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

[AllisterH]

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'.



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'.

Actually, the +5 difference in SW:SE WAS a problem for the Force powers that uses the Force skill system. You pretty much were boned when as a DM you used non-jedis opponents versus jedi opponents. I think this was the biggest complaint about the SWSE since, unlike the skill system which only comes up in certain situations, the affect of Force powers pretty much showed up EVERY time. The +5 wasn't bad per se by itself. It was the affect of +5 from Trained AND the +5 from Skill Focus.

You could check with other SWSE DMs/players on WOTC boards who will back me up on this problem. Many of them have houseruled both the skill focus and Trained to a slightly lower value. The idea of the skill system (general competence), GREAT. Specific feats and how they interact with it? Not so great.

The problem I think is you're looking at the die and simply saying "Oh, it's only a 10% difference" with a +2 modifier.

To the system though, this is a 4 level difference which IS a huge bonus. Similarly, a +6 difference actually means that to affect a epic level rogue, you're actually looking at an attack bonus that actually skips the 31-40 range and jumps to thr 41-50 level range.

That's why +2 is such a significant bonus.

re: Dodge, in the SWSE, still sucked because you STILL had to choose which opponent it was against (yea for not having to remember that but worse, Reflex Defense was class level (meaning Dodge was only the equivalent to 1 level difference in Ref Defense) AND depending on class, your ATK bonus was either 3 per 4 levels or 1 per level.

The math itself PLUS the finnicky "remember to declare opponent" didn't make it a good choice.

 

[Celebrim]

Actually, the +5 difference in SW:SE WAS a problem for the Force powers that uses the Force skill system.

I think that this has more to do with choosing to treat a combat ability as a skill in a system where combat ability generally isn't treated as a skill, than it has to do with anything else.

(Just as an aside, it could be argued that 'jedi' >> 'non-jedi' is simply setting emulation.)

The +5 wasn't bad per se by itself. It was the affect of +5 from Trained AND the +5 from Skill Focus.

So, +5 isn't 'bad per se by itself', but +6 is three times what 'HUGE' is? I agree that +10 is much bigger than +6 if we are using a fortune mechanic whose entire range is 1-20.

The problem I think is you're looking at the die and simply saying "Oh, it's only a 10% difference" with a +2 modifier.

To the system though, this is a 4 level difference which IS a huge bonus. Similarly, a +6 difference actually means that to affect a epic level rogue, you're actually looking at an attack bonus that actually skips the 31-40 range and jumps to thr 41-50 level range.

Isn't this the same as saying that there is a small difference between levels? The size of the modifier hasn't gotten bigger just because we've spread it out over more levels. We've just made the size of levels smaller.

 

[McBard]

I have a quick question that refers back to the issue of Int's role with a Rogue's skills.

In another thread, someone (Illithian I believe?) pointed out a quote from Races and Classes that said Rogues get to add their Int bonus to all trained skill checks. Is this reference accurate? (I don't own Races and Classes).

If it is accurate, don't you think this puts to rest much of the concern about Int being a dump stat for Rogues? (Sure, we'd have to wait and see about the charge of Int as dump stat for other classes, however).

 

[Celebrim]

If it is accurate, don't you think this puts to rest much of the concern about Int being a dump stat for Rogues? (Sure, we'd have to wait and see about the charge of Int as dump stat for other classes, however).

Yes, it would. But if it is accurate, why doesn't it appear in the preview of the class?

 

[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.

That's true. Take another example. It means every 10th level rogue PC deals nearly the same damage as any other 10th level rogue PC. At least if you infer that the same parameters apply to PCs. While that means you can concentrate on the roleplaying since mechanically all 10th level rogues are identical (barring power differences, but I suspect that if the parameterization holds true, it won't make much of a difference to the damage output), it does have an element of boring to it. I also can't get my head around why all rogues have to be strikers.

Pinotage

 

[Hussar]

That's true. Take another example. It means every 10th level rogue PC deals nearly the same damage as any other 10th level rogue PC. At least if you infer that the same parameters apply to PCs. While that means you can concentrate on the roleplaying since mechanically all 10th level rogues are identical (barring power differences, but I suspect that if the parameterization holds true, it won't make much of a difference to the damage output), it does have an element of boring to it. I also can't get my head around why all rogues have to be strikers.

Pinotage

But, that's already mostly true in pretty much any game. A given opponent of a given level (or CR) will do roughly the same damage. Certainly within about 25% either way. It has to because if it didn't then you wouldn't have parity between challenges.

Or, to put it another way, do you really see large damage differences between two characters of the same class and level in play?

 

[hong]

That's true. Take another example. It means every 10th level rogue PC deals nearly the same damage as any other 10th level rogue PC. At least if you infer that the same parameters apply to PCs.

This is a good thing. Now, if they dealt that damage in exactly the same way, that would be a bad thing. You might have (using some 3E terminology because 4E equivalents don't exist)

- move in/attack/move out (Spring Attack)
- flank/full attack
- TWF
- ranged snipe
- feint/sneak attack
- hinder/cripple

and any combination of the above, and possibly others. By 10th level there are likely to be plenty of ways to deal that damage, and plenty of ways to _specialise_ in unique ways of dealing damage.

I also can't get my head around why all rogues have to be strikers.

Ninjae. If you're only 75% ninja and so want to be a less dedicated striker, multiclass.

 

[AllisterH]

I think that this has more to do with choosing to treat a combat ability as a skill in a system where combat ability generally isn't treated as a skill, than it has to do with anything else. .

No.

The problem was that, especially at low levels, you would be facing mooks whose defenses were more than obliterated by the +10 most jedis took. Pretty much if you were a jedi, what I and other DMs noticed, was that everyone just simply took both Trained and Skill Focus and at low levels where you were likely to face JUST mooks, they weren't up to the challenge. This tended to extend to low level PCs who took non-jedi classes as well.

So, +5 isn't 'bad per se by itself', but +6 is three times what 'HUGE' is? I agree that +10 is much bigger than +6 if we are using a fortune mechanic whose entire range is 1-20.



Isn't this the same as saying that there is a small difference between levels? The size of the modifier hasn't gotten bigger just because we've spread it out over more levels. We've just made the size of levels smaller.

You keep focusing on the DIE.

This is the wrong way to look at the math since what you're looking mostly at is that the system sees everything increasing roughly at a 1/2 level. You seem to be only looking at the Fortune die but are ignoring the rest of the system when this is the TRUE system that determines what is effective.

A +2 to your reflex defense doesn't mean that you save 10% more often (which it does). It means that to affect you on average, an attack has to be 4 levels higher than before. Given that the 1/2 level bonus applies to both defence and attack and seems to apply across all levels, classes and creatures, this actually makes Dodge a good feat (as long as they don't make you remember which opponent it affects).

 

[Celebrim]

You keep focusing on the DIE.

This is the wrong way to look at the math...

Ahh... well. So you say.

I figure any further discussion with you on this topic is pointless, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I leave you with the following thought.

A +2 to your reflex defense doesn't mean that you save 10% more often (which it does).

And people complain about how hard my logic is to follow.

 

[Lizard]

Ahglock,


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.

Just because you need tactical representations doesn't mean you need to buy minis.

Use lego. Use dice. Use counters. Use the same set of 10 minis you always use, no matter what monsters are being represented.