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

[maggot]

At this point, I'm wondering about the definition of "non-4E enthusiast."

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

At this point, I'm wondering about the definition of "non-4E enthusiast."

The thing is, the 4e rogue is surprisingly like the 2e thief... which seems to be causing a few "grognards" and "enthusiasts" to do a sudden about-face.

 

[AllisterH]

Bonus to Defense: +2 Reflex

This is the one area of the design that really works like I expected it too - with one exception. I fully expected this to be something like '1st-10th: +2 Reflex, 11th-20th: +4 Reflex, 21st-30th: +6 Reflex'. A +2 static modifier is so small (~10% better chance), that it barely reinforces the concept and seems like there is a risk that it will get completely overwhelmed by other available modifiers at high levels. It's something like the 'Skill Focus' feat of 3.X. Nice at low levels, but increasingly irrelevant at higher levels. I think the theory behind the static modifier is the class itself is designed such that you are encouraged to dump all your attribute growth into Dexterity.

[.

While I honestly find the discussion on class focus design interesting, I do want to make a comment about this.

Given the 1/2 level nature of everything we've seen so far, a +2 is HUGE bonus. This is a 4 level difference between a rogue's reflex defense and his compatriots. That's large enough to be noticeable but no large that in effect, the other defenses are "weak" saves a la 3.x

Thus, a +6 difference in Epic Tier would mean that a rogue actually would never be in the same tier as his compatriots and any monster that attacked the party's reflex score would automatically fail versus the rogue.

WOTC has said they wanted to expand the sweet spot of gaming and one of those methods has to be to correct the wide swing in attacks/defenses between characters of the same level that occur at high levels.

 

[Pinotage]

Nerfing damage output was a goal of 4E. AC, HP and Damage output are codified and accounted for in 4E. A "x" level PC is expected to have "v" AC, Plus "G" to hit and deal "z" damage. Anything that goes outside this is nerfed to hell until it conforms. Part of that is making sure a rogue can't combine striker based damage powers with a larger weapon's damage die.

Also, the stipulation preventing sneak attack damage more than one per round was done to ensure the rogue who does get multiple attacks does not exceed his damage per round parameters.

Hmm. I'm not sure whether this 'parameterization' is a good thing or not. On the one hand it encourages roleplaying, but on the other hand it involves an awful lot of certainty which might diminish on the variability and versatility of the system. I'd hate to see the system boil down to 'Oh, he's a 10th level rogue, so he can only do z damage each round. Easy fight.' I expect a lot more uncertainty in a game system, otherwise you take the value of the 'unexpected' out of the system and it becomes awfully boring. Hopefully the parameters are broad enough so that they're not evident.

Pinotage

 

[hong]

Hmm. I'm not sure whether this 'parameterization' is a good thing or not. On the one hand it encourages roleplaying, but on the other hand it involves an awful lot of certainty which might diminish on the variability and versatility of the system. I'd hate to see the system boil down to 'Oh, he's a 10th level rogue, so he can only do z damage each round. Easy fight.' I expect a lot more uncertainty in a game system, otherwise you take the value of the 'unexpected' out of the system and it becomes awfully boring. Hopefully the parameters are broad enough so that they're not evident.

Pinotage

Well, I guess it comes down to how easy it is to tell a 10th level rogue from, say, a 6th level rogue.

 

[AllisterH]

Well, I guess it comes down to how easy it is to tell a 10th level rogue from, say, a 6th level rogue.

I think it would be along the lines of recognizing what level a spellcaster was in previous editions.

Namely, what powers/spells do they use. Spellcasters in previous editions basically have a easy to determine set progression thanks to their spell damage/level mechanics.

If he cast Fireball/Cone of Cold, he's at least 5th/7th level.
If said Fireball does roughly 20 damage, he's probably in the 5-7th level range.

 

[Pinotage]

Well, I guess it comes down to how easy it is to tell a 10th level rogue from, say, a 6th level rogue.

