D&D 4E The 4E Rogue...love it or hate it?

[Steely Dan]

No, you really don't see that.

Okay, okay, just answer the question, why were you confused?

 

[Steely Dan]

Lorem ipsum dolor.

Total.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Okay, okay, just answer the question, why were you confused?

I was puzzled as to why anyone would post that, in the given context. It struck me as odd.

'I am even more puzzled now, not less, suffice it to say.


And no, hong, that isn't the case either.

 

[Pinotage]

Did you ever ask why you can use Bluff unlimited times in 3E to feint an opponent? If so, use the inverse of that answer here.

Hardly unlimited. Core only, I believe, you could only do it once per round. It is a standard action, after all. Splatbooks, etc., have changed that quite a bit I believe with feats like Improved Feint and various prestige classes. I'm quite happy to admit that's poor design to be able to feint as a free action.

Nevertheless, that doesn't invalidate the point about Tumble. Just because 'Splat'-Bluff is poorly conceived, doesn't make Tumble fine.

Pinotage

 

[Mercule]

I don't "hate" it, but I'm more negative than positive. I don't like the limited weapon proficiencies. I don't like static hps -- though I don't like them any less than the wide open d10/d12 ranges, and could even come to like them with options like the new Toughness feat.

Mostly, I don't like the builds. Wait.... I like the fact that there are examples. What I dislike are powers that I could easily see mixed between the two paths, but that grant benefits based on which "fighting style" you choose. From an experienced player perspective, I think it would be pretty darn easy to build a gimp character that made good RP sense, but bad math sense.

It might be a case of "reads bad, plays good", though. I'm definitely not passing final judgment until I see the whole ruleset, at least in print, if not in play. If the contingencies are more except than rule, or end up being there to avoid another potential imbalanced combination, then it's all good.

Like I've said though, but knee-jerk reaction is that the write-up is pretty banal and uninspiring.

 

[hong]

I was puzzled as to why anyone would post that, in the given context. It struck me as odd.

'I am even more puzzled now, not less, suffice it to say.


And no, hong, that isn't the case either.

Sit amet consectetur.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I really like the sound of the new rogues. I can't wait for info about some other classes!

 

[hong]

Hardly unlimited. Core only, I believe, you could only do it once per round.

Okay.

Did you ever ask why you can use Bluff unlimited times in 3E with the restriction of once per round to feint an opponent? If so, use the inverse of that answer here.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Sit amet consectetur.

Sure! Go through the whole thing, or not, as you like it. It really doesn't faze me. Hm, or apply here. Well, not where it was put, at any rate.

 

[Steely Dan]

I was puzzled as to why anyone would post that, in the given context. It struck me as odd.

Why is it so puzzling to tell someone who just said that there are lots of options, that they are right and that they should play with whatever floats their boat?


I know people who still revel in the Fighting Man days.