I dont know about the mechanics so cant comment on those- but when I saw the weapons included hand crossbow and shuriken --bleah
I do think that "simple" is the wrong word for this Rogue. The number of rules to learn is sufficiently high that people are going to have to write down all of their options for some time. What it is, is limited. Every Rogue has Thievery, and every Rogue has to use a small bladed weapon. They can't use a morningstar or a sap. They can't use a bow or a spear to any meaningful effect.
The 4e Rogue is easily and immediately identifiable from the weapons he carries. He has a short sword or a dagger, period. It's very much a "board game" mentality. A "Rogue Item" is easily and immediately recognizable as such. If you found a mace, you'd give it to the Cleric. If you found a spear, you'd give it to the Fighter. If you found a bow, you'd give it to the Ranger. Under no circumstances would any of these weapons be used or usable by the Rogue.
It's not simple. Each of the abilities has as many fiddly details to keep track of as one of those edge case spells from the Spell Compendium. However it is inelegant and I don't like it. 3.x Sneak Attack is actually much simpler than the 4e Precise Strike/Brutal Strike/Sneak Attack thing they have going. But it allowed for more playable options because it was open ended. It just happened. All the 4e Rogue powers stop working unless you are using your special Rogue Weapons to go with your Rogue Powers.
I think this is the last straw. I'm not actually going to bother reading more 4e previews.
-Frank
The problem at hand here:
3.5 loyalists have an apple. It came from the tree of 3.5, which has had time to blossom and bear fruit.
As such when they argue, they can always say "Look! Look what we have! Compared to our fruit, you have nothing of value."
4ed enthusiasts have a seed. Some of them recall when 3.5 was but a seed, and how certain people railed against it. But 3.5 grew strong. 4ed enthusiasts hope the same. Most enthusiasts realize they can offer only the slightest rebuttal against the 3.5 loyalists for simple fact they have on eye on the what could be, while the 3.5 argues what is and has come before.
Is either side wrong. NO, but the values they argue from seem at odds . . .and so they war -- both swinging fruitlessly at impossibly high ACs that they could never hope to hit, regardless of edition.
Antioch,
If you note, I did carefully qualify my statement with the caveat that we may be missing big chunks of information. But your post seems to be "I'm guessing it doesn't suck as much as it looks like, we just don't know why yet." Whereas mine was "this better not be all, or it just sucks."
Maybe there are social skills options and weapons options that are class independent, so the rogue isn't as narrow as presented. But that's just a guess.
Even if there is, this rogue is more constrained than the 3e one. There are four rogues in my current campaign (out of ten players. It runs online and not everyone is involved in the same storylines at the same time). Only one of them considers herself a 'trapsmith' and only two have anything that might reasonably be considered "thievery" skills. All four do have stealth, though. This rogue, as presented, would only allow for two of those four characters (and even then one of those two would need to completely change weapons).
Maybe there's another class that screams out "pick me" to cover the missing characters. Maybe there's weapon options that aren't expensive to actually take and can be used with the rogue's attack options. Maybe there's more non combat stuff to the rogue. Maybe that's a lot too many maybes to make me comfortable with what's presented.
Frankly, I don't see what you mean by there being more options now than before. Unless you mean just in combat, which is okay but not a big deal to me since my characters often go several sessions between meaningful combats.
My original stance was, and still is, that the new rogue isnt "simplistic and primitive", especially when compared to its previous incarnation.
To summarize, currently in 3E and 4E when you make a rogue, you get to pick skills (whether you allocated skill points or elect Trained skills) and feats. You can also lump in your choice of equipment as part of this selection process if you so wish.The 4th Edition rogue, however, also has to pick a style (emphasis on strength or agility at this point) in addition to selecting an array of class powers.
This right here tells me that the new rogue has more things to choose from. You could say that yeah, its mostly additional options when it comes to overcoming challenges (whether combat, social, or some kind of puzzle), but thats where the majority of D&D play appears to lie anyway.
For the record, every character in 4th Edition appears to have more options with skills as well: social skills have a larger impact in direct play, and existing skills can be used in new ways (Arcana, for example, can now be used to disarm magical traps).
Now, from what we've seen, the new rogue appears to suffer in the range of weapon selections. I say appears because we dont know necessarily how they will function, or what kind of impact it makes on your character by wanting to take them (as in, what do you have to do to get it).
From what we DO know, overall the complexity and choices made has increased.
Now, the rogue as presented appears to be much more inclined to a certain archetype. The 3E rogue had the capabilities to be a kind of diplomat if you dumped all your points in Cha skills, which is really the ONLY archetype that the new rogue appears to be mostly unable to do (again, I say mostly because you get a bonus to all skills based off of level, so while you wont be as good as someone who is Trained in the skill, its not really an all-or-nothing scenario).
You otherwise are free to take the rest of the bunch as desired, and if you want to play a thief-type or a scout, well, those options are still there for you.
My take: Too narrow as revealed.
This could be due to our not knowing, like, the entire rest of the 4E rules, but as shown, it looks more limited than I had thought it would be. In particular, the weapons.
Now, one potential change could be that weapons have been consolidated into simple categories that can be used to represent a variety of other weapons. For instance, Shuriken are, for all intents and purposes, throwing knives of some sort or another. Anyone who thinks that they must mean only ninja stars is deluding themselves on purpose. Also, maybe Shortsword included Rapiers and other such weapons, like the Gladius. We just don't know. This could be their way of removing the dozens of entries in the PHB of similar weapons that are basically all the same thing, just with different names. Or, even WORSE, the trend sometimes taken where multiple similar weapons are made different just to justify their existence on the weapons chart. Shortsword, 1d6 damage, could just be something to represent a broad category of weapons that will all do the same damage.
But, we don't know if this is true. We can't know it until the game is released so have to assume that it is NOT the case. So, I find the limited weapons provided too small by far. If I can use others and I just have to make them conform to one of the sub-types given, that's fine by me, but to not include them if they're available as separate items is just very, very stupid, IMO.
