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

[Aus_Snow]

What are you pretending to be confused about?

Invalid line of questioning.

Correct: Why are you claiming that I am pretending anything?

After all, you do not have access to my mind. I do.

 

[Dausuul]

It looks about like I figured it would. Overall, my impression is positive... I approve of the fixed hit points especially. Nothing jumps out at me as either "Wow, that's AWESOME!" or "What were they thinking?"

 

[Pinotage]

That's just that ability, I'm sure you can use Acrobatics at will.

Yes, but Acrobatics is unlikely to have a 'tumble' if there is a specific rogue power for that.

Imagine a rogue wanting to get past his enemies. He uses his tumble power and gets past them, and on the following round he wants to get back. Oh, wait. He can't. He can only use the ability once. I'm trying to rationalise why the limitation would make sense.

Pinotage

 

[Steely Dan]

Invalid line of questioning.

Correct: Why are you claiming that I am pretending anything?

After all, you do not have access to my mind. I do.

Stop avoiding the question, why are you pretending to be confused, or confused, but not pretending (which I doubt)?

 

[dm4hire]

Sadly I agree that the builds open up the way to more splat books. The game needs less splat books as it is. It can be intimidating to look at a wall of books for a game and try to figure out where to begin. Not to mention the looming recession threatening to ruin our economy which is making it harder to buy all these books for those who want to collect every book. Too many splats pave the way to yet another edition, not that low sales doesn't tend to birth them as well (not saying that about 4.0 but looking hard at 3.5 and the inevitable 4.5).

There is also the possibility there are more builds in the book as well and we were only shown two to get an idea of how they work. The preview was designed to reveal and start questions flowing, but if everything was show it would have been either too much of a spoiler or caused a cataclysmic influx of questions shutting down WotC servers.

For the most part I like what I have seen. I want to see what the rogue looks like from D&D Experience this coming weekend before I really make a solid judgment. Coarse we'll also get to see a few other classes and a lot more questions will be raised.

 

[Ovinnik]

I don't like sneak attack being limited to once/round

Technically it says:

Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy and are using a light blade, a crossbow, or a sling, your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage. As you advance in level, your extra damage increases.

Note my bold. So if for some reason you're getting multiple attacks per round (if that's at all possible anymore, through powers or TWF or a good 'ol shortsword of speed), as long as you're attacking the same target you'll do sneak attack damage each time.

As far as the article goes... Overall a positive impression. I think I'd allow rogues to just choose 6 skills. A couple of things worry me slightly, not for the rogue specifically, but for their hints about how 4e may work in general. Have to wait and see.

Anyone else think that the 'Rogue Tactics' choice may be the beginnings of the talent trees everyone's looking for? They may branch into more class feature choices down the road, rather than just providing some benefits to certain powers.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Stop avoiding the question, why are you pretending to be confused, or confused, but not pretending (which I doubt)?

Kindly cease trying to conduct my forum behaviour for me. That is rightly considered rude in most places, and well, it's pretty unacceptable around here, I gather. As is making claims about the motives of other board members. Which you just did, again.

Seriously, I recommend looking up the rules of this place. ASAP. Before some moderator or other gets all red text about it.

By way of answer, regardless, I was honestly puzzled at your post. That's why I used the most appropriate 'smiley'. And the 'er. . .' at the end. Simple as that.

Oh, and I was not 'avoiding the question', but in fact taking issue with your disregard for forum rules. And for me.

 

[hong]

Yes, but Acrobatics is unlikely to have a 'tumble' if there is a specific rogue power for that.

Imagine a rogue wanting to get past his enemies. He uses his tumble power and gets past them, and on the following round he wants to get back. Oh, wait. He can't. He can only use the ability once. I'm trying to rationalise why the limitation would make sense.

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.

 

[drothgery]

Even 3e looks comparitively wide open. . . hell, vaguely toolkit-ish! Side by side, anyhow.

I don't know that 3.x looks wide open or toolkit-ish. It's more that I don't think 3.x anticipated a lot of new base classes; I suspect as originally concieved a few psionic classes and a few 'oriental' classes (which were largely themed versions of the core classes) were all they planned on. So they didn't worry too much about protecting niches.

But 3.5 saw an explosion of core classes with a fair amount of overlap. And since core classes sell in D&D, they don't want to give up on making new core classes. Hence the core classes are a bit more narrowly defined.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I don't know that 3.x looks wide open or toolkit-ish. It's more that I don't think 3.x anticipated a lot of new base classes; I suspect as originally concieved a few psionic classes and a few 'oriental' classes (which were largely themed versions of the core classes) were all they planned on. So they didn't worry too much about protecting niches.

But 3.5 saw an explosion of core classes with a fair amount of overlap. And since core classes sell in D&D, they don't want to give up on making new core classes. Hence the core classes are a bit more narrowly defined.

Sorry, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek, I'll free admit.

But also, hence the 'comparitively'. I was certainly taking liberties there, though. My apologies - I really should've used a better reference.