INT Rogue: Easy House-Ruling Your Ideal?

[mach1.9pants]

I have been reading a lot about the lack of intra-class diversity with the 2 'builds' being seen as the only 2 viable archetypes by some. I disagree: builds are optional and powers will be your defining characteristic IMO.

However looking at what little we know about powers it seems that powers bypass standard (at least 3E) ability related effects. For example there is no reason for a Rogue to ever just make a melee attack if he has the 'Deft Strike' power (Attack: Dexterity vs. AC * Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.); he will always use this DEX or STR/CHA based at will power. Unless of course he uses a better DEX based power.
A house-rule: If you want a Rogue with INT as his defining ability simply replace CHA/DEX/STR with INT for the powers etc you think appropriate and could have a 'using your brains' based fluff definition.

For example:
*Artful Dodger some witty brains based title:You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Intelligence modifier against opportunity attacks.
*Positioning Strike:....Artful Dodger some witty brains based title:You slide the target a number of squares equal to your Intelligence modifier.
I personally have no problem that someone can use a bit of tactical nouse to get an enemy to blunder in the wrong direction; it is just as likely as charming him to go that way

So... I personally think that there will not be a problem it tailoring your character using what is available within the RAW. However I also think that the easiest of house-rules will allow you to go even further. Want a clever warrior? change a few STR and CON based Fighter powers to INT and off you go, want a wise and perceptive Rogue? change all the CHA powers to WIS grasshopper, etc
This is obviously conjecture on a massive scale, but hopefully it will be pretty simple. Esp if we can use a PDF version of the powers and print them on a card, after a little editing.

Thoughts?

 

[FireLance]

Sounds viable to me. While you're at it, you could even house-rule Dungeoneering and Thievery to work off Int as well.

 

[FadedC]

Seems reasonable enough, although we'd need to see more of what int actually gives to judge balance. If rogues turn out to get extra skills based on int, and skills turn out to be really important for a rogue then it might be a little too good to allow them to substitute int for cha.

I agree though that things are most likely fine as it, people seem to forget that if you take the 3e rogue at level 1 without any feats he is far less versatile then the 4e rogue. It looks like there will be quite a few ways to choose your powers for each rogue tactic even ignoring feats.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Yeah and while you are at it, change all rogue powers to INT and let him multiclass as WIZ (or change all rogue powers to INT and let the WIZ multiclass as ROG), I'm sure it won't break your game if everyone else plays with 3 required attributes per class and he has 2 classes with 1 attribute required.

Oh I see that idea is a whole boat load of ...


Sounds nice if seen as a single rule, but looks if it could easily break your game, but whatever you want, it's your game not mine.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I think what you would have to do with the INT Rogue example is only replace STR or only replace CHA with INT, throughout the Rogues Powers and features. STR will be important for a Rogue with carrying and class skills, CHA for class skills and probably Action Points. But if you swapped every STR/CHA for INT I really doubt you would unbalance it, especially with no INT class powers.