The bonuses to throwing blades (shurikens, whatever) and daggers was welcome. Give me some incentive to use a weapon that does less damage than others that I can use and STILL Sneak Attack with. A viable dagger rogue (as in, just as dangerous and effective as a shortsword/rapier rogue) would be an amazing thing as it's something I would love to play but never have been able to as it was so subpar that I would hear it from every other player at the table for gimping the party. Point for ME.
Not rolling hit points each level. Good choice. DnD hasn't really had hit point rolls since the end of 2E. It was default as a sacred cow, but the 1/2 hit die each level was a listed option in the PHB and, actually, the default at all the conventions and gaming events I've been to. So, it's good that they've joined the 21st century and gone with it as default. I imagine that rolling hit points will be a listed option in the PHB. So, basically the two methods are just reversed but still there. Point for 4E.
The two Rogue options (Brawler and Trickster? something like that) are fine, but, again, too limited. I was hoping for four or five per Class buy my expectations may have been too high. Meh. And "meh" again at having to buy another book for the options that should have been in the initial PHB. Point against them, in my book.
Int not affecting Skills. I was surprised at first but now, after thinking about it, think that this would be included in the Skills section of the book. Either way I'm not concerned for this one way or the other. The way Skills seem to work (SAGA style) makes it not such an important point. Still should have been included, though. Meh.
The mandatory Stealth and Thievery surprised me. I don't like it. But, when it says to pick more options from the list below, it includes those Skills again, which seems pointless. I think it's a simple matter to just ignore those two as mandatory Skills and pick two more from the list since they are both repeated there. No big deal, I guess.
The Sneak Attack progression I don't know about. Seems a lot less "cool", to use a WotC official term. I'm not holding it against them, though, since I remember them saying that Sneak Attacks will work against nearly all creatures now and that Rogues will be able to use the ability far more often than before. Keeping that in mind, I can understand the progression more, and even can see myself agreeing.
The Abilities I liked. I really, really liked. I like certain abilities, targeting different Defenses, such as Reflex when you're trying to avoid Armor (no need for pointless Touch Attacks when Reflex represents the same thing). From the options presented, I think that there will be a host of different ones and I can already tell that there are going to be a lot of painful choices to be made trying to decide which abilities I will want to pick up. Easily the best part of the article.
I can also see how a DM could just allow players to choose from multiple ability groups, irregardless of their Class, if he wanted to step further away from the Roles assumption. Provided the Classes share the same Power source, it should be very easy, and provide a lot more customization to those who want it.
So, good points and bad points. Hopefully the limitations shown are not as harsh as they seem. It would be a shame if they were. It would actually be a serious blunder in my book. The few things they got right, though, they got very right.
|
The problem at hand here:
3.5 loyalists have an apple. It came from the tree of 3.5, which has had time to blossom and bear fruit.
As such when they argue, they can always say "Look! Look what we have! Compared to our fruit, you have nothing of value."
4ed enthusiasts have a seed. Some of them recall when 3.5 was but a seed, and how certain people railed against it. But 3.5 grew strong. 4ed enthusiasts hope the same. Most enthusiasts realize they can offer only the slightest rebuttal against the 3.5 loyalists for simple fact they have on eye on the what could be, while the 3.5 argues what is and has come before.
Is either side wrong. NO, but the values they argue from seem at odds . . .and so they war -- both swinging fruitlessly at impossibly high ACs that they could never hope to hit, regardless of edition.
And some have developed an allergy to 3.5 apples. They hear that this new seed will bear a more tolerable fruit. If it grows into the fruit that they hope for all will be good.
Otherwise the 3.5 allergic will go slaughter a cow and eat steak. Screw this fruit crap. :)
|
To summarize, currently in 3E and 4E when you make a rogue, you get to pick skills (whether you allocated skill points or elect Trained skills) and feats. You can also lump in your choice of equipment as part of this selection process if you so wish.
The 4th Edition rogue, however, also has to pick a style (emphasis on strength or agility at this point) in addition to selecting an array of class powers.This right here tells me that the new rogue has more things to choose from.
To repeat a question from earlier... I am still wondering what these new things to choose from are. The 'styles' you mention are all available to the 3e rogue. They are not new choices. You could play a strength based rogue in 3e as easily as a dexterity based rogue. The class powers are not, as I read them, new. You say the rogue will have more feats and thus more options but I have yet to see the proof, especially as it seems that feats will be spent to do things a 3e rogue can already do. A human 3e rogue at 1st level has sneak attack and 2 feats. A 1st level human rogue in 4e will, I suspect have sneak attack, a class power and a human power. That seems pretty equal to me. Then if I take 1 feat to allow myself to use a bow and another feat to allow myself to use a club, I am right back with the 4e rogue where the 3e rogue started. There is no gain in options.
It's not enough to say there are more options if you refuse to say what those options are.
|
And while I certainly admit that there are things that can be improved in 3.x, I don't see the need for a new edition to do so. What really concerns me is that while some of the 'problems' are addressed, it just looks like there are new ones.
Given how far-reaching some of these changes are, I strongly suspect that a 4.5 edition will come quicker on the heels of 4E than 3.5 did for 3E. Not as some evil 'most-make-more-money' calculus, but simply because they changed *a whole lotta stuff,* and those changes may have been playtested to hell and back, but, as they realized after the launch of 3rd Edition, no amount of playtesting is going to account for what 10,000 different people can come up with.
I put $200 quatloo on one of the Char Op board people 'breaking' something within 24 hours of the sell date that ends up being addressed in whatever version of Sage Advice the DI gets around to implementing (assuming that the DI transcends it's current quasi-vaporware status and actually starts having monthly articles) and becoming part of the first official eratta.
And some have developed an allergy to 3.5 apples. They hear that this new seed will bear a more tolerable fruit. If it grows into the fruit that they hope for all will be good.
Otherwise the 3.5 allergic will go slaughter a cow and eat steak. Screw this fruit crap. :)
Something came to my mind (yes, sometimes, something comes to my mind...) :
The time i spent to work on the rules since AD&D2 until now has been a permament (desperate ?) quest to make a better system.I am talking about more than 300 pages of revamping.
