Armor Training: Leather seems to just be "proficient with light armor", by another name.I don't know. If that is true, then there might only be 4 or 5 different armors. Unless they mean Leather as in the material, rather than the style. In which case it opens the possibility of munchkining "heavy" leather armor that Rogues can wear without penalty.
The part about Weapon Proficiencies is almost exactly how it works in 3rd Edition, except that you dont get all those simple weapons that you probably werent going to use anyway.That is just silly. I'm probably not going to play a Paladin. Does that mean it should be removed from the game for everyone? Not at all. Rules alterations should never be made because of what a sub-set won't use or do.
A paladin is a much bigger game mechanic than a weapon proficiency. Thats like saying that some people think that x monster is stupid, so x monster shouldnt be published. Not giving a rogue the default ability to use a weapon without a penalty has a much, MUCH smaller impact.
I'm not saying that basic weapons like the shortspear should be yanked from the game, I'm just not sad to see that based on this preview that the rogue isnt automatically proficient with it, since I dont ever think that anyone has ever used that weapon unless they were playing a "starting package" sorcerer.Of course, we dont know if those five weapons imply five individual weapons, or weapon groups. If the general consensus is that the majority of people are NOT using a lot of the simple weapons, then keeping them is pretty pointless. I dont think that Wizards is telling you, "haha, you cant play a rogue that uses a javelin".
Most rogue powers seem to operate on the use of a "light blade", which makes it even less likely than before that people arent going to use weapons other than a dagger or short sword, so yeah, I can understand if they pull the proficiencies (and not the individual weapons).
Now, we havent seen all the rules yet, but I suspect that a feat, rule, or some other mechanic will "open" up the ability to use other weapons with rogue powers (like say, a greatsword). As I said before, not granting a series of default weapon proficiencies probably isnt that big of a deal. IF there is no way to do anything BUT use daggers and shortswords, then I can see no problem with a DM allowing a player to use other weapons with rogue powers, or allowing other proficiencies at the start. Heck, since rogue powers seemed geared for light weapons I could just say "all rogues add lance to their weapon proficiencies" and they STILL probably wouldnt get used.
You can challenge my reading comprehension all you want (also a subtle way to call someone an idiot, by the way), but my comprehension is just fine.
And while I insist this comment carries with it no implication about the intelligence of people who are excited by this rogue preview, I personally think that may have been the dumbest thing I've ever read.
Every time I turn around, 4e looks more and more to be Not My Game.
I saw the Rogue preview on the D&D Website.
Overall, I'm not impressed by what I'm seeing. My brain literally became very mushy after reading that. I believe I may have became dumber by reading that, in fact.
It was so simplistic and primitive, I really don't know what you plan to get out of 4th Edition. The Rogue never looked so unappealing to me.
Also, at will, encounter, and daily powers? I thought the game was supposed to make it easier to keep track of? At least 3rd Edition Rogue had consistent, "always on" abilities or abilities that kicked in during specific situations.
Powers? Again, D&D is turning into Marvel Universe, it seems. I guess you need powers to combat Super Saiyan Dryads and homicidal angels, of course. Makes sense.
The entire preview reeked of...World of Warcraft to me. It literally looked like something I would read up on when I install a new MMORPG on my computer and was ready to make a character and just hack&slash away.
Not impressed at all. In fact, I'm even more hateful towards 4E (if I could actually be anymore hateful) than before.
The funny part is that you think its so "simple and primitive", when in actuality its virtually identical to the 3E rogue, but with some name changes and MORE options. The new rogue does what the old rogue does, but has more creative choices, and its somehow more primitive?
You contradict yourself by later whining about the power selection, and laud the 3E rogue's "always active abilities", which basically amounted to sneak attack and the ability to ignore the flat-footed rule that I'm sure a lot of people did already.
Finally, you (again) mock 4E from having Marvel Superhero powers. I guess being able to find a chink in the armor is something that only radiation-empowered superheroes can do...oh, and also twisting your dagger just right. Yep, definitely the venue of the gods (Gawds?).
The funny part is that you think its so "simple and primitive", when in actuality its virtually identical to the 3E rogue, but with some name changes and MORE options. The new rogue does what the old rogue does, but has more creative choices, and its somehow more primitive?
