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

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the static hit points. In 3e constitution had too much influence on hit points. This would have made sense if D&D used hit points solely as a measure of physical toughness. But since hit points have never been defined that way in D&D, the 4e model makes much more sense. At lower levels, where hit points are derived primarily from physical toughness, Constitution has a much larger effect than in earlier editions. As the character gains experience, hit points become more and more a measure of skill, luck and combat prowess. For the first time in the history of D&D, the mechanics of hit points may reflect their flavor text.

only about doubled efficiency on level one. (and a hidden +10)

Otherwise your reasoning is quite convincing...

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am ambivalent.

TO THE EXTREME!

 

[Steely Dan]

I am ambivalent.

TO THE EXTREME!

Ah, just like my sexuality!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yet another silly binary poll sigh. "I wanted to get people to get off the fence lolz!" is no longer a real excuse for these

I voted Hate, because the poll is silly and binary, and it thus amplifies the already considerable dislike I feel towards certain elements of the new Rogue.

I mean, let me lay them out:

Role: Doesn't mention anything outside of combat. Surely it should be titled "combat role", then? The whole text seems hyper-focused on combat, which is kinda lame.

Weapon proficiencies: Limited and BIZARRE. What, every Rogue EVER knows how to use hand crossbows and shuriken, weapons that might not even be in quite a number of campaigns? And not shortbows? Unless it's extremely easy to acquire more WPs, this is a really stupid decision. I particularly loathe the shuriken, myself.

Skills: If that's it, ever, then that's kind of stupid. If not, then meh. Also limits the concept of a Rogue somewhat by forcing certain (albeit sensible) skills upon them, making them, by default, Thieves ("Special Ops"-types aren't likely to know about nicking stuff or picking pockets).

Sneak Attack: You can sneak attack with a crossbow or a sling (of all things!) but not a bow, which is more accurate than either? Say what? Damage is kinda weak, too, but not much weaker than most interpretations of 2E I guess. Does it even work with throwing knives?

The abilities are mostly likeable, assuming there's an in-combat way to recharge the "per encounter" ones.

So yeah, possible to fix all that with house rules, but I never had to house-rule ROGUES of all people before!

 

[Steely Dan]

The abilities are mostly likeable, assuming there's an in-combat way to recharge the "per encounter" ones.

I believe they have dropped the mechanic to recharge per encounter powers.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Yet another silly binary poll sigh. "I wanted to get people to get off the fence lolz!" is no longer a real excuse for these

I prefer binary polls. Selecting 'Other' is deeply, deeply lame so anything that thwarts it is a good move.

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

This poll says a fifth. And remember the internet is for expressing two emotions only - rage and hatred.

*Shrugs* it was about a quarter when I made the post, as count goes up the results are changing. Probably should have waited longer.

Averaging various EN World 4e polls together it looks like a group somewhere between .2 and .33 has problems with the new addition. As always no telling how well any of it can be applied at a larger scale.

But it does create the question where are the new players coming from? Even if the issue of splitting the customer base is ignored one of the design goals of 4e is apparently to draw in new players. But I have no idea how they're going to get them. D&D is very much a niche hobby with little mainstream penetration into the population. Most everybody who plays now either started a long time ago or was brought in by someone else who does. The game spreads by word-of-mouth and direct interpersonal ties. To bring in an influx as the designers hope requires something more. So where are the ads, the magazine promos, commercials, internet ads? How do they intend to target the 10-year olds of today without any means advertizing the game to them?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I prefer binary polls. Selecting 'Other' is deeply, deeply lame so anything that thwarts it is a good move.

I prefer polls that actually y'know, reflect people's opinions rather than merely pushing an agenda/applying social pressure (which is precisely what binary polls are designed to do, whether those creating them are consciously aware of this is another question).

I like most of what I see there about Rogues, but I think it contains such significant apparent retardation and idiocy that it's ludicrous for to vote "love", and fairly silly for me to vote "hate", but if I don't vote at all, the poll becomes less accurate.

That's why I say silly. It is genuinely silly to only provide binary options when you're going to use the words "Love" and "Hate" in those binary options. Realistically, very few of us feel that strongly, I would suspect. It really does tell us LESS than a poll with more options.

So, if someone did vote "other", they'd be "deeply, deeply lame"? Because they're honest? Why then?

 

[Gundark]

Well Rogue's are my favourite class, so I was excited to see the write-up. I can't wait to play one now. It looks way more fun than previous versions.

 

[Chocobo]

I'm not completely in favor of this rogue, but I selected that I like it.

Skills are good. Stealth and Thievery required, perfect. The fact that 3e and 2e allowed people to make rogues who were incompetent wasn't exactly a selling point for me. Every rogue can do the essential sneaking, locks and traps. If your "character concept" doesn't include that, then come up with one that does. Rogues who can't disarm traps, clerics who can't heal, fighters who can't fight, it's just passive aggressive BS to me. Number of skills is good too, it's really more than 3.x when you consider most of those skills are equal to 2 or more 3.x skills.

I like the fixed HP too. Always been in favor of that in every edition.

The weapon proficiencies suck. Such a short list. So culturally specific. I like 3.x proficiency system, and I would have much rather seen something like "Proficiencies: 2 Simple Weapons, 1 Martial Weapon, 1 Exotic Weapon", so every rogue from every culture isn't tied into using the same arbitrary list of weapons. I know that's something a DM or campaign designer can fix - but why force them to fix it? Also, it is missing a lot of classic rogue weapons.

Likewise, I'm not keen on the weapon restrictions for the powers either.

I do like the powers presented aside from that, however. Always attacking with Dexterity is good.

Sneak attack damage is pretty good I think. A first level rogue is hitting for maybe 3d6 + 4... that seems pretty good. Doesn't look too bad compared to the epic Pit Fiend anyway, and by epic levels the rogue is doing 7d6 + a bunch more.