Could it be that in a way i was working on 4th edition ? (damn)
It might well have some similarities with D&D4. Some differences too, but still, some similarities.
When AD&D "2.5" came (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers, Spells & Magic etc) i was "Hey ! They copied my stuff !". When D&D3 came i was "Hey ! They copied my stuff again !".
I suspect i might do the same when D&D4 comes...
Although i might not convert to 4th edition, as a DM, but i will probably buy the books anyway, at least the core ones, to check them out, and stay informed and in touch with the current system. I love D&D, since OD&D, and i am faithful (call me lawful if you want).
And i will probably as a player if the group i'm playing with converts. I don't care about the system, as long as i am playing.
So, no, i don't think 4th edition will be perfect. None of the previous editions was.
Does it matter ? Not really.
As long i am playing, i am happy.
Game on :)
Lame.
I'm not gonna repost what others have said, but unless there's 31 flavors of shurikens, short swords, and daggers, this seems very limiting from right out the gate...
NOT RECOMENDED FOR TOP 32.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I haven't been keeping up with this thread as it took me until now to access the article. Five days WotC website was keeping me out.
Now, I've seen it, I have to ask (and forgive me if it has been asked already) but what is it about Crimson Edge that make it a once per day power? Why couldn't a rogue do this 100 times a day if they made their rolls?
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't want to do this 100 times a day, I'm just asking why not?
And don't you be starting on about how I shouldn't expect a game to be reasonable because it is just a game. This is a game with encumberance, ecologies for monsters, histories, settings, and all sorts of other attempts to make the fantasy seem real.
This 'daily martial power' thing would only make sense to me if it were something so strenuous doing it twice per day would kill a martial artist. Please convince me this isn't just plain dumb because I want to believe in 4e.
I haven't been keeping up with this thread as it took me until now to access the article. Five days WotC website was keeping me out.
Now, I've seen it, I have to ask (and forgive me if it has been asked already) but what is it about Crimson Edge that make it a once per day power? Why couldn't a rogue do this 100 times a day if they made their rolls?
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't want to do this 100 times a day, I'm just asking why not?
And don't you be starting on about how I shouldn't expect a game to be reasonable because it is just a game. This is a game with encumberance, ecologies for monsters, histories, settings, and all sorts of other attempts to make the fantasy seem real.
This 'daily martial power' thing would only make sense to me if it were something so strenuous doing it twice per day would kill a martial artist. Please convince me this isn't just plain dumb because I want to believe in 4e.
From ENWorld (including two posts because I think they mesh well together, like PB and chocolate):
I agree completely. It's an elegant solution. Why does the rogue use his Spinning Death Blade in round 3? Because that's when the opponent opened himself up in the particular way that's required for that sort of attack. The player decides to use the power in round 3, but the narrative indicates that the reason why the character uses it is because opportunity knocked. It solves the "rationale" problem quite well that way. This is how many people narrate their games anyway.
I know this won't cure the ills of the more immersion oriented among us, but I tend to see Daily and Encounter Powers as a form of narrative control being handed to the players. It's not that a given character is literally incapable of performing the actions represented by the Powers more often than the limitations in the rules allow, its that they don't. It's just not appropriate for cinematic or narratively appropriate for a character to continually perform these daring feats.In the rogue's case I'd say that their special abilities require specific openings in their opponents' defenses which don't come along that often. Rather than having the DM detail these openings and have the rogue's player react to them, we instead give the player of the rogue a limited amount of narrative power to determine when his opponents leave him with an opening for the maneuvers he is capable of performing.
|
After overcoming my initial anger at the loss of Dungeon and Dragon and the insipid marketing of WotC, I decided that I could at least review the rules before pronouncing their fitness or lack thereof. To this end, I do my utmost to not get overly amped over these partial rules releases. There is much that I hear that I do not agree with, but I just can't bash a system that is so incomplete as to remain largely undefined. To be fair there are also things that might be good changes for the game as well, but again what has been revealed is so incomplete that I can make no decision about what I am reading.
Therefore, I do not have a comment per se concerning the rogue, but I urge everyone to wait a bit and let this whole thing play out before passing judgment on the edition as a whole. Personally, I have vowed to follow this plan:
- Obtain a 4e PHB. [Aside: WotC, if you are reading, note that I said obtain, not purchase. It is clear I am not your target audience and I am just fine with that. You probably didn't expect a sale from me anyway in that case. B&N will let me read cover to cover and I am sure other fence sitters will be able to do something similar.]
- Read the PHB from cover to cover and review it with my 8 players. This is something I will do eagerly.
- If the rules are, on a whole, acceptable, then I will let Paizo know my thoughts via the inevitable poll that will be posted here.
- I will then either convert my group when Paizo does (assuming WotC isn't going to screw them on the GSL/licensing issues) or stay with Paizo if they find they cannot produce 4e material profitably.
There was nothing even remotely appealing about looking at that preview or anything that jumped out at me to let me know how much cooler 4.0 is purportedly over 3.5.
|
|
From ENWorld (including two posts because I think they mesh well together, like PB and chocolate):
I know this won't cure the ills of the more immersion oriented among us, but I tend to see Daily and Encounter Powers as a form of narrative control being handed to the players. It's not that a given character is literally incapable of performing the actions represented by the Powers more often than the limitations in the rules allow, its that they don't. It's just not appropriate for cinematic or narratively appropriate for a character to continually perform these daring feats.In the rogue's case I'd say that their special abilities require specific openings in their opponents' defenses which don't come along that often. Rather than having the DM detail these openings and have the rogue's player react to them, we instead give the player of the rogue a limited amount of narrative power to determine when his opponents leave him with an opening for the maneuvers he is capable of performing.