What isn't funny is that you are getting as bad as Razz, just from the other "camp."
The 4th Edition Rogue does the same thing as 3rd Edition? I say prove it.
Can the 4th Edition Rogue be the party "face?"
Can the 4th Edition Rogue use a Spear?
Can the 4th Edition Rogue use a Heavy Crossbow?
Can the 4th Edition Rogue even ride a horse?
We don't know yet. These could all be answered "yes." But right now, with what we currently know, the 4th Edition Rogue can't do everything a 3rd Edition Rogue can.
Who says 4E will even have horses....
This was the letter I sent to Wizards. I was NOT happy with this.
Dear Wizards,
With every successive new release of information, you tell me that I am no longer welcome to purchase products from your company. Fearless and the new rogue really do not fill me with any sort of confidence. If I had stock in your company, which thankfully, I do not, I would withdraw every cent and do something more useful, like buy toilet paper.
The problem isn't the abilities. They will sink or swim on their own. The problem isn't the ridiculous abilities or abbreviations that we don't understand yet because there's no book in front of us.
It is this simple.
You don't roll for hit points anymore. I don't even care about the healing surges, which I think are impossibly stupid and out of theme for dungeons and dragons.
But not rolling for hit points anymore?/
Once you stop rolling for hit points, it's not D+D.
You are microns away from getting me to tell everyone I know not to buy this game.
You should pay Paizo millions of dollars to switch. Because they already produce a better 3.5 product than you, they don't butcher their own themes or ruin D+D for people, and if you don't do so, I guarantee you everyone will be sticking with them while your company sells D+D to them in just a few short years.
Rolling for hit points is part of the game. We savor it, it's a moment of tension and OOC suspense. And we've been playing a long time.
I don't like it. It's not D+D when you don't have hit point rolls.
Thank you for your time.
I wasnt aware that my recent posting here was, "as bad as Razz". Or rather, almost as bad as Razz. I'm not going to apologize for the "snarkiness" in that post, as I think that in some cases if a poster wants to come off as snarky, that they should expect those kinds of responses. If you want to voice an opinion, then I'd rather talk about it in a calm manner.
To address your points, I suppose in a purely technical view you can argue that the new rogue cannot do some of what a 3rd Edition rogue can, if you want to mince weapon proficiencies: they can use them, they just take a -4 or -5 penalty to hit.
Since skills are based off of level and not ranks, a rogue could very easily be a "party face" since they utilize Charisma as a key ability, though they DO have various Cha-based skills which function in ways we dont yet completely understand (Streetwise might function in the rogue's element better than Persuasion might).
However, neither class has Ride on the list.
I'm not arguing that the 3rd Edition rogue is craptastic at social encounters (for what they are currently worth), or that the rogue cant do it (they get a lot of skills to cap out). In fact, having the ability to be something either than a scout or trap disposal machine was something I've always told players when making a rogue.
I do not think that a rogue is explicitly designed (or rather, intended) to be a party face, especially when other classes can do it better (or at least use Charisma to a greater extent than what your average rogue would: cleric, paladin, and especially the bard).
Basically, my point still stands: both rogues are designed to do a certain thing (namely scouting, mobility, and trap removal duty), the 4E version just has more options available to do it.
Allowing more choices or flexibility is a good game design tenet.
|
Not particularly whelmed by this class preview. As I read through it my thoughts…
…Why is charisma a key rogue ability score? Intelligence would make more sense to me.
…The very limited weapon’s profiencies are not well chosen. Club seems much more roguish than a shuriken. Why can’t a rogue use a simple spear? What about a sap? This seems like a step backwards.
…Likewise, I hope that leather armor incorporates studded leather.
…I like rolling dice. While some people don’t like rolling dice for hitpoints, personally I don’t like rule-sets that lend themselves to cookie cutter characters. Low hit points and high hit points both help define one character from another.
… I liked the fact that I could make a rogue in 3e that had no thieving talents. Not the case in 4e.
…Why is the ability to be an artful dodger tied to charisma? What does charisma have to do with being cunning? Intelligence or Dexterity makes more sense. Maybe Charisma in 4e is something different.
…Again, under Rogue weapon talent, we see the shuriken? I can only shake my head in wonder that such an otherwise exotic weapon would be considered central to a core character class.
