So, the 4e rogue. Discuss!

[CatharzGodfoot]

1203747946[/unixtime]]you aren't even proficient at punching people in the face?

Maybe anyone can make semi-effective unarmed attacks.

[JonSetanta]

1203739044[/unixtime]]Sigma- thats CON *score*, not bonus. I made that mistake the first time, too.

Actually, that's a nice move. 3.x's "CON bonus times level" made any form of HP bonus weak in comparison to the (universally almighty) CON bonus.

And I disagree about the INT bonus, it's partially a good thing that it changed (although they are probably not done implement what it does do). No more of that shit about increasing INT later to get more skills, but INT from enhancements doesn't apply to bonus SP, and losing INT doesn't lessen skills... it was fucked up.
I'll give them that much as an improvement.

[Username17]

Math time!

A Rogue has about 24 hit points at first level.

A 1st level "Brutal" Rogue probably has a Strength Mod of +2 and a Dex mod of +3. If he opens combat with his Sneak Attack / Tortuous Strike he inflicts Weapon (d6? + Strength) * 2 + Strength + Dex + 2d6. So that's 4d6 + 9. That's an average of 23. If level bonuses round up instead of down, that's 25 points. And if you can manage a +3 Strength mod with 4e's higher attributes you can be throwing around 26 or more.

In short, an optimized first level Rogue who wins initiative at another optimized 1st level Rogue gets a one-per-encounter chance to drop his opponent on the first round with a single d20 attack roll.

Succeed and Win. Saw: it's the new SoD.

-Username17

[Koumei]

That sounds like an advertising campaign.

"SaW: it's the new SoD"

[angelfromanotherpin]

1203762756[/unixtime]]In short, an optimized first level Rogue who wins initiative at another optimized 1st level Rogue gets a one-per-encounter chance to drop his opponent on the first round with a single d20 attack roll.

Hasn't 1st level always been the land of one-hit kills? What makes 4e special in this way?

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Hasn't 1st level always been the land of one-hit kills? What makes 4e special in this way?

They advertised the exact opposite for 4e.

[Username17]

Hasn't 1st level always been the land of one-hit kills? What makes 4e special in this way?

The math scales in 4th edition. An Nth level Rogue who sneak attacks an Nth level Rogue with a Brutal Whatchit Strike will drop that Nth level Rogue on average in one hit.

It's not a "Save or Die" in the same way that people used to claim that sleep wasn't a Save or Die effect: since it only barely drops you in 4th edition and you have a 50% death margin, you don't actually die when you get hit by one of these unless you've already taken a substantial pile of damage.

So if someone hits you with their SaW effect and doesn't quite drop you, or if you get healed back into the combat, and then someone else hits you with a SaW effect, you lose your character.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

Well remember NPCs aren't going to be using the same rules as PCs. So unless you're playing PvP, that situation actually can't happen.

[SphereOfFeetMan]

Well remember NPCs aren't going to be using the same rules as PCs. So unless you're playing PvP, that situation actually can't happen.

I know they stated monsters work differently than Pc's. Did they state that Npc's with Pc classes also work differently? How would that even work?

[RandomCasualty]

1203780846[/unixtime]]

I know they stated monsters work differently than Pc's. Did they state that Npc's with Pc classes also work differently? How would that even work?

The idea I got was that you just gave a monster rogue or whatever some random rogue abilities. But he doesn't use the same rogue class the PCs do.

[Username17]

Although a 6th level Skirmisher monster has been confirmed to have even fewer hit points than a 6th level Rogue would have.

So yeah, a 6th level Rogue opens up by killing a Spine Devil or an NPC Rogue. If he hits.

I am legitimately unclear as to how this rubric is supposed to be an improvement over giving players Save or Die effects. It is the exact same number of actions and d20 rolls until you kill a fool either way.