I am not arguing for 4e or the rogue one way or the other here, but I believe that if you think this reasoning is useful for explaining the 4e abilities, I have to ask: why not use this reasoning to justify Vancian magic or any other supposedly 3e-ugly feature that is "broken" in 3.5 D&D? I mean, spellcasters can just be viewed as capable of casting more spells, but the fog of combat and general strain and so forth associated with spellcasting just won't allow them more opportunities than their alloted spells per day. Vancian magic is therefore a way of handing narrative control over to the player.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I am not arguing for 4e or the rogue one way or the other here, but I believe that if you think this reasoning is useful for explaining the 4e abilities, I have to ask: why not use this reasoning to justify Vancian magic or any other supposedly 3e-ugly feature that is "broken" in 3.5 D&D? I mean, spellcasters can just be viewed as capable of casting more spells, but the fog of combat and general strain and so forth associated with spellcasting just won't allow them more opportunities than their alloted spells per day. Vancian magic is therefore a way of handing narrative control over to the player.
Lich-Loved stole my rebuttal back. Keep your hands off my rebuttal.
It strikes me that unless this is printed in bold print in the 'powers' section of the PHB4.0 we are going to be having this discussion again and again. Even if it is printed there, it will be known as the 'Narrative Limitations to Powers Fallacy' and be given as a justification for 5.0.
Just sayin'.
I do want to believe in 4e. You think I want to stick with 3.5 and try to keep up with you guys who have a $1000 head start on me? I want to believe but nothing impresses me so far.
I am not arguing for 4e or the rogue one way or the other here, but I believe that if you think this reasoning is useful for explaining the 4e abilities, I have to ask: why not use this reasoning to justify Vancian magic or any other supposedly 3e-ugly feature that is "broken" in 3.5 D&D? I mean, spellcasters can just be viewed as capable of casting more spells, but the fog of combat and general strain and so forth associated with spellcasting just won't allow them more opportunities than their alloted spells per day. Vancian magic is therefore a way of handing narrative control over to the player.
I suppose you could rationalize Vancian Magic that way, but honestly I don't dislike Vancian Magic because I have some problem with it "making sense" (nor do I have any problem with per-encounter or per-day Martial abilities). I dislike Vancian Magic more because of the 15 minute adventuring day, which is why I'm pretty stoked about per-encounter and per-day (and at-will!) abilities.
|
|
I suppose you could rationalize Vancian Magic that way, but honestly I don't dislike Vancian Magic because I have some problem with it "making sense" (nor do I have any problem with per-encounter or per-day Martial abilities). I dislike Vancian Magic more because of the 15 minute adventuring day, which is why I'm pretty stoked about per-encounter and per-day (and at-will!) abilities.
What then would cause a wizard to only be able to use an ability "once per encounter" instead of more often?
NOT RECOMENDED FOR TOP 32.
Here's a question for you superstar followers: Do you feel that the 4E preview material we've seen so far beats the stuff we saw in the superstar competition?
|
|
I haven't been keeping up with this thread as it took me until now to access the article. Five days WotC website was keeping me out.
Now, I've seen it, I have to ask (and forgive me if it has been asked already) but what is it about Crimson Edge that make it a once per day power? Why couldn't a rogue do this 100 times a day if they made their rolls?
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't want to do this 100 times a day, I'm just asking why not?
And don't you be starting on about how I shouldn't expect a game to be reasonable because it is just a game. This is a game with encumberance, ecologies for monsters, histories, settings, and all sorts of other attempts to make the fantasy seem real.
This 'daily martial power' thing would only make sense to me if it were something so strenuous doing it twice per day would kill a martial artist. Please convince me this isn't just plain dumb because I want to believe in 4e.
From ENWorld (including two posts because I think they mesh well together, like PB and chocolate):
...
I know this won't cure the ills of the more immersion oriented among us, but I tend to see Daily and Encounter Powers as a form of narrative control being handed to the players. It's not that a given character is literally incapable of performing the actions represented by the Powers more often than the limitations in the rules allow, its that they don't. It's just not appropriate for cinematic or narratively appropriate for a character to continually perform these daring feats.In the rogue's case I'd say that their special abilities require specific openings in their opponents' defenses which don't come along that often. Rather than having the DM detail these openings and have the rogue's player react to them, we instead give the player of the rogue a limited amount of narrative power to determine when his opponents leave him with an opening for the maneuvers he is capable of performing.
Here's why that doesn't make sense to me. If you have one super cool ability that you can only use once per day you are probably going to save it for the main bad guy, and not waste it on his mooks. But aren't the mooks the ones that are going to open themselves up to the nasty attacks because they have less combat skill than their leader? The midlevel lizardman fighter warlord is going to know how to defend against different attacks, that his classless minions have never encountered or heard of. If the enemy leaving an opening is what lets the attack happen, then the odds of it happening against the "boss character" are very slim compared to the lackeys.
Here's a question for you superstar followers: Do you feel that the 4E preview material we've seen so far beats the stuff we saw in the superstar competition?
I, uh, what?
I don't think the preview material beats the superstar competition material. I also don't happen to think spy thrillers beat documentaries, or a Jack and Coke beats Eggplant Parmesan, or a helicopter beats a submarine.
Or apples beat oranges, come to think of it.
NOT RECOMENDED FOR TOP 32.Here's a question for you superstar followers: Do you feel that the 4E preview material we've seen so far beats the stuff we saw in the superstar competition?
Wouldn't that be in need of a new thread?
What then would cause a wizard to only be able to use an ability "once per encounter" instead of more often?
I'd think Wizards (or any magic using class really) would be much easier to rule. You'd just have to use the Star Trek solution (mumble some magical mumbo jumbo and you're good ... maybe the spell causes your alignment polarities to cross and using it again too soon would be dangerous/disasterous/impossible).
Really, I don't have any problem with rationalizing these things, I'm just providing one way to do so in response to a request for it. My eager anticipation of 4E stems from other changes to address problems that bother me in 3E. :)
|
|
Really, I don't have any problem with rationalizing these things, I'm just providing one way to do so in response to a request for it. My eager anticipation of 4E stems from other changes to address problems that bother me in 3E. :)
This is what I believe to be the best way to explain 4e changes. People should go to 4e if it makes sense to them from a "fun" perspective and should avoid it if it fails to deliver "fun". I think any attempt at metaphysical rationalization is doomed to failure and for a time thought that you were trying to make a point based on this type of reasoning.