…Wowsas! Sneak attack of 2d6 at first level? And no improvement until the 11th level.
… It seems to me that feats have been renamed. They are now called powers. A first level rogue gets one power. A first level rogue in 3e would get one feat. Or am I wrong?
Conclusion: Much of a muchness to me. Skills and weapon abilities have been nerfed. Combat prowess and hit-points have been increased. Since feats seem to equal powers, it appears to me that the selection has been narrowed and are now primarily all about the combat. I don’t really appreciate charisma as a key ability skill for a rogue but that’s a personal preference for intelligent but gruff rascals. All told, I think I still like the 3e rogue better but I am honest enough to admit I am getting only a narrow picture of what a 4e class/character entails.
I haven't run a rogue in I don't know how many years... at least not one from the core rules. (I've run several variant rogues, though.) So I can't rightly separate the new presentation and compare to the 3.5 rogue to form a comparison. If someone (or multiple someones) could put together a short summary, one highlighting similarities, one highlighting differences maybe?
Do you suppose these "builds" akin to 2 Ed kits? I liked the kits, especially when there were bunches to choose from. I liked the different feel of the characters when using kits, even if the actual mechanics weren't all that different.
All in all, the article left me feeling a little anxious... I think? It seemed very unfamiliar, and definately different, both of which are to be expected with a new edition, I know. I hope the next previews highlight how everything flows together.
But this article hasn't swayed me one way or the other on whether I'm going to convert to 4 Ed or not. Up to this point I've generally accepted that I will eventually convert to the new edition, because so far I have. The question I've been posing myself has been when, not if, because I'm in a campaign that won't convert to 4th Ed, and we've already made plans for the next campaign which will either be from Pathfinder or one of the Adventure Paths.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 8
|
Perhaps an idea in their minds at WOTC is to release 4E as Dungeons and Dragons, THEN re-release 3rd Edition (3.x Update) with a few minor tweaks to get the kinks out (as most of us admit there being some) as Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. 4E = kids/new players, 3E = old folks/long term players.
|
|
the 4E version just has more options available to do it.
Allowing more choices or flexibility is a good game design tenet.
Maybe I'm just being thick but how exactly does the 4e rogue have more options? Different options than a 3e rogue I will grant. But I am not seeing more. In fact, I see the 4e rogue as having slightly fewer options when all is said and done.
Powers and Feats seem a 1 to 1 trade off, more or less.
Skills options are fewer.
Weapon options seem fewer.
Armor options seem fewer.
Even in hitpoints there are few options. :p (I kid a little with this one.)
So what am I missing?
Powers are not the same as feats. The class description doesn't really address feats, but if we assume that 4e follows SWSE, then PCs will get a feat every other level.
Also, the preview does mention that this is not a complete listing of all the class abilities for a rogue.
|
|
Powers are not the same as feats. The class description doesn't really address feats, but if we assume that 4e follows SWSE, then PCs will get a feat every other level.
I'll take your word for that.
So can you tell me in what way a rogue's powers are different than a feat. I can't tell the difference except that most of the powers seem like the sort of thing that might be the end feat in a feat chain.
Edit- Take the piercing strike for instance. Basically, if I understand it right you basically trade off dexterity for strength when attacking. Sounds like a 3e feat to me.
Can the 4th Edition Rogue be the party "face?"
Can the 4th Edition Rogue use a Spear?
Can the 4th Edition Rogue use a Heavy Crossbow?
Can the 4th Edition Rogue even ride a horse?We don't know yet. These could all be answered "yes." But right now, with what we currently know, the 4th Edition Rogue can't do everything a 3rd Edition Rogue can.
The rogue has trained access to Bluff, Insight, Intimidate, and Streetwise and untrained access to the 4e equivalent to Diplomacy, so yes, they can be the face. I'm also assuming that increased INT allows you to choose more trained skills, that feats allow you to choose more trained skills, and that race may have an impact on class skills.
As for the other three, I would probably say yes in 4e but I cannot definitely prove it based on the previews. And in any case, a 3.x character could use weapons they were not-proficient in as well as untrained skills, though not as well as someone specifically trained in those abilities. I don't see why this would not apply to 4e.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that ALL 4.0 weapons auto-crit on a nat 20, and the auto-crit is max (not double, triple, etc.) damage.
