So, eladrin's can teleport around? ..nail...coffin...rogue already obsolete?

[Tharkun]

I think that the balance has a lot to do with the DM. Place at least three combat encounters in a session to wear out the magic users or provide enough opportunities so the rogue can shine, yes the rogue class is not going to be as enjoyable to play as nonrogue classes if those things are not happening.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Sorry, I only read at the 3.5 level In all seriousness, I do ask if the Rogue really can stand on his own anymore or if he's been replaced essentially by spells and crap. Was there an actual question in there?

Jay

Yes, he can.

Basically, you can have a Rogue, or you can have an Eladrin (Blink-Elf) Wizard. If you have the Rogue, you have someone that is capable of dealing damage where it hurts (because he is the striker) and who can pick locks, disarm traps (so that everyone can get by them) or trick the stupid troll in believing the group already payed his debt.
With the Eladrin Wizard, you have someone that is capable of blocking your enemies movements and deal some damage to multiple foes. He can also also try to "blink" through a door try to open it from the other side or hop over a trap (hopefully the other characters no how to get by), and he can try to charm the troll.

So, one part of the Rogues ability, the Eladrin Wizard just can't do. A part of the Eladrin Wizad the Rogue just can't do. But both parts are good to have, and you don't really want to miss them if given a choice.

It might be important to see that being able to pick locks or disarm traps isn't the defining role of a Rogue. These abilities are still important, because they distinguish him from a Ranger or Warlock, who might have the same role, but do it differently, and can't do his "secondary things". No class can entirely replace the other abilities. There are still multiple ways to cover all abilities, and you don't need a Rogue, if you have a wizard that supplies the thiefery skills and a Ranger that covers the "striker" part.

The important thing is: There are multiple ways to get to the same goal, each of them is valid, and no way invalidates the other.

 

[Derren]

Can someone please explain to me why one person in the party being able to teleport himself would make a rogue useless? If everyone plays an eladrin I could understand the complain but when not why would the rogue be useless?

 

[Fifth Element]

Actually, the point of my post was to ask what people's opinions were and not to defend some kind of thesis and get the typical personal attack responses (those days are done). I think the 3.5 arguments showing that the rogue's abilities had been duplicated makes it clear for 3.5. Maybe I've been around this game too long, but there are pretty clear trends. The eladrin note just add's another aspect to that.

From the OP:

How do you suppose they will overcome making the rogue obsolete at 1st level? You dont' need his climb or stealth abilities if you can just teleport at 1st level.

This was your original argument/question. You assumed the rogue is/would be obsolete, and asked how that can be overcome. Your assumption has never been proven, making the question moot. "The rogue is not obsolete" is a perfectly valid response to that question.

Your assertion that "you don't need his climb or stealth abilities" has been defeated in the thread. Line-of-sight, short-range teleportation usable a limited number of times does not compare to stealth skills; they're very different.

 

[Fifth Element]

Who would want to have a rogue in the party? You can after all send all your slots and cash in Find traps spells, constant Detect enemies, Arcane eye and Clairvoyance, Knock, Danger sense, Charm Monster, Invsibility, Silence, the most expensive Spot, Listen and Tumble enhancements, and some sort of custom magic item that lets you deal extra damage to flanked enemies.

Exactly. You can use all of your spell slots to replicate a rogue, sort of. As long as you don't have too many encounters that day. But then you have nothing left to be a wizard with, so you're a rogue with lesser fighting ability and fewer hit points. And a crappy Reflex save.

Or, you can have a rogue in the party to allow the wizard to be a wizard, rather than a crappy rogue-replacement ("Another lock to open? But I'm out of knock spells!".

 

[Gundark]

Not 'nuff, apparently. I made the same point in post #3.

yes true enough....sigh

 

[BryonD]

I recall one of Mearls' recent comments about people going off about some particular detail, WITHOUT HAVING THE REST OF PICTURE.

I disagree with the OP. But if this is going to be the thinking then WotC should stop right this instant showing ANYTHING at all. By the same reasoning that you can't be critical of something because you don't know enough, then you also can't be supportive of something because you don't know enough. So if you like 4E based on what you have seen, but also agree with this statement, then you are missing something.

If they want to show more or stop showing altogether, either case is fine by me. But don't expect people to not react to things they have been shown in the context that has been provided.

 

[FadedC]

I think that the balance has a lot to do with the DM. Place at least three combat encounters in a session to wear out the magic users or provide enough opportunities so the rogue can shine, yes the rogue class is not going to be as enjoyable to play as nonrogue classes if those things are not happening.

Well much of 3.x was always about resource management between fights, so having multiple encounters was always a good way balance out spellcasters a bit. This doesn't necesarily make rogues that much stronger in combat though as they will simply find themselves being outshined by fighters types instead of by mage types.

The downside to this attrition style gameplay in 3.x is that if you really design encounters to run people out of spells, ie by having 10 weak enounters in one day, it can actually be really boring for wizards and other spellcasters. Nothing is quite as unexciting as having combats where your trying to pass your turn as often as possible in order to conserve resources.

 

[Fifth Element]

I disagree with the OP. But if this is going to be the thinking then WotC should stop right this instant showing ANYTHING at all. By the same reasoning that you can't be critical of something because you don't know enough, then you also can't be supportive of something because you don't know enough. So if you like 4E based on what you have seen, but also agree with this statement, then you are missing something.

That doesn't follow at all. It has to do with giving the benefit of the doubt, versus interpreting things in the worst possible light. So many complaints about 4E seem to rely on the assumption that the designers aren't able to consider the implications of any changes they make.

For instance: Eladrin can teleport -> the rogue is obsolete, since they now have nothing to do. Which is a poor example, I guess, because it's wrong for many reasons other than this one.

Now, if it comes out that the designers HAVE missed the implications of some changes, the supporters will complain. But we have no reason to think this at this point. At this point, the designers are the only ones who know if they have considered the implications of any changes they make. Why should we assume they don't know what they're doing?

There's a big difference between "These changes seem cool" (supporter) versus "These changes break the game" (detractor of a certain kind being discussed here). You can like what you hear without assuming you know everything about the situation.

 

[Emirikol]

Most posters I think probably share the sentiment that they may have 'concerns.' I'd rather voice them now than AFTER the product comes out

It's a trust issue. Call us gun-shy after 2.E.

jh