|
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.
It's not quite the same thing currently, but I can see what they are attempting.
Using Reflex as a 'touch AC', takes Dex into account, and also allows all characters, of whatever class, to improve their defence, as they level up, so that could please many players, who believe 'my character should be better at fighting after all this practice'.I wonder how force-field effects that currently give deflection bonuses factor into this. Will these spells/effects still exist, or will they be deemed less necessary? Will they add to both regular AC and Reflex AC?
Food for thought.
I wonder how force-field effects that currently give deflection bonuses factor into this.
According to the rather underwhelming Magic Item Preview, Armor Class will be increased by your Armor Slot and your other Defenses (Fort, Ref, Will) will be increased by your Neck Slot.
Then you can get various other bonuses on top of that (your Arm Slot can have a shield that adds to defense or bracers that add to attack, and so on). In short: not much has actually changed as far as the Magic Item Christmas Tree Effect goes.
-Frank
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
Ai carumba, this whole thread is giving me ulcers. Until you people look at the 4ed PHB no one can possibly know what types of rogues are valid. We already know that a 10th level character in at least one circumstance has 6 feats. Is it really that inconceivable that a 1st level rogue can take a feat that allows an entire subset of bludgeoning weapons to be used for sneak attacks? Or perhaps any one weapon-type?
(Personally I always thought a rogue using spears and two-handed swords to sneak attack was @#!*&^$% anyway.)
Stuff thats too long for the quoteI don't really consider the choice between "brawny rogue" and 'trickster rogue' to be a new choice in a way that matters. Its just a way of quantifying whether you are taking more Strength than Dex. You just unlock different options with it. In 3e, you had different feats you were eligible to take.
Its hard to be sure what you can do with the new skills, since they are obviously consolidated. But you are stuck with Thievery and its not clear that you have the kind of knowledge abilities that a rogue could bring if the character wanted to build that way (especially using the rogue's high skill point totals to cross class Knowledge skills). As I mentioned, I run a /relatively/ low combat game, so there's a lot of use for Knowledges and social skills in many different situations. This rogue seems to be pretty much stuck in the criminal archetype again.. thievery, streetwise, etc.
We'll have to see.
But it is a choice that matters. You get, thus far, at LEAST two benefits out of it. The basic benefit that you get is one that is also bound to come up during the course of play quite a bit (bonus to AC or SA damage). Other benefits arise depending on the powers you choose: you arent punished for taking stuff that goes against the grain, but you get a little extra if you maintain a theme.
Thievery, if I recall correctly, is essentially Sleight of Hand, Open Lock, and Disable Device all rolled into one. It may include more, not sure. Some are more obvious (Stealth is Hide and Move Silently rolled into one), while some arent (what does Insight do? Is that Sense Motive?).Here's the thing, at every two levels you get a +1 to EVERY skill check. Since Trained skills will likely just grant a +5 bonus to a skill, that means that training will be useful, but not such a difference as to make untrained characters obsolete.
(Personally I always thought a rogue using spears and two-handed swords to sneak attack was @#!*&^$% anyway.)
So with a spear, or two-handed sword, you can't aim for anything? You just hack away? There's no way you can exploit your enemy's inattention?
|
(Personally I always thought a rogue using spears and two-handed swords to sneak attack was @#!*&^$% anyway.)So with a spear, or two-handed sword, you can't aim for anything? You just hack away? There's no way you can exploit your enemy's inattention?
Not quickly. And those clunkers are easier to defend against. They are designed to keep your opponent away from you. Besides, shouldn't a fighter be able to sneak attack using that justification?
Oh, and great swords were historically a thrusting weapon more than a slashing weapon.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
(Personally I always thought a rogue using spears and two-handed swords to sneak attack was @#!*&^$% anyway.)So with a spear, or two-handed sword, you can't aim for anything? You just hack away? There's no way you can exploit your enemy's inattention?
Not quickly. And those clunkers are easier to defend against. They are designed to keep your opponent away from you. Besides, shouldn't a fighter be able to sneak attack using that justification?
Oh, and great swords were historically a thrusting weapon more than a slashing weapon.
Huh. So you're suggesting the fluff of the weapon should influence the mechanics?
Interesting...
|
|
Huh. So you're suggesting the fluff of the weapon should influence the mechanics?
Interesting...
Actually i am suggesting that the mechanics of weapons should influence the mechanics.
I have had folks with straight faces tell me that D&D is a realistic melee simulator. After they get me to stop laughing ... actually I don't usually stop laughing.
When I hear an argument like this break out it just gets me.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Huh. So you're suggesting the fluff of the weapon should influence the mechanics?
Interesting...
Actually i am suggesting that the mechanics of weapons should influence the mechanics.
I have had folks with straight faces tell me that D&D is a realistic melee simulator. After they get me to stop laughing ... actually I don't usually stop laughing.
When I hear an argument like this break out it just gets me.
It was really more a response to an earlier post that the fluff should determine the mechanics. I've seen that assertion a lot, and I find it specious at best. There is a balance between mechanics and fluff, just as there is a balance between gaming elements and simulationism. There is no axiom that one should always trump the other, nor should there be.
|
(Personally I always thought a rogue using spears and two-handed swords to sneak attack was @#!*&^$% anyway.)So with a spear, or two-handed sword, you can't aim for anything? You just hack away? There's no way you can exploit your enemy's inattention?
Not quickly. And those clunkers are easier to defend against. They are designed to keep your opponent away from you. Besides, shouldn't a fighter be able to sneak attack using that justification?
Oh, and great swords were historically a thrusting weapon more than a slashing weapon.
This point of view is starting to sound simulationist, a departure, perhaps, from a gamist's perspective?
