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

[Doug McCrae]

Sit amet consectetur.

QFT

 

[hong]

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.

Adipiscing elit.

 

[Klaus]

Adipiscing elit.

Maternus tuus!

 

[Goreg Skullcrusher]

As someone who is greatly looking forward to 4E this comes as a letdown. The class mechanics scream at me pidgeon-holing of abilities and builds. The versatility of 3.x seems to be thrown completely out the window in favour of defining a set role for each class. I can't see how multi-classing will work effectively.

Smacks of 2nd edition to me. I really hope this treatment is reserved for the rogue, I don't want to open my 4E present only to find charcoal inside.

 

[Aus_Snow]

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?

Now you put it like that. . . er, no idea. Honestly. It really did strike me as odd, at the time. I don't really know the 'reason'. Maybe there isn't one.

And I in no way was trying to cause any fuss or further confusion by expressing my puzzlement. I suppose I might've been hoping for an explanation. Yeah, I get that there equally might not be one. And that's cool, if so. Or if not.

Eh, something went awry somewhere there.

 

[Kahoots]

On the whole, I liked the write up, but it did contain a few surprises. Static HP per level was an eyebrow raiser. I understand it as it seems common knowledge that damage output has been scaled back, but I did like +CON in 3.X. Lower Sneak Attack damage was disappointing, but then again my favorite base class was the Rogue and I liked causing the uber-death-to-my-enemies attack in the surprise round.

Even with these two nerfs, I think that I will still like the Rogue as it will become more balanced with some of the other classes.

Kahoots

 

[Steely Dan]

Now you put it like that. . . er, no idea.

Okay, right on, we'll just put it down to misinterpretation/miscommunication etc.

 

[Silvergriffon]

Okay, right on, we'll just put it down to misinterpretation/miscommunication etc.

What?





Just Kidding.

 

[kennew142]

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.

You seem to be confusing builds with the rogue options.

You’re going to see something called “builds” in the information that follows. Builds present themes that you can use to guide you as you select powers and other abilities. You can follow the advice of a build, or you can ignore it. It’s not a constraint, but instead provides information to help you make informed choices as you create your character. Using a class build isn’t required; builds exist to help guide your decisions through the process of character creation and each time you level up.

There is nothing in the rules to indicate that build has any influence on anything.

Choose one of the following options.

Artful Dodger: You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Charisma modifier against opportunity attacks.
Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal to your Strength modifier.
The choice you make also provides bonuses to certain rogue powers. Individual powers detail the effects (if any) your Rogue Tactics selection has on them.

The listed rogue options are more like the ranger fighting styles than builds. There are powers that work better for one rogue option than the other - but there were no powers listed that could only be taken by one or the other of the options.

I also noticed an undescribed feat called Backstabber. I wonder what it does. Also the tumble power allows the character to shift a number of spaces equal to 1/2 his speed. Isn't shift the new terminology for 5' step?

 

[Belorin]

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

I believe in R&C it was stated that some powers would be classed as per encounter simply do to the fact that once you use it, it ceases to be effective( or the old fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me reaasoning ).

Bel