-Username17

[virgil]

But that's not going to continue to scale. The rogue isn't going to gain an average of 5 damage per level with that attack. Until the massive jump at 21st level, he's only gaining an average of 1 damage per level (or actually 2 every 2 level) for that attack, with an additional +2 here and there when he gets a magic weapon upgrade or +1d6 at level 11. Even at level 6, he's only doing an average of about 31 to that spine devil, which is enough for a 2nd round of combat.

I don't think the rogue is going to be able to one-shot his doppelganger except during the first level or two. Two-shot definitely, which is a matter of semantics, and it doesn't actually change your point.

It does indicate why they gave the spine devil so few abilities, and will likely be an indication of all other monster design. If it's not a boss monster or a leader, it's just plain not going to live longer than 2 rounds; and they consider abilities not used in those two round to be abilities not worth ever existing.

I wonder if we'll see some of the wizard before the book comes out and see what they consider to be crowd-control.

[JonSetanta]

Death on the first round?
Looks vaguely similar to Company of the Black Rose (or whatever that weird setting was called) where flatfooted targets take CON damage as well.

I'm still more curious about other things, although the HP issue is important.
Like:
- What about ranged attacks? A bow-focused Rogue? Are there moves for non-blade attacks at all or have they really been corralled into such a tiny niche?
- Bonus skill points: are there any now? What does INT do if not just add to INT based skill checks? It's gotta do something.... (I would just add the INT score to skill points only on first level, as with CON score to HP)

[Username17]

But that's not going to continue to scale...

You're forgetting that every point of Strength bonus adds 3 damage, every point of Dex bonus adds 1 damage. Every point of weapon bonus adds 2 damage. Every Feat bonus adds 2 damage.

If the hinted at attribute curves are anything like true we could be looking at +1 to Dex and Strength bonus every other level - which is a flat +2 to damage per level just from that. So it's +2 from Stats, +1 from level itself. Do you think honestly that between feats, powers, equipment, and whatever that you can't pick up a base of +1 damage each level from 2nd to 10th?

I mean fuck, at 11th level you get an extra d6 of damage for no reason, so we already know that you're more than keeping that up at that point...

-Username17

[tzor]

1203744844[/unixtime]]Thats the problem. They've decided they know what flavor is best for, in theory, all settings. And forced it into the class for no gain. Want to make a thug with a club? Fuck you, you can't.

But 4E isn't designed for "all settings" it is designed for the 4E setting. You must play their way or not at all. I don't we have official indications of what they are going to do with their current 3E settings, but forced conversion to the new 4E setting seems likely. All other settings are SOL because I'm sure that following a proper WOTC setting will be a part of their barely open sell your soul (and give us 5 thousand dollars) licence agreement.

[Fwib]

I particularly noticed the several mentions of getting 'combat advantage' over a foe - sounds familiar

[K]

I have to say, this sneak peak makes me think the following things:

-They managed to capture all the shallowness of miniature combats AND all the arbitrary powergaming of an RPG. Good going, dudes.

-I read all the abilities and don't remember what any of them do, even in the abstract. So it looks like a lot of "Adjective + Verb" attacks. I may need to buy cards to remember all my crap abilities....oh wait, thats MARKETING GENIUS!!!!!

-They have per day abilities, per encounter abilities, and at will abilities. Have you noted that the game just got way more arbitrary? I mean, if you decided to chose a bunch of per day and encounter stuff, you might rock the first two encounters of the day, but actually die in your third because you don't have anything worthwhile to do anymore. Your actual power level and combat effectiveness over the course of a day is practically impossible to calculate.

-While the learning curve of 3e was around 20 minutes, I think 4e will take "several hours, if ever."

[Voss]

Well, on the daily, encounter and at will abilities, I've gotten the impression that it doesn't quite work that way.
Its more of a progression chart. You get X at will abilities, Y per encounter abilities and Z daily abilities. You don't get N abilities and then divvy them up between X, Y and Z.