And since RL is being kicked about here, I should mention that two-handed swords were used to cleave through pikemen (shearing the heads from their pikes and halberds to make room for one's own troops) and to disrupt cavalry charges. When used in this way, the blade was used both to slash and stab and were sharp along their entire length. Their quillions were elaborate enough to entangle opponent's weapons though the swords themselves were not used for dueling and were considered unwieldy once the battle was at its peak and all the forces were engaged. Their use eventually fell out of style, though they were still carried by mercenaries and shock troops, both of which received special pay for being skilled in the relatively heavy (3-8 lbs) blades.
|
|
And since RL is being kicked about here, I should mention that two-handed swords were used to cleave through pikemen (shearing the heads from their pikes and halberds to make room for one's own troops) and to disrupt cavalry charges. When used in this way, the blade was used both to slash and stab and were sharp along their entire length. Their quillions were elaborate enough to entangle opponent's weapons though the swords themselves were not used for dueling and were considered unwieldy once the battle was at its peak and all the forces were engaged. Their use eventually fell out of style, though they were still carried by mercenaries and shock troops, both of which received special pay for being skilled in the relatively heavy (3-8 lbs) blades.
Yep. But D&D calls them Bastard Swords.
|
|
It was really more a response to an earlier post that the fluff should determine the mechanics. I've seen that assertion a lot, and I find it specious at best. There is a balance between mechanics and fluff, just as there is a balance between gaming elements and simulationism. There is no axiom that one should always trump the other, nor should there be.
Mechanics serves the fluff...that is MY axiom. and it doesn't mean fluff>mechanics at all. What that axiom means is that mechanics are the expression of fluff. If you want a gritty, realistic, combat-simulator (fluff) then you need to have mechanics that serve that. If you want a high fantasy roleplaying game with wizards and elves and dragons (fluff) you need mechanics to serve that. If you want a space action roleplaying game with aliens and spaceships and gravity beams, you need mechanics that serve that.
The point isn't one of importance, but rather of order. You always start with fluff. Mechanics come after to support that. Even something like GURPS has started with fluff: a generic universal roleplaying game where any milieu can be expressed. And Steve Jackson developed a mechanic that serves that.
You can develop a mechanic first and fill in the fluff later. But that is actually rarer than you think. The entire 4E ruleset, all of that was develop with the "fluff" being fantasy at the very least. regardless of how WotC tries to explain the mechainc via fluff after the mechanic was developed, it was developed at least with some fluff in mind.
Caveat time: There is certainly "fluff" that doesn't need a mechanic: The name of a king, what planets are part of the empire and which are rebellion. But you can never say there are mechanics that do not need fluff. If there are such mechanics in a game, there is something wrong.
|
|
(Personally I always thought a rogue using spears and two-handed swords to sneak attack was @#!*&^$% anyway.)So with a spear, or two-handed sword, you can't aim for anything? You just hack away? There's no way you can exploit your enemy's inattention?
No idea about greatswords, but Japanese spear-techniques recommend such fun tactics as spearing someone's foot to the ground so that they are pinned and easy killin.' Sounds like a pretty surgical move to me. :)
A 'sneak attack' is just that. A surprise attack. There's no reason why a Stone Giant with a few levels in Rogue couldn't 'surprise' someone with a 200 lb. boulder to the head, doing more damage than if the character was aware of the incoming bombardment and could sidestep, get his shield up, hurl himself to the side or attempt to 'roll with it.'
|
|
You always start with fluff. Mechanics come after to support that.
I think the two part model is missing a big component.
So let's say that fluff is purely descriptive. It is the story, the history, names, faces, and places. It it the flora and fauna. You know - stuff.
The mechanics AKA crunch are more than just the way fluff is expressed in the game.
There is also feel or how do we experience the fluff.
Fluff and feel is what you need before the crunch. If a game is set in a technologically advanced time and place you could write up the crunch to match that fluff, but is it Star Wars, Star Trek, or Ringworld?
The feel of the game is critical to the design equation:
fluff + feel = crunch
The experience of a game is actually different:
fluff + crunch = feel
And that realization sparked the AHA! moment - people are not worried about fluff though they dislike some of the changes to it, they are not actually worried about the crunch because most of us have played other games and don't mind new rules.
It's all about the feel. People do not trust that equation will work.
Yes, I know that many of you have said this in one form or another. I get that. But this approach vs design approach had not hit me until today.
Will 4E feel like 3E? I doubt it, but then again 3E did not feel like 2E. The quote from Gygax about superheroes is a great example of that sentiment.
I am still not convinced it will feel any less like D&D than any other edition. That still seems to be a subjective and fairly complex existential topic on which we (collectively) will never reach agreement.
|
|
Yep. But D&D calls them Bastard Swords.
True enough. That is one of the things that all versions of D&D have done: mix and match arms and armor from wildly different eras, combining "hand and a half" longswords with two-handers made a century later or presenting armor as if all types sprang complete from the forges of armor smiths rather than progressing, arms-race style, throughout history. It also conveniently ignores the lethal power of the crossbow (effective in the hands of anyone with enough fingers and arm strength to operate the winch) against platemail-wearing knights, which was so deadly to these highly trained (and expensive) units that the weapon brought about the decline of the armored knight and armor in general.
D&D has nodded from time to time at these realities and while I am simulation-minded to a degree, I am very, very glad the game has steadfastly ignored these nuances.
|
(Personally I always thought a rogue using spears and two-handed swords to sneak attack was @#!*&^$% anyway.)So with a spear, or two-handed sword, you can't aim for anything? You just hack away? There's no way you can exploit your enemy's inattention?
Not quickly. And those clunkers are easier to defend against. They are designed to keep your opponent away from you. Besides, shouldn't a fighter be able to sneak attack using that justification?