This leads me to ASSUME (take that with a grain of salt) that the weapon categories are a little more "loose." A "shortsword" is really a broad class of weapons that include scimitars, rapiers, poniards, cutlasses, shortswords, wakizashi, etc. etc.
Powers are not the same as feats. The class description doesn't really address feats, but if we assume that 4e follows SWSE, then PCs will get a feat every other level.I'll take your word for that.
So can you tell me in what way a rogue's powers are different than a feat. I can't tell the difference except that most of the powers seem like the sort of thing that might be the end feat in a feat chain.
Edit- Take the piercing strike for instance. Basically, if I understand it right you basically trade off dexterity for strength when attacking. Sounds like a 3e feat to me.
It does sound like a 3e feat because in 3e it would have been a feat. However, the 4e developers have taken such 3.x feats as power attack, two-weapon fighting, etc. and assigned them to classes based on role (an ability like power attack would go to defenders, two weapon fighting to a striker, etc.). 4e feats would give characters access to additional trained skills, skill bonuses, weapon proficencies, other class abilities (training feats) etc.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that ALL 4.0 weapons auto-crit on a nat 20, and the auto-crit is max (not double, triple, etc.) damage.
This leads me to ASSUME (take that with a grain of salt) that the weapon categories are a little more "loose." A "shortsword" is really a broad class of weapons that include scimitars, rapiers, poniards, cutlasses, shortswords, wakizashi, etc. etc.
Yep, I think you are on to something. Threat ranges are gone and it appears that DR based on type of damage may be gone too. That would definitely reduce the need for weapon variations, so a looser categorical definition may be the way 4e is going.
|
|
It does sound like a 3e feat because in 3e it would have been a feat.
While I can appreciate that 4e feats may be different and even better than 3e feats, my original point was that the 4e powers seem like a trade off with 3e feats. So what exactly are we arguing about here?
EDIT - And if, as you seem to suggest, 4e feats merely add back in the weapon and armor choices open to rogues in 3e, I still don't see how this makes 4e more flexible. It all seems a matter of symantics to me when all is said and done.
That is far too much effort for too little profit. They've changed things too much to go that way. It's sad, but it's true.
Wait...didn't you already imply people who don't agree with you aren't grown-ups? In fact, I got the sense the response was an allusion to your implication, hence the ":P"
Or perhaps this is subtle sarcasm and I just don't get it?
Nope. I don't imply anything on others opinions or assumptions.
I have not enough hubris to think that I'm smart enough to know what's right or that anyone has to agree with me.I did imply that the new ruleset is geared towards a younger market, or towards a market that mantains themes less related to what commonly appeals to more adult audiences.
Which I'm not stating that is wrong per se, or that is less fun or else. Just that is not the one I'm in.
Unfortunately, from your placement of your statement it did look like a derogatory statement toward anyone who plays 4th edition.
Since you said you will continue to play the game for grown-ups, that does imply that 4th edition is not for grown-ups. Since it is not for grown-ups that means it is left for children. Do you understand why some people might have been irritated when something you say goes directly toward calling a game they are going to play childish?
I mean imagine if one of the 4th edition designers put up a blog saying, "The previous editions were fine, but I would rather play a game for grown-ups and that game is 4th edition." Wouldn't that tick off people who do like the previous editions?
You didn't say anything about others opinions or assumptions.
You [b]did[/i] imply that 4th edition was childish.
And that is why I made my responce. I didn't really think that any of the previous editions were not fun, but I was tired of saying to people, "Stop saying things that insult people who might actually want to play that game!" So I tried something new. And threw a ":P" to tag my remark as not serious.
1 word: suckage.
A few more words: Doesn't sound like what I expect when I play D&D. Increase the game's suckage factor.
another detrimental element fo them: try to trick and bluff your market to say afterwards "you were wrong, this is actually good", and see the reaction).I think the people in the market are tricking themselves and are just surprised that their assumptions are incorrect.So, you know what I really think.
Mmmmhhhh.
So, you knew what they really were trying to do.
Mmmmhhhh.Come on. Was my statement any more outrageous that you saying that WotC was lying about the game mechanics just to see peoples reactions later on?