The ENWorld posts you provided smelled a little, well, WotC-ish to me, something that would come out of their marketing-designer-homebrew-to-4e-rules-rationalization department. I wanted to understand where you were coming from on the issue. Thanks for the responses.
Eh, besides my very real concerns that the Rogue is far too limited as revealed so far, I don't have a problem with the per Encounter/per Day abilities that are in the game.
In all other editions there were similar mechanics. There have always been abilities, whether magical, diplomacy skills, rerolling dice, whatever, that have had 1/day, 2/day, 3/day, etc. limitations.
It's a rule in place to help with game balance, just as it has been in the past, only now it's taken to another level and, instead of the occasional ability, all abilities are set up in that way. I don't mind it at all, if it helps keep things balanced.
As far as the WHY, eh, their reasoning is the same as was used in past editions. It's fine, but I can, and will, come up with my own in-game justifications.
To summarize, currently in 3E and 4E when you make a rogue, you get to pick skills (whether you allocated skill points or elect Trained skills) and feats. You can also lump in your choice of equipment as part of this selection process if you so wish.
The 4th Edition rogue, however, also has to pick a style (emphasis on strength or agility at this point) in addition to selecting an array of class powers.This right here tells me that the new rogue has more things to choose from.
To repeat a question from earlier... I am still wondering what these new things to choose from are. The 'styles' you mention are all available to the 3e rogue. They are not new choices. You could play a strength based rogue in 3e as easily as a dexterity based rogue. The class powers are not, as I read them, new. You say the rogue will have more feats and thus more options but I have yet to see the proof, especially as it seems that feats will be spent to do things a 3e rogue can already do. A human 3e rogue at 1st level has sneak attack and 2 feats. A 1st level human rogue in 4e will, I suspect have sneak attack, a class power and a human power. That seems pretty equal to me. Then if I take 1 feat to allow myself to use a bow and another feat to allow myself to use a club, I am right back with the 4e rogue where the 3e rogue started. There is no gain in options.
It's not enough to say there are more options if you refuse to say what those options are.
At 1st-level the feats seem to be even (since the recommended feat section sports two feats, the extra if you are human). So both classes have the same amount of feats, at first (4E characters get more feats).
As for the styles, you can emphasize that your rogue is like this or that, but there is no gain from it. The style you select actually provides tangible benefits, so there is gain there. Your "strong" rogue in 3rd Edition has a good Str score, so is good with melee hits. Thats about it. The 4E rogue adds his Str bonus to sneak attacks, and also gets some additional perks on various rogue powers (Torturous Strike is an example of this).So yes, styles are a gain. You gain something without sacrificing anything, and that is a type of choice to make since it provides tangible benefits.
As for powers, you pick more than one at first level. There are two lists there that have recommendations for you, which total up to at least eight powers.
This stance is based on what we currently know. Some maybes are that feats might allow you to round out your character to get more of the stuff that you really wanted (which isnt really a loss since you got more feats: that kind of balances itself out), or take Training feats, or even multiclassing since the mechanic is more viable.
So while your rogue loses out on perhaps an armor type (though 4E has cloth-type armor as well as leather-types, meaning by technicality that it probably has morep).
And as for weapons, you could argue that you lose out on a lot of weapons, which is true. The impact of that loss, however, is really based on perception: if you never used them in the first place (I did use a crowbar that functioned as a club in one case, and a light crossbow in another case, but I'm typically NOT a rogue player) then its really not that big of a deal.
Sneak attack does less damage overall (a loss), but it affects many more things now including undead (a BIG gain). Balance this out with the attack powers that allow for more damage, and I think in the end you have an overall big gain.
This is assuming of course that the crappiest of weapons (stat-wise) arent all lumped in a group that "anyone can use", or rogue-type feats that give you the ability to use a broader range of weapons, and things like that.
I think this release is way too little information to base any real conclusions. That having been said, here are my wild unsubstantiated guesses....
I also was bothered by no mention of an intelligence bonus for skills. I'm guessing that it is still there, but just not mentioned under classes. I'm speculating that there are race skill lists as well as class skill lists, and the intelligence bonus will apply to skills of the player's choice from either list. I am pleased that it looks like they are going with the Saga skill system. I picked up Saga a couple weeks ago and I really like the look of the mechanics.
The shuriken proficiency was surprising to me, but I am not yet alarmed that rapier was not listed. Perhaps there are racial proficiencies (eg, human pick one weapon, elves automatically get bow, halflings automatically get... swamp boat pole?) Or perhaps rapier proficiency could be acquired by with a larger feat. Say, you get proficiency with a fencing feat that provides other bonuses with it.
Most of the time I have gone with the option of average hit points rather than rolling, so that doesn't bother me. I suspect rolling may be an option somewhere still.
Like some other posters, I find it odd that Crimson Edge could only be used once per day. I imagine there will be feats that will allow once-per-day powers to be recharged, much like Saga allows single use Force powers to be recharged during encounters with the right talents or feats.
I'm not thrilled with the class abilities being referred to as "powers". I prefer the Saga term "talents". But I guess that is just somantics. What I am really hoping for here is an end to dead levels. I wish someone on the design team would break the silence just to confirm that there are no more dead levels.
And I was pleased to see the nod to Dickens in there. ^-^
So please don't ask me for sources on any of the above. It is either my impression from months of following releases and blogs with a liberal dose of wishful thinking and guessing mixed in. Now I'm heading back off to the sidelines to wait for the June releases.
|
Both rogues get feats.
The 3rd Edition rogue has more weapons to choose from, but likely will never use.
The 3rd Edition rogue probably at best has the option to wear a chain shirt since I'm assuming that its not part of the Leather class. However, we dont know what types of armor exist in 4E.
So you're telling me that my friend's rogue, who has a total of 14 types of weapons hidden on his person at any given moment is not viable. to a point I can see it - even if there are plenty uses in fiction (and reality) that support this being a staple of a sneaky or thief-like person. Altho it created tons of options (and not just 'what weapon should I use' throwing spikes were used to grip walls to climb/prevent from falling, bolas being tied to ropes and used as grappling hooks, ect)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
So now you're telling me that my friend's rogue, who has a total of 14 types of weapons hidden on his person at any given moment is not viable. to a point I can see it - even if there are plenty uses in fiction (and reality) that support this being a staple of a sneaky or thief-like person.