AllisterH is right. You'll tell him apart by the powers he has or doesn't have, and most likely get some idea from that. But perhaps that's a bad example. You could extend it to monsters and roles, and say, 'Oh, we're fighting 2 opponents, so they must be elite, and they're clearly strikers, so this is what they roughly have for hp, etc.' At present I'm still thinking this one through and deciding what the implications, if any, are. It's an interesting game design choice.

Pinotage

 

[hong]

AllisterH is right. You'll tell him apart by the powers he has or doesn't have, and most likely get some idea from that. But perhaps that's a bad example. You could extend it to monsters and roles, and say, 'Oh, we're fighting 2 opponents, so they must be elite, and they're clearly strikers, so this is what they roughly have for hp, etc.' At present I'm still thinking this one through and deciding what the implications, if any, are. It's an interesting game design choice.

Pinotage

Well, a _balanced_ encounter would mean they had to be elite and so forth. But the DM doesn't have to use only balanced encounters... and also, there might be another 6 opponents hiding behind the corner. There should still be plenty of room for unpredictability under the new system.

 

[Celebrim]

Given the 1/2 level nature of everything we've seen so far, a +2 is HUGE bonus. This is a 4 level difference between a rogue's reflex defense and his compatriots.

Regardless of how the game scales, a +2 bonus is still just 1/10th the size of the range of the fortune mechanic. It's the difference between having a +10 and +12 bonus. Most of the time, the +2 bonus doesn't matter. It's not 'huge'. It's in fact, easily overcome. For example, if you have a spare feat to throw into 'Lightning Reflexes'.

Thus, a +6 difference in Epic Tier would mean that a rogue actually would never be in the same tier as his compatriots and any monster that attacked the party's reflex score would automatically fail versus the rogue.

Errr... +6 is not nearly the same as "any monster that attacked the party's reflex score would automatically fail versus the rogue." That's the difference between failing like 15% of the time and failing 45% of the time. The problem I remember at high levels in D&D was that DC's scaled up so fast, that the only way to have a reasonable chance of success was to focus heavily on what you were good at. This resulted in differences of like +15, and that did mean that for anything that the advantaged character had a chance of failing on, the disadvantaged character had almost no chance of success.

Compare to the SW:SE like skill system, where the difference between trained and untrained is +5 and the difference between untrained and skill focus is +10. If a +2 bonus is 'HUGE', wouldn't it be enough to have the difference between trained and untrained to be +2, and have skill focus grant a further +2? Wouldn't 'Dodge' be a really great deal? After all, isn't half of a 'huge' bonus still a pretty powerful advantage?

I'm perfectly willing to quibble over the optimal size of a non-static bonus, but a +2 bonus is not 'HUGE'.

 

[Celebrim]

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 trying to avoid having to prove something if challenged to back up my claim, simply because I didn't want to do the research to find the quotes. I figured if I used some qualification in making my claim, that the claim would be much easier to back up if challenged on.

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

Doesn't bother me any. Line up a whole bunch of quotes proving that it is. It only strengthens my argument.

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

Nothing says 'dumb system' to me like mental/social attributes that are dump stats.

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.

Consider the following:

A character of class 'A' has combat performance f(x), and non-combat performance of g(x). Now, suppose thier is a class 'B' with combat performance f'(x) where f'(x) > f(x). In other words, that character performs better in combat than another class. By the definition of 'combat performance is no longer tied to non-combat performance', f'(x) implies nothing about g'(x). But I think that it is clear that we would not want to design classes where both combat performance and non-combat performance are generally better than some other class. In fact, this has been a common complaint against 3rd edition as at high levels spell-casters generally are more capable both in and out of combat compared to say fighters.

This means that if we impose the additional constraint f(x) = f'(x), that is to say classes are generally balanced in combat, we must also have the constraint g(x) = g'(x) - classes are generally balanced out of combat. We therefore can no longer have classes designed such that f(x) < f'(x) but g(x) > g'(x) or f(x) > f'(x) but g(x) < g'(x). And that's fine. You may think that that is a good thing, and in the extreme case of something like f(x) << f'(x) but g(x) >> g'(x), I agree with you. However, good thing or not, it still implies a very tight and highly constrained design, and not one that has 'one less restriction'.

I'm not at all sure how you reason that it is one less restriction.