Rogue archetypal characters

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

errmm why? Why can you not throw a dagger off hand in 4E?

I think he's saying the character was made with 4E rules.

Right out of 4E as in Straight outta Compton - just came from there.

 

[hong]

Sam Fisher from Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. 100% ninja, and he needs to be because if he ever gets into a stand-up fight, he's toast.

 

[Patlin]

Hanse, aka Shadowspawn - thief-y rogue

[sblock]Multiclassing with god at one point, though he lost it on the rebuild.[/sblock]

 

[Henry]

Bluffing is Charisma, Henry.

Cheers!

Who says you must have charisma to bluff? It helps it, but isn't the end all and be-all, which explains why many of Skeeve's bluffs don't work unless aided by magic (disguise and the like).

 

[Henry]

I think he's saying the character was made with 4E rules.

Right out of 4E as in Straight outta Compton - just came from there.

"Right out" in many other English-speaking countries means "not going to happen" or "can't do it," as opposed to "Straight from the source" like it means in the U.S.

 

[Cam Banks]

Tasslehoff is definitely an archetypal rogue, regardless of what you may think of him or kender in general. For the Dragons of Autumn campaign module (the 3.5 version of the classic DL1-DL4) we gave all of the Heroes of the Lance archetypes, so that the adventure would be based around those archetypes being present even if the players make up original characters. Tas got the Rogue archetype and lives up to it in almost every way.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Kirnon_Bhale]

I have to add Pearl from the Malazan series as an Artful dodger rogue although he has a smattering of wizard in his build.

Also have to reiterate previous comments regarding how good the series is. Probably my favourite followed a good way back by the Wheel of Time.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Depends on which direction you go.

Archetypal Characters That Could Be Represented With The 4e Rogue Rules As We Know Them

or

Archetypal Roguish Characters That 4e Would Ideally Support With The Rogue Class.

There's a massive gulf between these two approaches, and you'll get really different results depending on what you do.

For instance, let's take Captain Jack Sparrow

People using the second approach would definately say "Jack Sparrow is a Rogue." He's a crafty, conniving con-artist who cannot be trusted and would sell you up the river for a minor advantage. He's charismatic and swaggering, but utterly amoral.

People using the first approach probably would say "Jack Sparrow is no Rogue!" As hong points out, rogues are pure 100% ninja. Cap'n Jack doesn't skulk, sneak up, and stab you in the back like an assassin in combat. And that's what 4e rogues do, from what we know.

4e would seem to want you to use the first approach, the one that says "start with the mechanics!"

So we should be limiting our responses to things that can be reflected in the rogue class as we know it now, not things that sound a bit rogue-ish in personality.

 

[Lizard]

Depends on which direction you go.

Archetypal Characters That Could Be Represented With The 4e Rogue Rules As We Know Them

or

Archetypal Roguish Characters That 4e Would Ideally Support With The Rogue Class.

There's a massive gulf between these two approaches, and you'll get really different results depending on what you do.

For instance, let's take Captain Jack Sparrow

People using the second approach would definately say "Jack Sparrow is a Rogue." He's a crafty, conniving con-artist who cannot be trusted and would sell you up the river for a minor advantage. He's charismatic and swaggering, but utterly amoral.

People using the first approach probably would say "Jack Sparrow is no Rogue!" As hong points out, rogues are pure 100% ninja. Cap'n Jack doesn't skulk, sneak up, and stab you in the back like an assassin in combat. And that's what 4e rogues do, from what we know.

4e would seem to want you to use the first approach, the one that says "start with the mechanics!"

So we should be limiting our responses to things that can be reflected in the rogue class as we know it now, not things that sound a bit rogue-ish in personality.

This leads to an interesting question -- how do you do Captain Jack? He is EXACTLY the sort of character, and the POTC series the sort of movie, that 4e seems determined to model -- over the top swashbuckling action with outrageous stunts and all-around competent characters, taking on hordes of minions and some powerful bosses, all while taking advantage of moving scenery, environmental hazards, and so on. "Swinging from the riggings on a storm-tossed ship full of undead pirates while trying to keep control of the MacGuffin" is the sort of thing 4e is supposed to do that 3x can't do, or can only do with great difficulty. I genuinely believe POTC (and the LOTR movies) were what the 4e dev team had in mind when they built the combat system, and that's not intended as an insult.

If 4e cannot model the characters of POTC, it has failed its design goals.

I don't know if this is the case. Given what we know of 4e, can we do Captain Jack and company?

 

[I'm A Banana]

If 4e cannot model the characters of POTC, it has failed its design goals.

I don't know if this is the case. Given what we know of 4e, can we do Captain Jack and company?

My guess is that ALL characters will have that 'swing from the rigging' madness, and that it won't be just the rogue.

The cynical side of me thinks that 'swing from the rigging madness' will really just be moving minis up, down, and all around, but I'm self-aware enough to know that's not a criticism at this point.

The thing is, thinking about how to do Jack is thinking about it kind of backwards from 4e's perspective. The question isn't "How do I make an amoral piratical swaggering character," it's "what does this class let me do?"

But it's too early in the game to tell you exactly how a Jack-Sparrow-esque character would be reflected in 4e. I don't think he'll be modeled very well, though, as his uniqueness was mostly out of combat. In combat, he did the same thing that every 4e character will probably be able to do.