Oh, and great swords were historically a thrusting weapon more than a slashing weapon.
Huh. So you're suggesting the fluff of the weapon should influence the mechanics?
Interesting...
I am suggesting all of you guys should try the AWESOME fighting rules that were implemented in GOO's A Game of Thrones.
Screw 4e, now this is a better fighting system based on D20.
|
|
The feel of the game is critical to the design equation:
fluff + feel = crunch
The experience of a game is actually different:
fluff + crunch = feel
I think you may have something here, but I would like to point out that:
If Fluff = F, Feel = L and Crunch = K, then the equations
(1) F + L = K
(2) F + K = L
Can be reduced to:
(1) F = K - L
(2) F = L - K
and combined:
(3) K - L = L - K
which gives:
2K = 2L
and thus K = L.
That is, Crunch is Feel. Fluff is, well fluff , and aptly named, it can be anything the user desires it to be. However, if you change the crunch, you change the feel. Change the crunch enough, the game is not the same.
And that realization sparked the AHA! moment - people are not worried about fluff though they dislike some of the changes to it, they are not actually worried about the crunch because most of us have played other games and don't mind new rules.
It's all about the feel. People do not trust that equation will work.
I think the fear is that the equation will work. The changes in crunch are so large, the game will not feel like D&D. It may be a playable game (there is talent still at WotC after all), but it may no longer be D&D.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Stuff thats too long for the quoteI don't really consider the choice between "brawny rogue" and 'trickster rogue' to be a new choice in a way that matters. Its just a way of quantifying whether you are taking more Strength than Dex. You just unlock different options with it. In 3e, you had different feats you were eligible to take.
This, in a nutshell, is why the 4e Rogue doesn't look very appealing. It seems like I'm being pigeon-holed into one of 2 concepts when I play a Rogue. "You're either a brawny rogue or a trickster rogue."
3.0/3.5 allowed for a lot more flexibility with the Rogue class. I've played Rogues with 10s in both STR and DEX, with my high scores going to INT and CHA. Doesn't look like that situation is even an option for Rogues in 4E.
Besides that, where's the Rapier as a weapon option???
Rogues/Thieves are, and always have been, my favorite character class. 4E seems to be shutting down the "fun" for me for this class.
The more I read, the less I want to play 4e.
This, in a nutshell, is why the 4e Rogue doesn't look very appealing. It seems like I'm being pigeon-holed into one of 2 concepts when I play a Rogue. "You're either a brawny rogue or a trickster rogue."Rogues/Thieves are, and always have been, my favorite character class. 4E seems to be shutting down the "fun" for me for this class.
The more I read, the less I want to play 4e.
Ok, I read through the little Rogue preview. I have a question. Why is this class called a "Rogue"? The only things I could find that even *remotely* related to stealing/picking/sneaking (without being noticed), etc were the skills "Stealth" and "Thievery".
Other than that, this preview basically runs along the line of "If you are a Rogue, you can do DAMAGE! You can also do this kind of DAMAGE. And this kind of DAMAGE. Oh, and just to round things out, you can also do even *more* DAMAGE! See all the cool DAMAGE you can do? But you're not a fighter, oh no, 'cause, well, 'cause it says 'Rogue'. See? Aren't we clever!"
Huh. So, just who is saying this is some kind of a thief type? Looks like a specialized fighter to me. Color me not impressed. At all.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It also conveniently ignores the lethal power of the crossbow ... against platemail-wearing knights....
D&D has nodded from time to time at these realities and while I am simulation-minded to a degree, I am very, very glad the game has steadfastly ignored these nuances.
Was anybody else a fan of AD&D 1st Edition's "weapon versus armor type" modification table? Daggers worked better against light armor types; maces worked better again flexible mail armors; and greatswords gained their best adjstments against heavy armor types.
I still have my little cardboard spinny wheel from an early-1980's DRAGON.
Curses to the simplifications brought about by THAC0!!
Was anybody else a fan of AD&D 1st Edition's "weapon versus armor type" modification table? Daggers worked better against light armor types; maces worked better again flexible mail armors; and greatswords gained their best adjstments against heavy armor types.I still have my little cardboard spinny wheel from an early-1980's DRAGON.
Curses to the simplifications brought about by THAC0!!
*raises hand...*
:) Yup. I always liked it. I don't think I've ever actually used it in more than a handful of games. I also didn't mind the simplified version that 2e presented.
PS: What's wrong with THAC0? Dirt simple mechanic; fast and elegant. Not sure why so many folks have difficulty with it, really. ???
Stuff thats too long for the quoteI don't really consider the choice between "brawny rogue" and 'trickster rogue' to be a new choice in a way that matters. Its just a way of quantifying whether you are taking more Strength than Dex. You just unlock different options with it. In 3e, you had different feats you were eligible to take.
This, in a nutshell, is why the 4e Rogue doesn't look very appealing. It seems like I'm being pigeon-holed into one of 2 concepts when I play a Rogue. "You're either a brawny rogue or a trickster rogue."
3.0/3.5 allowed for a lot more flexibility with the Rogue class. I've played Rogues with 10s in both STR and DEX, with my high scores going to INT and CHA. Doesn't look like that situation is even an option for Rogues in 4E.
Besides that, where's the Rapier as a weapon option???
Rogues/Thieves are, and always have been, my favorite character class. 4E seems to be shutting down the "fun" for me for this class.
The more I read, the less I want to play 4e.