Seeing as how this bonfire is still going, I thought I'd bring my marshmallows and have a seat.
I wonder about the limited weapons list. There are a couple possibilities:
1. There are fewer weapon types in general in 4e. This is understandable given that it appears a number of the differentiaters from 3e (e.g., crits) are going away. It might also be that the damage types (P/B/S) are less important and that may reduce variety further. It's hard for me to say whether this is good or bad. 3e pruned the weapons list from 2e and I don't think the game suffered as a result. It seems hard to make weapons mecahanically relevant in a lot of ways. If they are different enough, there will be optimal weapons (e.g., swords) which most players choose. And if they aren't different enough, there's a question of why have so many choices. Having a large number of weapons also makes it more difficult in terms of treasure because if you use, say, the kukri in 3e as your weapon of choice, the chances of finding it in a random treasure are fairly low (particularly in pre-gen modules). Yes, this is a problem easily fixed by the DM, but that opens up its own can of believability issues (why does the party only find the weapons they use). Plus, toning down the mechanical aspects of weapons places more emphasis on the character class abilities rather than equipment. So, I can see a lot of reasons for pruning the weapon choices down.
But that being said, it is boring if every rogue wields the exact same set of weapons. Maybe the weapon variety has just been allocated entirely to the fighter, who allegedly does receive mechanical benefits specific to his chosen weapon. Maybe to make that an interesting fighter specific option, non-fighters all have more limited weapon options. I admit that I'm not entirely happy with that result. Plus, having a whole catalogue of weapons is part of the fun of D&D - I will be sad to see it go by the wayside. I'd rather have seen the rogue get 2-3 options for each slot type (e.g., 2-3 choices for primary weapon, 2-3 for ranged, 2-3 for off-hand, 2-3 for thrown).
2. Perhaps there are a subset of simple weapons that all classes can access. Again, it's impossible to tell the background assumptions with the limited information presented. Of course, this isn't really different from 1 except for those people who like to have a large variety of weapons for the sake of having a large variety of weapons. Presumably, weapons that only a few classes have access to are better than weapons every class has access to and so you get the same problem of every rogue wielding the best weapon for that class which is on the list of weapons.
3. Perhaps weapons are so mechanically irrelevant that they are entirely cosmetic. So, even the "shortsword" is actually any number of blades and there is room to come up with your own blade that has the same statistics as the shortsword. This gives you the ability to have a wide range of weapons, but without the crunch of having different capabilities with those weapons. Again, I'm not entirely satisified.
In any of the above scenarios, while I can appreciate the changes, on the face of it I miss mechanically relevant weapons for all classes. It's not a deal breaker for me, and it's not even a net negative, but it's definitely not a net positive.
With all that said, I'm much less excited by having sneak attack be limited to a specific set of weapons. This seems to cut against building unique character types that combine character abilities into something new and cool. It seems like you can't build a rogue that does sneak attack with spells, which seems arbitrarily limiting. It also cuts against the fact that weapons are merely cosmetic. If only these weapons can sneak attack, it suggests a special property for these weapons and these weapons only. Furthermore, building the limitation into the class itself means that when you design new rogue-specific weapons down the line, you need to add in the "you can sneak attack with this weapon" text into them. Not a huge deal, but it moves more mechanics and complexity back into the weapons and seems to undercut the attempts to consolidate them.
So, those are my thoughts with the information presented. It's entirely possible that the areas of the rules dealing specifically with weapons or spells mitigate against my concerns. And, ultimately, for me, the negative issues suggested are probably equal to or less than the positive benefits suggested.
|
|
I do think that "simple" is the wrong word for this Rogue. The number of rules to learn is sufficiently high that people are going to have to write down all of their options for some time. What it is, is limited. Every Rogue has Thievery, and every Rogue has to use a small bladed weapon. They can't use a morningstar or a sap. They can't use a bow or a spear to any meaningful effect.
-Frank
Thats annoying. It is going to restrict your ability to slap a cultural template over the core class and call it a Ninja. With 3.0 you could build a metaclass (I assure you a metaclass is not a multiclass-it is a class that requires you to be two core classes simultaneously).
Scout(fighter-thief)
Shadowblade(fighter-thief)
Artisan(Mage-Thief)
Crusader(Fighter-Cleric)
Mystaran Elf(Fighter-Wizard)
Shadowelf Shaman (Radiance Cleric(Sun Variant)-Wizard-Fighter)
Isle of Dread Witchdoctor(Death Cleric-Necromancer Wizard)
I believe 3.5 calls them Gestalts?
So you're telling me that my friend's rogue, who has a total of 14 types of weapons hidden on his person at any given moment is not viable. to a point I can see it - even if there are plenty uses in fiction (and reality) that support this being a staple of a sneaky or thief-like person. Altho it created tons of options (and not just 'what weapon should I use' throwing spikes were used to grip walls to climb/prevent from falling, bolas being tied to ropes and used as grappling hooks, ect)
Both rogues get feats.
The 3rd Edition rogue has more weapons to choose from, but likely will never use.
The 3rd Edition rogue probably at best has the option to wear a chain shirt since I'm assuming that its not part of the Leather class. However, we dont know what types of armor exist in 4E.
I'm having trouble imagining a reason WHY you would need 14 different weapons, assuming you arent counting ammunition types like daggers. I would envision a character probably having around...four. A ranged weapon, and various melee weapons with different damage types to overcome DR. Perhaps a light weapon in case you get grappled, which gives me about five.
That is of course assuming my character is strong enough to carry them all without becoming encumbered.Again, assuming you arent counting ammo, I'ma also wondering where this character is hiding them all.
Now, I'm not saying that this character isnt viable. Certainly, I didnt say that your friend's character isnt. What I DID say was that the reason may have been because most people DONT use a lot of the weapons within the Simple category.