Happy fun and good times to each and everyone who like it, but to me is just one more reason to stay with my serious D&D for grown ups.And I move to the awesome D&D for people that like fun. :PWhich implies that I am a person who does not like fun, or at least that my games are not fun. Or both of them.
Mmmmhhhh.
Just like your statement implied that it would be immature of me to play 4th edition.
Mmmmhhhh.
While I can appreciate that 4e feats may be different and even better than 3e feats, my original point was that the 4e powers seem like a trade off with 3e feats. So what exactly are we arguing about here?EDIT - And if, as you seem to suggest, 4e feats merely add back in the weapon and armor choices open to rogues in 3e, I still don't see how this makes 4e more flexible. It all seems a matter of symantics to me when all is said and done.
What are you trading off? 4e class powers are a combination of 3.x class powers and higher-end feats; feats are ways to differentiate your characters in way outside of your class powers (my examples were just examples that I came up with off the top of my head). Assuming a SWSE progression, you get a class feature on every odd level and a feat on every even level.
Which implies that I am a person who does not like fun, or at least that my games are not fun. Or both of them.
Mmmmhhhh.
golem101,
Yeah, you're in the same boat as me, but I think you missed the memo from the 4E designers. You see, 4E is about putting the "fun" into D&D. So if you don't like what WOTC is *telling* you is fun/cool, you're out of luck. Sorry man, I'm right there with you. I came to the conlusion a while back that I was *not* a member of the target audience for 4E.
[url]http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/community/gaming/4thEdition/imNotPartO fTheTargetAudienceFor4E[/url].
I saw the Rogue preview on the D&D Website.
Overall, I'm not impressed by what I'm seeing...In fact, I'm even more hateful towards 4E (if I could actually be anymore hateful) than before.
Yep. Pretty much my reaction as well. The word that sprung to mind was "crap-tastic" =(
The rogue has... untrained access to the 4e equivalent to Diplomacy,
Really? Where was that released?
And in any case, a 3.x character could use weapons they were not-proficient in as well as untrained skills, though not as well as someone specifically trained in those abilities. I don't see why this would not apply to 4e.
Well, a 3.X player rolled their own saving throws and had skill points. I don't see why this would not apply to 4th Edition... Except we have been told they don't. We can't assume that the same traditions carry over.
The rogue has... untrained access to the 4e equivalent to Diplomacy,Really? Where was that released?
Its an assumption based on the SWSE skills system, designer statements about the 4e skill system being similar to the SWSE skill system, and the other information released in the previews (like the pit fiend stats). I'm fairly confident on the skill system. As for weapon proficiencies, you are correct, I'm making an educated guess, but we'll know for sure next week.
I'm fairly confident on the skill system.
Normally, I wouldn't call you on this.
But I am fairly confident that 4th Edition isn't for me, and that I don't like the changes for 4th Edition. And I have been called on those statements for months.
If I can't make assumptions based on what has been released, then you shouldn't make assumptions based on what hasn't been released.
|
|
What are you trading off? 4e class powers are a combination of 3.x class powers and higher-end feats; feats are ways to differentiate your characters in way outside of your class powers (my examples were just examples that I came up with off the top of my head). Assuming a SWSE progression, you get a class feature on every odd level and a feat on every even level.
One of us is talking past the other I think...
Yes. 4e class powers seem like a combination of 3e class powers and feats. It is a matter of semantics. I don't see the gain. I don't see a lot more flexibility. I see a different way to make a lot of the same choices. I see more emphasis on lots of hit points and combat manuevers. I also see some things missing that I liked. The halfling master chef prestige-class does not seem as likely under the 4e rules set.
I concede it could just be me.
On the other hand, as you admit you're just making stuff up as you go along, it could be you.
I'm fairly confident on the skill system.Normally, I wouldn't call you on this.
But I am fairly confident that 4th Edition isn't for me, and that I don't like the changes for 4th Edition. And I have been called on those statements for months.
If I can't make assumptions based on what has been released, then you shouldn't make assumptions based on what hasn't been released.
I'm making assumptions based on released materials and designer statements concerning 4e, and I also realize that my assumptions are not necessarily 100% correct based on my limited perspective. I also take umbrage to the implication that I'm some sort of 4e fanboi pulling things out of my ass based on faith alone.
|
I like that tumble is a rogue class ability rather than a skill. In 3rd edition it's too good and too easy for everyone to get. That may be all that I like though.