Selecting a style will no more restrict your concept any more than the role or name of the class can. Neither of the styles require a minimum ability score, so you can still allocate the scores in the way you did. The difference is that in 3E, playing a diplomatic rogue didnt actually give you any benefits at all. You could take 10 on Diplomacy checks or something like that because the option to pick a style didnt even exist. You can do that in 4E by taking all the Cha skills on the list if you still want to pull that off, but your Persuasion check is going to be slightly less than someone who can take it as a Trained skill (by 5 points not counting the difference between Cha scores).
At this point the only thing that seems like a true loss is the fact that Persuasion (which has aspects of Diplomacy rolled in) isnt there. The good thing is that you wont be crippled by it by having half the bonus of the other guy.
I'm going to have to wait on the bit about weapons until more stuff is released.
This, in a nutshell, is why the 4e Rogue doesn't look very appealing. It seems like I'm being pigeon-holed into one of 2 concepts when I play a Rogue. "You're either a brawny rogue or a trickster rogue."Rogues/Thieves are, and always have been, my favorite character class. 4E seems to be shutting down the "fun" for me for this class.
The more I read, the less I want to play 4e.
Ok, I read through the little Rogue preview. I have a question. Why is this class called a "Rogue"? The only things I could find that even *remotely* related to stealing/picking/sneaking (without being noticed), etc were the skills "Stealth" and "Thievery".
Other than that, this preview basically runs along the line of "If you are a Rogue, you can do DAMAGE! You can also do this kind of DAMAGE. And this kind of DAMAGE. Oh, and just to round things out, you can also do even *more* DAMAGE! See all the cool DAMAGE you can do? But you're not a fighter, oh no, 'cause, well, 'cause it says 'Rogue'. See? Aren't we clever!"
Huh. So, just who is saying this is some kind of a thief type? Looks like a specialized fighter to me. Color me not impressed. At all.
The problem with everything you said is that this is essentially what the current rogue is like, but its just better at it. The current rogue works best using Tumble to flank a target and deal focused DAMAGE to one creature at a time. The rogue is, like many melee-oriented classes, a one-trick pony: they move, flank (hopefully), and hit.
If the creature isnt one of numerous types that are automatically immune to SA, doesnt have some special quality that reduces or negates it, OR hasnt gotten this immunity from something else, then the rogue can do pretty well.What separates the rogue from the fighter is that the rogues "powers", amount to a highly circumstantial class feature. The rogue is otherwise primarily useful in locating and removing traps...assuming you check in the right spots. The upside is that the rogue is pretty good at avoiding traps, and avoiding Ref-based attacks as well. This is all very good because a rogue is generally going to have a pretty poor AC and hit point total.
The new rogue has more thematic attack styles, no longer relegated to "try to flank and make melee attacks". They are more mobile. They are more graceful and agile. You can argue that a high Dex is representative of that, but a high Dex doesnt let you move a bit before making an attack as part of the same action, or resolving an attack as essentially a touch attack.
D&D has always strongly supported an action-oriented genre. The BIG difference is that now you get more flexibility. Having more options in combat doesnt reduce your overall ability to engage in "social RP", and it wont mess with your style.
Ok, I read through the little Rogue preview. I have a question. Why is this class called a "Rogue"? The only things I could find that even *remotely* related to stealing/picking/sneaking (without being noticed), etc were the skills "Stealth" and "Thievery".
Other than that, this preview basically runs along the line of "If you are a Rogue, you can do DAMAGE! You can also do this kind of DAMAGE. And this kind of DAMAGE. Oh, and just to round things out, you can also do even *more* DAMAGE! See all the cool DAMAGE you can do? But you're not a fighter, oh no, 'cause, well, 'cause it says 'Rogue'. See? Aren't we clever!"
Huh. So, just who is saying this is some kind of a thief type? Looks like a specialized fighter to me. Color me not impressed. At all.
By your definition, I'd ask you why the 3E Rogue should be called that as well, in that case. The 4E and 3E Rogue have pretty much equal amounts of focus in the stealing/picking/sneaking areas, as far as I can see.
This, in a nutshell, is why the 4e Rogue doesn't look very appealing. It seems like I'm being pigeon-holed into one of 2 concepts when I play a Rogue. "You're either a brawny rogue or a trickster rogue."
Please read the following:
You’re going to see something called “builds” in the information that follows. Builds present themes that you can use to guide you as you select powers and other abilities. You can follow the advice of a build, or you can ignore it. It’s not a constraint, but instead provides information to help you make informed choices as you create your character. Using a class build isn’t required; builds exist to help guide your decisions through the process of character creation and each time you level up.
So you are not pigeon-holed. The article makes this explicit.
Now according to your own words, "This, in a nutshell, is why the 4e Rogue doesn't look very appealing." Since, your original statement was proven faulty, you now like the 4e rogue. You are welcome.
Ok, I read through the little Rogue preview. I have a question. Why is this class called a "Rogue"? The only things I could find that even *remotely* related to stealing/picking/sneaking (without being noticed), etc were the skills "Stealth" and "Thievery".
Other than that, this preview basically runs along the line of "If you are a Rogue, you can do DAMAGE! You can also do this kind of DAMAGE. And this kind of DAMAGE. Oh, and just to round things out, you can also do even *more* DAMAGE! See all the cool DAMAGE you can do? But you're not a fighter, oh no, 'cause, well, 'cause it says 'Rogue'. See? Aren't we clever!"
Huh. So, just who is saying this is some kind of a thief type? Looks like a specialized fighter to me. Color me not impressed. At all.
Rogue in 3.5 -
Does damage with weapons - CHECK
Has sneak attack - CHECK
Has thieving skills - CHECK
Rogue in 4.0 -
Does damage with weapons - CHECK
Has sneak attack - CHECK
Has thieving skills - CHECK
Since, the 3.5 rogue also does damage (its strikes are not just named) you must be contending that it to is an "alternate fighter;" then again I may just be presupposing this as you have offered no evidence to the contrary . . .you have simply stated that since the 4.0 rogue does damage it is a fighter.
