Party with a striker(s) that isn't a Rogue

It's come up several times when I've played a rogue now in 4e games and everyone expects me to scout ahead and I refuse. Everyone thinks I'm being an ass, but what's the point of scouting ahead when you have no Perception? The cleric is a better choice for finding traps than the rogue :rolleyes:
It takes quite a bit of wisdom difference to account for the +5 training. And in any case, if this were not the case; we'd be back to the days where skill checks are either impossible to everyone except the trained, or trivial to everyone who is trained.

I guess you could house-rule that rogues gain a class feature permitting them to search for traps with thievery rather than perception, but when they fail, they set off the traps. (Fluffily, they rely on feeling their way around, and if they're not fast and light enough, they set off the triggers). I don't think it's a problem that rogues aren't such great scouts, personally - that strikes me as a weird 3e rules side effect more than anything else. Why would an assassin/thief be a great scout? A seasoned veteran (fighter), or a ranger both seem more likely scouts.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

This.

One of my big gripes about 4e is that rogues make crappy scouts. And since rogues get so much benefit from feats, you really don't have a feat spare to pick-up Skill Focus. And even if you do, you're still probably behind the ranger.

It's come up several times when I've played a rogue now in 4e games and everyone expects me to scout ahead and I refuse. Everyone thinks I'm being an ass, but what's the point of scouting ahead when you have no Perception? The cleric is a better choice for finding traps than the rogue :rolleyes:

This is one of the benefits (and drawbacks) to the 4E system. As a benefit, there is no single class that a party NEEDS in order to succeed. As a drawback there is no single class that is the absolute BEST at both scouting, and thieving type of activities. Its kind of a wash, really. The party is never as dependent on a single member for anything but no single member will be quite as awesome at any one thing.

If there were one class that was designed as THE BEST at scouting, and thieving then suddenly every party would feel like they had to have one. This would lead to someone always having to play "the scout". This type of single focus was designed out for a reason.
 


Do people find Rangers take the Rogue multiclass and Warlocks skill training Perception (assuming they generally won't have the stats for Ranger multiclassing) to fill the gaps. Or do other members pick up the slack when there is no rogue. Or do people tough it out with traps? Or do DMs go easy on traps, when it is clear from PC choice that traps not excite the players?
Traps are very different these days. Zap traps that just deal X damage when you fail a search check... are pretty much gone. So in general, I think Perception is much less necessary for a trap-disabler.

Similarly, Thievery has many more applications than just shutting down traps. Anyone who'd like to pick locks needs it, or example.

In my group, the warlock took Thievery, but has yet to use it. Even though they just muddled through a kobold cave with lots of traps, none of them were ever actually disabled. They just toughed it or avoided the trapped area, and that was that. And it all worked out fine.

I think in 4e it's just not NECESSARY to have a trap-disabler, so having at least one Thievery-trained character is not necessary any more.
 

My Eladrin Wizard took Thievery with her racial power so she can disable the traps that are found by whoever has the highest Perception check. We only have a Ranger for our Striker, no Rogue, so we had to do something different.
 

Halfling warlocks make for good Theivery strikers. Using the standard array:

STR 10
Con 12
Dex 15 (13 +2)
Int 14
Wis 11
Cha 18 (16+2)

Go for a Deceptive build, Fey pact or Star pact, and you can be small terror with quick fingers The Dex boost also helps with your Initiative rolls.
 

Remove ads

Top