If your skills aren't based on intelligence, that makes it a dump stat for everyone except wizards. I don't like that at all. Every ability score should have some effect on every character. It makes sense for charisma to be a potential key attribute as it lets you play a swashbuckler type character, but I think the cunning rogue is just as viable an archetype.
I don't want to totally sidetrack the thread, but there are definite parallels between the 4th edition rogue and WoW rogues- having special strike powers for attacks, several of those strikes being contingent on wielding daggers/light blades, talent trees, leather armor proficiency, the striker/dps role.
My take on it is that the rogue will still be fairly versatile. With the inlcusion of feats its sould still be possible to pick up proficiency in a non rogue type weapon. It doesn't seem like the rogue has as large a skill set as in 3E, but I get the impression that there are overall less skills in 4E, but the skills cover more. For instance, Dungeoneering should help out with trap finding and disabling traps etc...
To me it makes sense that Charisma should be a important skill, so that a rogue can fast talk and use social skills to weasle out of various situations. This has always been a characteristic of the rogue "archetype".
I like that the "powers" of the rogue aren't really powers, but represent abilities that the character has from extensive training and skill, and that each power gives a quick explanation to justify how it is supposed to work.
I'm not sure what my overall opinion of the class is. I'd want to test drive it first, not just read the pamphlet, but I wouldn't say that I was turned off by it or felt that it was somehow poorly designed compared to the 3E rogue.
What are you trading off? 4e class powers are a combination of 3.x class powers and higher-end feats; feats are ways to differentiate your characters in way outside of your class powers (my examples were just examples that I came up with off the top of my head). Assuming a SWSE progression, you get a class feature on every odd level and a feat on every even level.One of us is talking past the other I think...
Yes. 4e class powers seem like a combination of 3e class powers and feats. It is a matter of semantics. I don't see the gain. I don't see a lot more flexibility. I see a different way to make a lot of the same choices. I see more emphasis on lots of hit points and combat manuevers. I also see some things missing that I liked. The halfling master chef prestige-class does not seem as likely under the 4e rules set.
I concede it could just be me.
On the other hand, as you admit you're just making stuff up as you go along, it could be you.
Less options? There looks to be more options available in 4e in terms of class abilities based on the selection released in the preview (some of the abilities mentioned in the builds are not even defined in the preview). The preview doesn't even address feats (btw, my example feats are actually based off SWSE feats).
Way back in Basic, I was the thief.
In 1st ed, I was the thief.
2nd ed, 3.0, 3.5, I was the... you get the idea*.
This piques my interest. To my surprise, I'm starting to like what I hear about 4 more and more. Even better, once it comes out, maybe I'll be able to resist reading all those tired "4 good!! no 4 bad!!" threads.
*To be honest, I did start multiclassing frequently as things went on.
I also take umbrage to the implication that I'm some sort of 4e fanboi pulling things out of my ass based on faith alone.
Take all the umbrage you want. It doesn't change my statements, my assertions, or my intentions.
And if it matters to you, I wasn't trying to imply anything. But if you want to take it as such, enjoy. I don't mind.
I also take umbrage to the implication that I'm some sort of 4e fanboi pulling things out of my ass based on faith alone.Take all the umbrage you want. It doesn't change my statements, my assertions, or my intentions.
And if it matters to you, I wasn't trying to imply anything. But if you want to take it as such, enjoy. I don't mind.
Sorry, overreacted. Its too easy to get defensive sometimes.
|
|
Less options? There looks to be more options available in 4e in terms of class abilities based on the selection released in the preview (some of the abilities mentioned in the builds are not even defined in the preview). The preview doesn't even address feats (btw, my example feats are actually based off SWSE feats).
Do I have the option of building a Master Chef Prestige class with uber cooking skills or don't I? If I don't there are some options now gone. :-) There might be new options available but taking away one and giving me a new one is not a net increase.
Anyway, I think you are being too defensive. My main point, I think, is that it looks like a game of semantics, shuffling around the same abilities and calling them something new.
You tell me there are more options. Please tell me what they are because I am missing them. This was my original plea.