Since you have not actually offered an argument, I have listed at the start of this post the three most utilitarian things rogues do in an actual game. Please note the similarities.
I imagine you now like the 4.0 rogue. You are welcome.
The Rogue preview was a slam dunk in the mediocre basket, I think we all agree. It's not bad (I like the Abilities) but it wasn't anything to wow anyone.
So, moving on, I would like to say that I find it funny that a lot of people are upset that the rogue is too limited (including me) as shown and won't allow diversity, and others are complaining that the Rogue isn't ENOUGH of a Rogue, that it's not really "silent" and "sneaky" enough.
Just amusing. There are times when I can step back and see how WotC has their work cut out for them when it comes to pleasing their player base. I don't sympathize too much, but I can see it.
On a side note, to the person who posted about shuriken being meant only for distraction, I beg to differ. I have seen movies where those suckers go right through the forehead of just about everyone. So, please, get your facts straight. They were obviously deadly objects. Well, the star shaped ones are. The other, long ones, the ones that are knives, well, those probably just worked as well as a knife, but were still shuriken. Watch a ninja movie, sheesh.
I don't need to be amazing at everything, I just want there to be a chance of success, however small.
You mean you wanted to abuse the rules because your character had a high intelligence?
(well, it's about as objective as your attack on Kaile :-)
Over on EN World, Michelle Carter did confirm that her 4e rogue was able to sneak attack using shurikens and that she could also do it using a rapier, though she had to use a feat.
Huh. So, just who is saying this is some kind of a thief type? Looks like a specialized fighter to me.
The funny part (not the type of funny that makes you laugh) is that in addition to this, he is basically forced to learn sneaking and stealing. Basically back to being a thief.
By your definition, I'd ask you why the 3E Rogue should be called that as well, in that case. The 4E and 3E Rogue have pretty much equal amounts of focus in the stealing/picking/sneaking areas, as far as I can see.
People are just actively looking for reasons not to like the new edition.
The funny part (not the type of funny that makes you laugh) is that in addition to this, he is basically forced to learn sneaking and stealing. Basically back to being a thief.
Huh. So, just who is saying this is some kind of a thief type? Looks like a specialized fighter to me.
The fact that you must start out with both Stealth and Thievery kind of bugs me, but not really. Those are two pretty stable skills of most rogues anyway. The only downside is that they basically choose two slots for you.
Of course, if this is a big deal you can just refund the slots and let other players pick them, and if there happens to be a rogue player in my group that doesnt want those in the first place I cant see a problem doing just that.
Like a previous poster, the first word that popped into my head when I read it was craptastic. Which is kind of funny, because I can't recall the word craptastic popping into my head ever before.
The rogue was, after all the other stuff I read not appealing to me much, sort of my last hope. And I wasn't really hoping for much.
I got less. Aside from craptastic, my thoughts ran something like this...
Initial Drivel (Yeah, yeah, whatever.)
Leather Armor (I can live with this, but if that's it, it's not really *cool*)
Dagger, Short Sword (OK, that'll be easy to fix, I'm sure. It sure ain't *cool*)
Hand Crossbow, Shuriken, Sling (Hey, I can be a Waylander...or a ninja wannabe that just spent 20 bucks at Cutlery World in the Mall. Where the heck is Short Bow? Well, at least Waylander is *cool* - Waylander: the new Driz'zt. Wow, sling, odds are halflings have a bonus with slings, because you can't have a cookie-cutter rogue without a cookie-cutter, halfling, rogue. Unlike David Gemmell, Dennis McKiernan isn't dead yet, so I guess you have to play a halfling rogue that uses shuriken or a sling instead of throwing knives until he croaks. Maybe Wizards killed David Gemmell. Hope they don't kill the woman that writes those Harry Potter books or there'll be a hundred thousand copies of that little twit running around. That's a lot of books, maybe I should call her and warn her.)
Bunch of Stuff (Whatever)
Skills (OK, Six Skill selections... Let's see, I get Stealth and Thievery then four more. I want Acrobatics, Athletics, Dungeoneering, What's Insight? - sounds like I want it, wait I still need Perception and Stealth and Thievery, never mind I have Stealth and Thievery. Hope I don't really need Insight. Hmmm... Why is it I always seem to be one skill short. Wait, what about INT skill bonus? Not listed? WTH?)
Build Options (DND for Dummies crap. Wait, Brawny Rogue! Big, monster-smackin' weapons are on the horizon!)
Bunch of Dreck (Did this guy write 80s porn dialog before this?)
Overview (Why is this gray?)
Characteristics (Hey, useful information on how this is supposed to work!)
Religion (Did Wizards let this guy expense a cookie cutter or did he have to ask his wife to bring one from home? Maybe a girl wrote it and she already had the cookie cutter and wanted to get more use from it. I wonder if her cooking is as bland and flavorless as this is?)
Races (I wonder if they got the 80s porn movie music guy too. Get a little Bowm Chikka Wow Wow going in the DDI voice chat. Maybe they can get the costume guy from the porn movies and he can do that half-pulled-down-lingerie thing to cover up the thick waists on the chicks in the 4e art. Were they too cheap to get Boris and/or Julie or are dumpy, flabby looking heroes and heroines *cool* now. I know when I was a teenager, nothing was *cooler* to me than a the idea of a fantasy character carrying around more cellulite than some of the other kids' moms.)
Creating a Rogue (Oh yeah, brute strength baby. What's up with this charisma stuff? Oh that other build, whatever.)
