And that's mostly what you get from a system that is entirely tools with nearly no guidance. There have been a number of times that I've wished I could go back to the days of 2nd edition if only to stop dealing with the headache of playing with other people who were of no help whatsoever in combat and then playing 3 hours worth of combat watching them delay while reading a book.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

I think that is what I just said.

Oh, and I was agreeing with you. Except that, as you phrased it, it seemed as though it was something the discerning viewer had to suss out.

I was just pointing out that it's a pretty explicit goal.

That phrase in and of itself would be enough to turn me off to 4E no matter how much I'd been previously excited by it. This is such a huge step backwards to the bad old days, that if WotC had the capacity to forbid me from playing 3.X, then I'd go back to GURPS. Period.

The idea that INT is once again a dump stat for most characters makes me sick.

Um, ok. That's a pretty weak stomach, there. But GURPS really could use the love.

That's a pretty tortured definition of 'fewer restrictions'.

Not really. If one thing is no longer tied to another thing - combat performance is no longer tied to non-combat performance - that's petty much the definition of one less restriction.