Think about the wizard, who originally got like, three weapon proficiencies. They now get implements and have more or less infinite magic abilities: they probably will never need to fall back on a weapon that they really couldnt use anyway. The same could be said of the sorcerer.
I actually dont think that rogues appear to not get more weapon choices because of that, however. I think its another reason, but aside from that theoretical weapon group that "anyone can use", nothing else really comes to mind.
I DO think that what the rogue gets might be some kind of category thing: proficiency in dagger might allow for various dagger types instead of just one, and the same might apply to the short sword (hand crossbow seems narrow enough however to make me doubt this in part).
The main thing that keeps me from worrying about not being able to use weapons aside from whats on the list is the promise of better multiclassing mechanics and training feats. I'm not saying that you cant worry, but more that I wouldnt worry about it so much. If you want to use 10 or so different weapons I'm sure that it wont be difficult to implement.
I'm having trouble imagining a reason WHY you would need 14 different weapons, assuming you arent counting ammunition types like daggers.I can see this for a Fighter or MAYBE an Assassin, but for a Rogue?
14 individual WEAPONS, yes. 14 weapon TYPES?!?
I suppose
1. Dagger (on belt)
2. Silver Dagger (on belt)
3. Masterwork Shortsword(in backpack, just in case)
4. Blackjack (on belt)
5. Masterwork Club (in backpack, just in case)
6. Masterwork Shortbow (strapped to backpack)
7. 15 Arrows (in quiver)
8. 10 Masterwork silver arrows (in quiver)
9. +1 Climbing Claws (either on hands if needed or on belt)
10. Spiked Buckler (strapped to arm or in hand)
11. +3 Broadsword (on belt or in hand)
12. 10 +2 Arrows (in quiver)
13. Knife (in boot)
14. Silver knife (in back sheath)
...
If you want to break down magical, mundane, and Masterwork stuff I guess I can see it...
Lol well I suppose that works out, then.
The...ok, ONE of the problems I see with this is less the snippet doled out to us, as it is the design ethic. Speaking as a DM, I ask this: Is there anything WRONG with a wizard running out of spells? (among other things)
Consider, if you will,(and pardon my rambling)
...It's a pitched battle, the party decided not to rest and plunge on stumbling into the cultists lair...3 rounds later, the wizard dumps his last fireball. Ray of frost anyone?...poor planning. Is this a DESIGN problem? No. It's a party planning decision.
...The party has taken a lot of punishment smashing through the necromancer's fortress. We nearly lost the warrior to a vampire. Rogue drained by wraith. Finally, looming afore, is the dread necromancer himself...oops, the party is only at about 60% of base cababilities!
...Party has been beaten down by goblins, a simple encounter all the more deadly because nobody thought for a second to play a stupid cleric...(I'm still laughing!)
These situations and scores more happened during my years with 3.x. I ask you, what is wrong with running out of spells? What is wrong with having a couple of hit points? How about really having no options for a round or two in a combat encounter? Isn't that supposed to be the way the proverbial cookie crumbles? I mean if these situations are so bad, why even roll dice?
I agree that we still need more info. I just wish the info wasn't so...meh. Remember 2nd to 3.0? It was actually exciting! The big changes were totally oooh and aaah types of stuff. Covered monthly in explicit detail in Dragon magazine. The whole feeling that the community was buzzing all over themselves...c'mon, you all remember right? Well, I remember it, and it sure as heck isn't here.
I disagree however, with their whole "everyone gets to do something cool EVERY round in EVERY combat" schtick. Ever seen a players face when their wizard HAS to defend himself with his staff? (brought a wicked smile to my face, how about yours?)
That is my .02 on the matter. As to the rogue in particular, why bother? At least in 3.X the rogue HAD a nearly unique and indispensible talent i.e. trapfinding. Now everyone can do it? That, IMO, is lame. As for RP skills, yes a Pally or Priest has more incentive to have charisma as well as the diplomacy feat...but then what? Can either of them tell a convincing lie? Intimidate someone? At the end of the day, even the CHA heavy sorceror hasn't got enough skill points to argue his way out of a paper bag....unless it's REALLY wet that is.
So if eveyone can basically do what everyone else can do...does it even matter what class you play? Call me too entrewnched in my 3.X ruleset, but I fail to see how this is supposed to be appealing. It's like my mustang is being replaced by a hyundai. "The mileage is better!" says salesman #1. This is true, so I do not complain. "The insurance is less too!" says salesman number 2. "I like mine, you'll LOVE yours!" says salesman number 3. Problem is, when the garage door closes...it's still a &*%%$#@ hyundai.
lol...on second thought, DON'T call me to entrewnched...it sounds like a horrible STD.
|
|
I'm having trouble imagining a reason WHY you would need 14 different weapons, assuming you arent counting ammunition types like daggers.I can see this for a Fighter or MAYBE an Assassin, but for a Rogue?
He was going to be an assassin, but then didn't like the studying mechanic, so was an assassin in all but actual class.
lets see if I can get his player to find his sheet...
1.punching dagger inside left boot
2. throwing dagger inside right boot
3. 5 darts sewn into the cuff of his cloak(poison in ring to apply to them)
4.Sap tied loosely to right leg when simulating a limp, otherwise tied with a slip knot to belt for easy access
5.rapier - main weapon
6. Quarterstaff - Hollow - used as walking stick
7. short bow - kept in #6 (With 3 arrows) used in assassinations only
8. Short sword - scabbard on back upside-down used with quickdraw to try to disembowl
9. sling tied as boot strings 1 bullet sewn into each cuff of his pants(was only used once in an escape from jail situation)
10 a bag of caltrops
I thought there was more, but I guess I was wrong.. all of these were used during our AOW campaign when PCs were disarmed or sundered he would use quick draw and toss over a spare weapon - I know at one point he had Bolas and had pulled a chain (non spiked but with handles - guessing it was DM made exotic weapon) from a fallen bad guy and was using it a belt
The...ok, ONE of the problems I see with this is less the snippet doled out to us, as it is the design ethic. Speaking as a DM, I ask this: Is there anything WRONG with a wizard running out of spells? (among other things)
Consider, if you will,(and pardon my rambling)
...It's a pitched battle, the party decided not to rest and plunge on stumbling into the cultists lair...3 rounds later, the wizard dumps his last fireball. Ray of frost anyone?...poor planning. Is this a DESIGN problem? No. It's a party planning decision.