Brawny Rogue (I'm in heaven! Strength, Stun, Immobilize, Knock Down, Oh yeah, no way I'm doing all that with a little dagger. Weapon Focus what? Toughness...yeah right, I'm not falling for that again. I already picked my own skills thank you very much. Ooh, powers look *cool* - can you market "Torturous" to young gamers without someone throwing a fit?)
Trickster Rogue (Whatever)
First Strike (Can't everyone do this anymore?)
Rogue Tactics (Brutal Scoundrel FTW! But, does this mean I'm a guy that moves all over the place and lays down smack, but does one thing particularly well or does this mean I'm a guy that moves all over the place or lays down smack? Wonder if there will be a way to get both of these? Bonus to other rogue powers, hmmm.)
Sneak Attack (WTH? What's a light blade? My Brawny Rogue that gets a bonus to sneak attack damage based upon his "brute" strength can't use sneak attack with a big weapon? What's he do? Poke people really hard with his dagger? Wait, maybe the difference in damage between a greatsword and light blade will make up the difference - the sneak attack damage isn't that much. But will it make up the difference between that and the bonus from Brutal Scoundrel?)
Powers (WTH? My powers won't work with a different weapon either? That greatsword better kick butt all on it's own. Wait, I can get some fighter powers for my greatsword I think - wonder what those cost and if any of them work really well with my rogue abilities, well wait, I only have one rogue ability that doesn't rely on what weapon I use... Well what about taking the other path, maybe those powers aren't weapon dependent? So I might have to take Artful Dodger instead of Brawny Rogue to make a rogue that smacks people with a greatsword. Well that's not intuitive. Wait, all the offensive powers are weapon dependent. Hey, I can only tumble once an encounter? Hope something changed because I can't remember ever tumbling in without tumbling out except when I was running away from something. But at least I can do it with any weapon, once per encounter, that's not *cool*. Maybe there are a bunch more Utility powers. This better not have been what that guy meant by some things being viable but not optimal. I mean how can there not be a way to make using a melee weapon that is not one of the *two* *cool* default weapons an optimal choice? Is this broken or not? If it is broken, is it broken on purpose? Is 4e the DND Fascist Role Playing Game? Maybe they did one of those executive idea-sharing things with Microsoft? "Changing the way you play, whether you like it or not."
If I don't like it does that mean I'm not *cool* and don't know what *cool* is? Maybe I don't know what *cool* is. I mean I haven't heard the word *cool* this much since Happy Days was in prime time. Maybe young people use *cool* all the time now and I just never heard or saw anything about it. I used *cool* a couple times around young people the other day and they just looked at me like they didn't understand what I meant. Maybe it is only *cool* to use *cool* when you do it in secret. Or maybe me using *cool* when I'm not young is like when other kids' moms used to wear miniskirts in the 80s. I wonder if 4.5e will be described as *gnarly*. Maybe the guy in the 4.5e podcast will wear parachute pants and the chick will wear leg warmers to attract a younger audience. I wonder if people at WotC wear leather jackets and say "Aaaayyyy" all the time? I bet the Hasbro executives make them wear windbreakers instead.)
I liked the 4e rogue. A rogue's wit and speed are more deadly than ever. Sneak attack is even more prolific. I'm guessing the skill "thievery" is a catch all for things like pick pocket (yeahh remember that one), open locks, disarm traps. I like that; simple, faster, easier equals smarter for me(the smarter formula simple+ faster+ easier= SMARTER). Hopefully new 4e source books will offer new rogue builds and optional tactics with new powers. You know those capitalists at WotC, are thinking about it as another way to stealth my hard earned money. the one thing I did not like.., No hit die...,mmm make me sad, I like to roll them dice. Common how can it be role playing with no dice to roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of the complaints aren't fair. Sure, the writing in the Rogue description and background fluff is dreadful, but it doesn't really matter. Does anyone actually read the little blurbs at the start of classes talking about how such and such a class is often taken by such and such a race or has worshipers of some god or another which might not even be in your campaign world? I don't know many people who do. I honestly have no idea what the most common religions for Scouts or Hexblades are supposed to be, and I couldn't care less. Those blurbs only ever ate up page count as far as I'm concerned. And the complaint that the new Rogue is a ninja isn't entirely fair either. Some settings are Weaboo, and that's OK.
There's lots of things we don't know about the new system. It's entirely possible that you get skills from multiple sources so that actual Rogues in play will have a lot more skill depth than it looks like in this preview.
What we can say is that the new Rogue is not just a ninja, but is specifically a ninja. Specifically he's Raphael. He can't use nunchaku or a bo staff because those are not bladed, and he can't use a katana because those are big. He has to use the Sai because those are bladed and small.
There are only 8 character classes in the new book, and one of the classes represents just one of the Ninja Turtles. That's the part that we know for sure, and it makes me cry.
-Frank
|
|
You know it just occurred to me that compering the rogue preview to the pit fiend one it seems to me that certain monster abilities are either somewhat underpowered meaning there at a disadvantage against the Pc's. Or damage across the board had been toned down in general meaning a lot of fights simply turning into i hit you you hit me punch ups.
Build Options (DND for Dummies crap ...)
I've been tossing the build options around in my mind for a few days, and I guess that it is more or less D&D for newbies, or maybe an update of the 2 Ed. kits.
I wasn't able to read the entire article at first, and I missed the introduction that said you don't have to use the builds. Now that I've thought it over, I don't know how many "experienced gamers" will want to follow the builds at all... unless the system is so simplistic that there just aren't that many combos or (on the opposite extreme) uses an extensive "feat tree" that you'd just about have to use a build.
I have had a few friends learn D&D recently, and it took time for them to see how things like feats and skills work, and now that their characters are getting into the middle class levels, they're starting to see how their choices haven't really progressed their character the way they thought.