@sigma- the bow focused rogue is another, 'fuck you, you can't'. Another rogue role down the tubes. Hand crossbow, sling or shuriken, or suck it. If you want a bow, you apparently have to be a ranger. (Because fighters will be restricted to melee weapons in a similar way, except they can't use light weapons, or TWF).

[the_taken]

1203816975[/unixtime]]I particularly noticed the several mentions of getting 'combat advantage' over a foe - sounds familiar

OMG! I just got that! WOW!

[Koumei]

Yeah, it reminded me of having The Edge, too. How suspicious...

Funny, I could swear I posted this about an hour ago. Perhaps I forgot to click "Submit" or something.

[Captain_Bleach]

1203823696[/unixtime]](Because fighters will be restricted to melee weapons in a similar way, except they can't use light weapons, or TWF).

If what you say is true, then I'm giving up on 4th edition D&D and will switch to full-time FUDGE. Seriously, why can't a big, burly knight use a dagger?

[Voss]

I guess he could, but he won't be any good with it. They've talked a bit about the fighters, fairly cautiously before, and some things were clear and some were hinted at. Combined with this, its pretty evident whats going on with them.
1- Fighters will be expected (if not outright required) to wear heavy armor. Mikey said so, straight up.

2- Mention has been made of 'fighter weapons' spears, swords, axes and warhammers. Possibly picks (or they fall under axes or warhammers). Their powers will center around which over these they focus on, power wise. Warhammers do stunning type effects, swords get extra attacks, axes extra damage, spears init boosts (In general, other things may be involved). Based on this rogue preview, if they aren't wielding the 'right kind' of weapon, they get jack.

3- Fighters are almost explicitly not allowed to do any TWF. Sword and board and two handed is their allowed shticks. Its been pretty well established over at ENworld (I've been in an argument or 5 about it) that ranged weapons and swashbuckling are the province of rogues and rangers. Fighters are defenders, and, apparently, designed to stand there and take it, and make you regret being adjacent to them.

4- The devs have decided that somehow, the weapon you hold is a way of differentiating between classes. It goes for implements, too. Wizards get the orb/staff/wand thing, clerics get holy symbols and warlocks get rods. So you can tell what someone is by what they're waving around. Nevermind the blurred lines between a short staff, a long rod or a thick wand. And yeah, thats absurdly damn phallic.

[Captain_Bleach]

So why don't they just call the Fighter something like "Tough Guy" or "Full Metal Gear" so new players/3e Fighter enthusiasts won't pick the wrong class when they want to be a knife-fighter/duelist type?

[Voss]

That will be covered in both the role and class fluff text. I don't think there will be any doubt when you read the fighter and rogue descriptions who the knife fighter or duelist is. Because one just flat out won't be able to be. The other just has to be a thief as well.

Plus they feel obliged to keep the class names from the editions of D&D they're old enough to remember.

[virgil]

In regards to the bonus they're giving in ability scores, I think that's just a notation thing. Any time you perform an action based on a stat, you use the base modifier and a level-based bonus, and that's where the bonus to damage comes from, rather than increasing your Strength mod AND throwing in a level bonus by its lonesome.

Now, I could be wrong, and we'll be seeing a nearly precise leveling of damage output with hit point gains; giving credence to your point that our rogue will forever be capable of one-shotting himself.

Yeah, it's going to be self-evident when you actually look at a class what you're going to be wielding. If you decide you want to be a knife-fighter, you're going to read the fighter, discover that they can't use knives, and then you'll look over the rogue and discover that they can use knives.

And no offense, some of your complaints here are direct references to ideas I've seen bandied about for any kind of replacement ruleset.

Barring the staff/wand debate, it's logical for any particular tool to have an easily determinable set of abilities when you see someone wielding it. In fact, depending on who you're fighting, I can see this as a way to trick people by carrying a different tool in plain view while hiding your preferred tool out of sight.

Now, while it's not bad for tools to have notable differences in function, I do agree that it's bad to base so much of the class on a single tool. You thought equipment dependence was bad in 3E, now you can't even function when you get disarmed!