...The party has taken a lot of punishment smashing through the necromancer's fortress. We nearly lost the warrior to a vampire. Rogue drained by wraith. Finally, looming afore, is the dread necromancer himself...oops, the party is only at about 60% of base cababilities!
...Party has been beaten down by goblins, a simple encounter all the more deadly because nobody thought for a second to play a stupid cleric...(I'm still laughing!)
...
I'd actually consider some of these design problems. I like the battles in my games to be against large number of opponents, and for each one to be pretty tough. But in 3E, if thats how I run it, the party can survive one battle and then all the casters are out of spells and it's time to rest. Adventuring for 15 minutes then camping out again just isn't fun, at least for me. (Sure they COULD keep going, but as you point out, it's just not a smart idea.)
I'm not sure where the 2nd scenario fits in with the 3E/4E divide, but I'm glad that Clerics won't be as needed in 4E as they will in 3E (again, something that I chalk up to poor design).
At the heart of the matter though, design is subjective, and poor design to me could surely be awesome design to someone else (and vice versa!)
Hopefully 4E meets answers both of our design desires! :)
I'm having trouble imagining a reason WHY you would need 14 different weapons, assuming you arent counting ammunition types like daggers.Seems that 4E is designed to accomodate people who have trouble imagining stuff, actually.
Haha. Ouch man. Ouch.
I'm having trouble imagining a reason WHY you would need 14 different weapons, assuming you arent counting ammunition types like daggers.Seems that 4E is designed to accomodate people who have trouble imagining stuff, actually.
While others are unable to contribute meaningful dialogue.
I'm having trouble imagining a reason WHY you would need 14 different weapons, assuming you arent counting ammunition types like daggers.I can see this for a Fighter or MAYBE an Assassin, but for a Rogue?
He was going to be an assassin, but then didn't like the studying mechanic, so was an assassin in all but actual class.
lets see if I can get his player to find his sheet...
1.punching dagger inside left boot
2. throwing dagger inside right boot
3. 5 darts sewn into the cuff of his cloak(poison in ring to apply to them)
4.Sap tied loosely to right leg when simulating a limp, otherwise tied with a slip knot to belt for easy access
5.rapier - main weapon
6. Quarterstaff - Hollow - used as walking stick
7. short bow - kept in #6 (With 3 arrows) used in assassinations only
8. Short sword - scabbard on back upside-down used with quickdraw to try to disembowl
9. sling tied as boot strings 1 bullet sewn into each cuff of his pants(was only used once in an escape from jail situation)
10 a bag of caltropsI thought there was more, but I guess I was wrong.. all of these were used during our AOW campaign when PCs were disarmed or sundered he would use quick draw and toss over a spare weapon - I know at one point he had Bolas and had pulled a chain (non spiked but with handles - guessing it was DM made exotic weapon) from a fallen bad guy and was using it a belt
Note that I didnt say that the character couldnt, I just cant perceive a reason WHY you would need all of those weapons. It seems pretty overkill and unecessary.
|
|
tangent thoughts regarding different weapons:
1) Mechanically there are some easy ways to make different weapons meaningful. The Trip, Disarm, higher Crit. range and range abilities helped to make different weapons unique. Piercing, Slashing and Bludgeoning had also some effects.
2) From the Fluff side there is a very big difference between a short sword and a rapier. The former being a slashing weapon that works well in tight spaces (like in a battle - after all it was the standard weapon of the roman legionaere) while the latter is a fencing weapon used mostly to pierce the opponent and requiring considerably more space than the short sword. The Rapier was a Gentlemans weapon that required a lot of training to use it properly. The Short Sword was relatively easy to use and required considerably less training.
3) Mechanics should support Fluff. I must admit that I have problems lumping for example short sword and rapier together in one weapon group.
I hope that 4th edition will show us a whole slew of different weapons with different mechanics.
I hope the rogue will be able to pick up a shortbow or a rapier or whatever.
Maybe he has to use a Feat?
Form the preview we do not get enough information how this will be handled.
|
|
Now, one potential change could be that weapons have been consolidated into simple categories that can be used to represent a variety of other weapons. For instance, Shuriken are, for all intents and purposes, throwing knives of some sort or another. Anyone who thinks that they must mean only ninja stars is deluding themselves on purpose.
In which case, it would make much more sense to state Rogues are proficient with 'throwing knives', if you consider shuriken are a type of throwing knife, but not all throwing knives are shuriken...
|
|
Now, one potential change could be that weapons have been consolidated into simple categories that can be used to represent a variety of other weapons. For instance, Shuriken are, for all intents and purposes, throwing knives of some sort or another. Anyone who thinks that they must mean only ninja stars is deluding themselves on purpose.In which case, it would make much more sense to state Rogues are proficient with 'throwing knives', if you consider shuriken are a type of throwing knife, but not all throwing knives are shuriken...
Actually the main use for shuriken were distractions - throw them into a tree behind the target and when they turn away to look at it, take them out with another weapon from behind. because it was sticking out of a tree at eye height it was easy to find and take back to avoid evidence
Perhaps there are a subset of simple weapons that all classes can access. Again, it's impossible to tell the background assumptions with the limited information presented.
It's entirely possible that you can use weapons that aren't on your list. But all of the Rogue's actual abilities require him to be using a small bladed weapon. So unless the categories are so broad that a sap or a mace counts as a bladed weapon, the Rogue can't actually do anything while attempting to use one.
It's not just that the weapon list is comically, computer gamically limited. It's that the power list explicitly prevents you from using a wide variety of weapons to any meaningful effect.
Yes, the allowed weapons may not be exhaustive. Characters may have additional weapon choices or weapon training from other sources or whatever. But the weapon restrictions on the abilities actually are exhaustive and so we actually do know that the class won't support thugs and knaves using clubs, saps, hammers, maces, spears, bows, axes, or broadswords.
-Frank