I do not see more options when I read the description of the 4e Rogue. I see things I could also do in 3e with the appropriate feat. And I am told, by you, that the things I could do without a feat in 3e, I now will need a feat for.
I am really not looking for an argument. I am looking for an answer. When I read this Rogue preview, what are my new and better options? It does me no good to tell me they are there without telling me what they are because I don't see them.
I do not know what to think.
again I still plan on just reading it when it comes out. The hit points seems odd to me somewhat, though not a huge issue I guess. I also give everyone in my games max HPs the first 4 levels. I like to be able to smack em a round a lil and not worry too much. (Though I have to say, the game I ran with them at 1st level a couple weeks ago... those wargs almost ripped them to shreds.) :D
I have to say I'm more than a little bit confused. I thought 4E was supposed to simplify and streamline the game. Yet now there are more "powers" and "abilities per encounter or day" and whatever. That seems like even more to keep track of. More bookkeeping. Last I checked this was Dungeons & Dragons, not Lists & Ledgers. I'm not saying we don't already have a lot of stuff to keep track of, I'm just saying, don't say you are making stuff simpler while making it even more complex.
|
|
First impressions;
Only five weapons? Oh hell no. These path things better open up more options.
Six skills, total. No ranks. It *looks* like you'll just have max ranks in whatever skills you took. So in a party of four Clerics, for instance, everyone will have exactly the same skills and ranks in skill. If a Rogue picked Disguise, he'll be a master of Disguise. He can't 'dabble.' He's either got it, or not.
Fixed hit points. I allow players a choice of half (round up) or they can roll. For Sorcerer/Wizards it's a no-brainer. (2.5 rounded up being 3, instead of rolling and possibly getting a 1 or 2!) Others like to roll. Options are nice. I always picked fixed amounts, 'though, 'cause I can't roll for crap. :)
A whole lot of stuff there. I got bored and didn't read it all (I don't play Rogues, and, indeed, nobody in our gaming group has, for decades). More options is neat, so I can't criticize them for putting lots of stuff there!
Wow, Sneak attack +5d6 at 30th level!?! That's when we're supposed to be killing gods and taking their stuff. If a 5d6 sneak attack is gonna be competitive for a 30th level character, 30th level characters (and gods) are gonna be pretty freaking weak, as in *9th* level 3.5 Rogue weak, 'cause that's when they get +5d6 SA! Alternately, there must be a lot of other sources of extra damage, perhaps extra dice replacing Iterative attacks, or doubled SA dice on Positional Attacks or something, and they had to keep the base SA number low so that it didn't stack grotesquely with the other options.
|
|
I agree with this statement. This is the way I see it.
What they said: Combat will be more streamlined. Your characters will have plenty of options. It will be easier to DM. It will be easier to learn how to play.
What has been presented so far: Everyone has loads of powers and abilites to keep track of. Damage equations seem overly complicated (2d6 sneak attack + 2W + Dex) for example. I see nothing that lets the rogue be anything more than the guy who comes in and stabs you for gobs of damage. They seem awfully straightjacketed into a very specific combat (and maybe out of combat) role. It might be easier to DM, but I will probably have to hand the player of the rogue a pocket calculator to calculate damage, and a series of cards describing all of their PC's powers. Trying to make sense of this write-up made my head hurt. It might be easier once you've had a few weeks of access to the PHB to digest the new system, but they haven't exactly inspired me with the "easy to learn" aspect of the game, so far. I know we don't have the rules yet, but what they've shown us so far hasn't given me any confidence that they have achieved their goals of making the game easier and more fun.
|
|
A paladin is a much bigger game mechanic than a weapon proficiency. Thats like saying that some people think that x monster is stupid, so x monster shouldnt be published. Not giving a rogue the default ability to use a weapon without a penalty has a much, MUCH smaller impact.
No, it has exactly the same impact. If Player Bob wants to play a Paladin, and they aren't available, Bob is denied his 'fun.' If Player Bob wants to play an Errol Flynn-esque swashbuckling Rogue who draws his initials in the air with his Rapier, or a woodsy sort of scout who plinks people with a Shortbow from the forest canopy, he can't, and, again, Bob is denied his 'fun.'