So on one hand, a build system will help people jump into the game.
But... I'm not sold on 4e yet. I've liked some of the previews, but not all of them. Need more information.
Rogue in 3.5 -Does damage with weapons - CHECK
Has sneak attack - CHECK
Has thieving skills - CHECKRogue in 4.0 -
Does damage with weapons - CHECK
Has sneak attack - CHECK
Has thieving skills - CHECKSince, the 3.5 rogue also does damage (its strikes are not just named) you must be contending that it to is an "alternate fighter;" then again I may just be presupposing this as you have offered no evidence to the contrary . . .you have simply stated that since the 4.0 rogue does damage it is a fighter.
Since you have not actually offered an argument, I have listed at the start of this post the three most utilitarian things rogues do in an actual game. Please note the similarities.
I imagine you now like the 4.0 rogue. You are welcome.
Hiya.
I supposed I should start tagging my posts with "Hiya (I play 1e)". :)
I don't like the way 3.x does/did Rogues either. In that little 3-point list only the middle one ("sneak attack") is something that only rogues get...the other 2 *everyone* could have in, uh, maybe both editions? *shrug* As I said...I play 1e/Hackmaster, so my Thieves are, well, Thieves. If I wanted a 'fighting thief' I'd use one of the NPC classes for 1e (like the Brigand or Bounty Hunter maybe, and for Hackmaster I'd use any number of ways to get whatever kind of 'rogue' I wanted. But a 'thief' to me is one who is NOT combat-based. Thieves were only one step up from magic-users in the "I poke it with my dagger" attacks. Thieves *shouldn't be 'fighters'*! IMHO, of course.
I'll go back to my hole now.
*grabs walker and shuffles off to the Old Crotchety Grognards table...* ;)
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
Selecting a style will no more restrict your concept any more than the role or name of the class can. Neither of the styles require a minimum ability score, so you can still allocate the scores in the way you did. The difference is that in 3E, playing a diplomatic rogue didnt actually give you any benefits at all. You could take 10 on Diplomacy checks or something like that because the option to pick a style didnt even exist. You can do that in 4E by taking all the Cha skills on the list if you still want to pull that off, but your Persuasion check is going to be slightly less than someone who can take it as a Trained skill (by 5 points not counting the difference between Cha scores).At this point the only thing that seems like a true loss is the fact that Persuasion (which has aspects of Diplomacy rolled in) isnt there. The good thing is that you wont be crippled by it by having half the bonus of the...
But...why do I have to pick a "style"? In 3.0/3.5 I am given the opportunity and freedom to customize my Rogue any way I wish. I'm not pigeon-holed into a preset "style" or "path" as is described in the preview.
And why is "Persuasion" not a Trained skill for a Rogue? My concept for the Rogue with high INT/CHA is that he's a Con Man. Looks like this is not an option for the Rogue class (at least, not an easy one) since the skill is not considered part of the 4E Rogue concept, making them less effective at Persuasion than another class that has the skill as a Trained option. There must not be a lot of con men in 4E...
It seems there are more limitations on the Rogue than I'm used to having when playing a 3.0/3/5 Rogue.
Not a happy camper.
|
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
This, in a nutshell, is why the 4e Rogue doesn't look very appealing. It seems like I'm being pigeon-holed into one of 2 concepts when I play a Rogue. "You're either a brawny rogue or a trickster rogue."Please read the following:
You’re going to see something called “builds” in the information that follows. Builds present themes that you can use to guide you as you select powers and other abilities. You can follow the advice of a build, or you can ignore it. It’s not a constraint, but instead provides information to help you make informed choices as you create your character. Using a class build isn’t required; builds exist to help guide your decisions through the process of character creation and each time you level up.So you are not pigeon-holed. The article makes this explicit.
Builds as guidelines make more sense. But it still feels like there aren't as many options available to customizing a Rogue in 4e.
Now according to your own words, "This, in a nutshell, is why the 4e Rogue doesn't look very appealing." Since, your original statement was proven faulty, you now like the 4e rogue. You are welcome.
You're a funny man.
|
|
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 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'm sorry, but that's bogus.
If it's not desirable to have special attacks being carried out all the time, I'm quite happy with that.If they require an opening, again, I'm happy with that, but this should be dependent on random chance, or the skill (or lack of it) of the opponent, not something that the player can choose to impose on whoever he likes.
If facing a squad of regular guards, and their leader, players may well choose to withold their powers against the regulars, since they are able to deal with them normally. Instead, they all apply their powers against the leader, who they deem worth the extra effort.
Does this mean, then, that in most fights, the regular troops will fight like greased clockwork, while their more-skilled leaders will be fumbling their weapons and blundering about like a chimp on rollerskates?
|
|
*snip*
Your too clever for your own good sometimes Crosswired...We could further parse fluff, crunch, feel into further subdivisions...this isn't constructive. We, as gamers, have been using the division of fluff and crunch for sometime now.
Analogy: Its like Male and female. Sure we could start talking about hermaphrodites and "Manly" men and "effeminate" men, but that doesn't help us discuss male and female.
Fluff, at least in this context, includes whatever this "feel" you are describing.
|
|
The feel of the game is critical to the design equation:
fluff + feel = crunch
The experience of a game is actually different:
fluff + crunch = feel
I think you may have something here, but I would like to point out that:
If Fluff = F, Feel = L and Crunch = K, then the equations
(1) F + L = K
(2) F + K = LCan be reduced to:
(1) F = K - L
(2) F = L - Kand combined:
(3) K - L = L - Kwhich gives:
2K = 2Land thus K = L.