They are identical 'impacts.' Bob wants to do something that he could have done in 3rd Edition, and the game won't let him.
Doesn't matter if it's an entire race or class or a single class ability. 4E, we have been bludgeoned with over and over, is supposed to be *more fun,* so much so that they've stripped out things that they have told us are 'not fun,' for our own good, to save us from our boring games. Apparently, swashbuckling Rogues (and Druids, and Gnomes) are 'boring' and 'not fun,' and thank heavens they've saved us from playing D&D wrong all of these years!
Only five weapons? Oh hell no. These path things better open up more options.
That's something I was going to mention and forgot. It's like they are throwing back to AD&D here with more limited weapons available to classes.
|
|
…Wowsas! Sneak attack of 2d6 at first level? And no improvement until the 11th level.
Not necessarily; you could very well have the option to improve this by purchasing powers (an extra d6 here, bleeding wounds, STR/DEX ability damage, etc).
That bump at level 11 may just be the baseline. You're free to leave it be if you'd rather focus on burglarizing, or some other aspect.
Hmm...
I don't know what to say, without sounding arrogant and commenting by "I knew it".
But the fact is that i felt a while ago that the classes from D&D4 would become such stereotypes.
No real variations or variants, just archetypes.
I always liked rogues, from the time when they were not even afraid to be called thieves.
Some of my rogues were bandits, some other were acrobats, assassins, bounty hunters, burglars, courtisans, mercenaries, merchants, smugglers...
And most of the time i didn't need to give them a subclass, a kit, a prestige class or a variant, the skills and the roleplaying were enough to make each of them original and unique.
What i like in rogues is not their power, but their versatility, their extraordinary ability to adapt to any situation, to be the jack of all trades. I even appreciate their weaknesses and their limits, which makes them more interesting.
But for that i need options, possibilities.
And i don't see such possibilities in this computerized rogue.
When i am playing a MMORPG rogue, i don't mind archetypes.
But when i am plying a table RPG, especially Dungeons & Dragons, i don't want to be told how to play my character, according to a "role".
The only limits i expect are the ones of my imagination and my DM.
I am quite sad from all this, as i really wanted to stay open-minded towards the 4th edition. Really.
Some previous announcements about some serious changes in the fluff didn't please me. But fluff can be ignored and modified easily, with no impact on the game.
But i also see the general direction of the future game, simplifying everything. And i must say that i don't like what i see.
I don't like simplification, uniforms, stereotypes.
Role playing games shouldn't be simple. Because players are not simple.
|
|
Six skills, total. No ranks. It *looks* like you'll just have max ranks in whatever skills you took. So in a party of four Clerics, for instance, everyone will have exactly the same skills and ranks in skill. If a Rogue picked Disguise, he'll be a master of Disguise. He can't 'dabble.' He's either got it, or not.
That seems to hark back to 2nd Ed Non-Weapon Proficiencies.
You only had a few, and you would go from no skill, to say, 75% skill (if you had a 15 in the relevant ability).I hated it; I never felt there were enough slots to buy the basics, and there was no option to be a jack-of-all-trades. The characters I make have at least 1 rank in as many skills as possible, cross-class or no, since I hate being told 'You can't attempt that'. I don't need to be amazing at everything, I just want there to be a chance of success, however small.
If Player Bob wants to play a Paladin, and they aren't available, Bob is denied his 'fun.' If Player Bob wants to play an Errol Flynn-esque swashbuckling Rogue who draws his initials in the air with his Rapier, or a woodsy sort of scout who plinks people with a Shortbow from the forest canopy, he can't, and, again, Bob is denied his 'fun.'
As a friendly, devil's advocate, isn't it reasonable to say that the former is a Fighter and the later a Ranger?
|
|
If Player Bob wants to play a Paladin, and they aren't available, Bob is denied his 'fun.' If Player Bob wants to play an Errol Flynn-esque swashbuckling Rogue who draws his initials in the air with his Rapier, or a woodsy sort of scout who plinks people with a Shortbow from the forest canopy, he can't, and, again, Bob is denied his 'fun.'As a friendly, devil's advocate, isn't it reasonable to say that the former is a Fighter and the later a Ranger?
No, because a fighter is a defender. They must wear lots and lots of armor and stand there to be attacked by the enemy. That is their role.