That is, Crunch is Feel. Fluff is, well fluff , and aptly named, it can be anything the user desires it to be. However, if you change the crunch, you change the feel. Change the crunch enough, the game is not the same.
lol, ab uno disce omnes
I don't like the way 3.x does/did Rogues either. In that little 3-point list only the middle one ("sneak attack") is something that only rogues get...the other 2 *everyone* could have in, uh, maybe both editions? *shrug* As I said...I play 1e/Hackmaster, so my Thieves are, well, Thieves.
Never liked a thief class. Love the rogue.
I absolutely love the 3e rogue. He can be a thief. A burgler. A pickpocket. A con-man. A racketeer. A thug. A spy. An infiltrator. An assassin. A dungeon delver.
He can even fill two or more of those roles at once.
The thing is: A thief is a thief is a thief. Dishonest guy taking what isn't his. Not every roguish character doesn't have to be like that.
And of course everyone can attempt to be these things, too. The rogue will just be more versatile, and usually better at it than others.
As for the "fighting imperative" (which becomes even worse in 4e it seems): I have a simple house rule that lets the rogue trade in sneak attack dice for feats (from a special list. It isn't quite written out, but generally states that roguish stuff - "tactical"/underhanded fighting, mobility, skill use, and the like - can be taken with those bonus feats. Power Attack or toughness are right out)
But if you want your rogue to be combat-focused, you can have him that way. Not as a tank like your average paladin-in-full-plate, but as someone who exploits the battlefield: Dart in, get in an attack when someone's vulnerable, and get out. Or pepper them with arrows from hiding.
I like that; simple, faster, easier equals smarter for me(the smarter formula simple+ faster+ easier= SMARTER).
Not always. For me, simple often means dumber.
Don't misunderstand me: I don't say that we should have 150 different skills (there are game systems out there that are like this), and my house rules contain a number of consolidated skills, but some things go to far I think.
For example, I folded open lock into disable device, because both handle tinkering with mechanical stuff. I folded use rope into sleight of hand, since deft hands will help you tie knots.
But I wouldn't fold it all into one skill, because that's too simplistic for me.
Hopefully new 4e source books will offer new rogue builds and optional tactics with new powers.
And so it starts: The PHB gives you limited choices, and for new stuff, you have to buy extra books.
I think I stick with 3e, where I can have a "brawny rogue" and a "sneaking rogue", and a "silver-tongued rogue", and a "cat-burglering rogue" and a "dishonest rogue" all right out of the PHB, without having to buy extra books for it.
the one thing I did not like.., No hit die...,mmm make me sad, I like to roll them dice. Common how can it be role playing with no dice to roll.
I don't like it, either. And I use fixed values for HP, and point buy for ability scores. But I like to have the choice, and changing those numbers back into dice will probably be harder than to have it the other way around.
The fact that you must start out with both Stealth and Thievery kind of bugs me, but not really. Those are two pretty stable skills of most rogues anyway. The only downside is that they basically choose two slots for you.
For me, it's a design question. Sure, you can change it, but it makes me wary of the whole thing: I liked how 3e's motto was "tools, not rules". They didn't go all the way, but they got rid of a lot of absolutes and restrictions that were in from 2e.
But now, instead of completing what they started, they turned right around and went more restrictive again.
It seems that 4e's splat books will be a lot like 2e's: Core books have restrictions, and splat books loosen those.
I much prefer 3e's system: The Core books basically left everything open. You got a lot of choices. The splat books just fleshed things out more. They didn't open any paths that were totally new and couldn't have been done with the core books, they just went into more detail.
... I just wonder if all those roles will be covered by another class or some feat option or just lost in the "omg, if you used profession for something important recently, your game wasn't fun" side of WotC.
Hmmm.
It does seem that some of those quotes are coming back in a different light, what with the preview of the rogue.
It seems to me that the roles lost won't be picked up by any other class, as the designers didn't deem them necessary for the game.
If anything, I wonder how much "overlap" each class will have with each other. While sometimes it is bothersome to get some things done without a "complete" party (i.e. fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard), having a different composition often led a party to find alternate means through traps, magic, healing, or raw fighting power (something my WOW friends call DPS... I think).
I'm running a cleric in the Shattered Gates of Slaughtergaurde, and I believe it is a 4e preview adventure. The traps are obvious, and round-about ways of doing things seem very available. (Of course, that last part might be my DM helping us move thiings along.)
The rogue in our party does seem to be lacking of "rogueish" things to do.
I guess we'll see.
|
|
Was anybody else a fan of AD&D 1st Edition's "weapon versus armor type" modification table? Daggers worked better against light armor types; maces worked better again flexible mail armors; and greatswords gained their best adjstments against heavy armor types.
I still have my little cardboard spinny wheel from an early-1980's DRAGON.
Curses to the simplifications brought about by THAC0!!
I liked it; it provided a reason for every character to carry a side-arm, like a hammer, for cracking heavy armour, when your sword was just sliding off.
Trouble was, it was never carried to the logical conclusion. It only ever came into play against NPCs. Monsters just had a flat AC, with no explanation for what armour type it resembled, and how much was due to speed, deflection, etc. In that respect, 3.0 was a vast improvement (Traveller never seemed to have a problem with this approach; welcome to the 1970s!).
THACO never prevented any of that; it showed how your chance to hit got better by level, just like the old tables.
Player apathy and inability to add and subtract single-digit numbers is what killed off the rule.
|
|
I don't need to be amazing at everything, I just want there to be a chance of success, however small.You mean you wanted to abuse the rules because your character had a high intelligence?
(well, it's about as objective as your attack on Kaile :-)
It's not my fault Int was your dump stat...;)
(The fact that you abused the Charisma rules forced me to add that smiley. Damn you! Damn you and your unskilled double-figure Diplomacy bonus!)