|[4E] The rogue!

In article <awessels-385F83.16105623022008 DeleteThis @newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
Allen Wessels <awessels DeleteThis @EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote:
>In article <47C03F66.9070600 DeleteThis @inet.hr>, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic DeleteThis @inet.hr>
>wrote:
>
>> Lorenz.Lang DeleteThis @gmx.de wrote:
>
>
>> > ...even if it's Godzilla? I can't believe creature size isn't
>> > important
>> > for *shoving* it around.
>>
>> I think it works better if you imagine it as poking a dragon's nose or
>> stabbing a giant in the foot so they wince back rather than actually
>> shoving them by main force. Indeed, Cha helps with this power, and Str
>> doesn't.
>
>From what I can see, there are a number of power results that let you
>move a monster or get its attention in ways that will encourge creative
>reasoning.
>
>It's hard to imagine an adamantium golem responding to either of those
>rationales.

Every D&D rule set has had mechanics that you have to bend your
brain a bit to rationalize. Why does a Colossal Red Dragon take
the same 5' combat "step" as a halfling? What is the rationale
behind Great Cleave? If Hit Points are a way of scaling damage
due to higher level character rolling with the punches better,
then why don't Cure spells heal a percentage of your HP total?

I imagine most of the new mechanics that everyone feels are
unrealistic will eventually end up accepted as a normal part of
the system, just like heavy armor making you harder to hit,
rather than absorbing damage.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>>> Armor Training: Leather
>>
>> A bit thin on the armor training, eh?
>
> If you really wanted to steamline things, I think you could drop all
> distinction beyond leather/light, mail/medium and plate/heavy. In that
> context, rogues getting nothing but leather would be conceptually the
> same thing as what we have now.
>
>>> Weapon Proficiencies: Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling,
>>> short sword
>>
>> That is pretty thin as well. Hopefully, burning a feat will get you
>> more than just one proficiency.
>
> Sadly, that alone won't help much.

The proficiencies thing seems to be almost universally regarded as too
narrow. Even a lot of us 4orons reckon the list could be made longer.

That said, you could consider IH as a precursor for this, with its
"finesse weapons" and "power weapons". The Weapon Finesse chain (which
gives extra sneak attack dice) only works with the former, while Power
Attack only works with the latter. Mind you, the IH categories were a
lot more generic than the rogue's weapon list.

>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
>>
>> Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?

Yes, the consensus is that any "ability score" vs X has an implied
level-based bonus as well, most likely level/2. Ditto for AC. So
"Dexterity vs AC" really means "Dex mod + 1/2 level + weapon bonuses" vs
"Dex mod + 1/2 level + armor bonuses".
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Hong Ooi wrote:
>>>> Weapon Proficiencies: Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling,
>>>> short sword
>>>
>>> That is pretty thin as well. Hopefully, burning a feat will get you
>>> more than just one proficiency.
>>
>> Sadly, that alone won't help much.
>
> The proficiencies thing seems to be almost universally regarded as too
> narrow. Even a lot of us 4orons reckon the list could be made longer.
>
> That said, you could consider IH as a precursor for this, with its
> "finesse weapons" and "power weapons". The Weapon Finesse chain (which
> gives extra sneak attack dice) only works with the former, while Power
> Attack only works with the latter. Mind you, the IH categories were a
> lot more generic than the rogue's weapon list.

But IIRC it was all a lot more relaxed. There were many power feats that
worked just fine with finesse weapons and vice versa.

Also, bastard swords were both power and finesse, which can do a lot to
shut up any complaints from me.

>>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
>>>
>>> Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?
>
> Yes, the consensus is that any "ability score" vs X has an implied
> level-based bonus as well, most likely level/2. Ditto for AC. So
> "Dexterity vs AC" really means "Dex mod + 1/2 level + weapon bonuses" vs
> "Dex mod + 1/2 level + armor bonuses".

It's a minor nit, but I'd be betting that attacks get modified by class,
and that AC is actually derived from Reflex rather than level directly.


--
Jasin
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Matt Frisch wrote:
>>> Trained Skills: Stealth and Thievery plus four others. From the class
>>> skills list below, choose four more trained skills at 1st level.
>>> Class Skills: Acrobatics (Dexterity), Athletics (Str), Bluff (Cha),
>>> Dungeoneering (Wis), Insight (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Perception (Wis),
>>> Stealth (Dexterity), Streetwise (Cha), Thievery (Dexterity)
>> That seems pretty good, given the skill consolidation. On the other hand, I
>> see nothing of the supposed "super skill use" Rogues are supposedly capable
>> of.
>
> I think it's even stranger that they mention Stealth and Thievery in the
> selectable skill field, when those are given automatically. Why bother?

If multiclassing and skills work anything similar to Star Wars Saga,
those who start as rogues get Stealth and Thievery, while those who
multiclass into rogue only get access to Stealth and Thievery.

>>> Artful Dodger: You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Charisma modifier
>>> against opportunity attacks.
>>> Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal to
>>> your Strength modifier.
>> Interesting.
>
> Brutal scoundrel is, by itself, pitifully underpowered, considering you
> only get 1 sneak attack per round now.

I'm not sure how you can judge that considering we only have a vague
idea of what damage values are like or how common opportunity attacks are.

>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
>> Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?
>
> Doesn't seem like it. The Pit Fiend has a 44 AC.
>
> If you're fighting him at level 26, even getting 1/2 BAB would make missing
> almost impossible after you factor in the + from your weapon, + from a
> rogue using a dagger, beneficial magic (Bless), etc. Plus I assume combat
> advantage comes with something akin to the +2 to hit that flanking
> currently gives.

+13 BAB, +10 Dex, +5 weapon, +1 rogue using a dagger, +2 from flanking
still needs a roll of 13 to hit.

>>> Piercing Strike
>>> Rogue Attack 1
>>> A needle-sharp point slips past armor and into tender flesh.
>>>
>>> At-Will ? Martial, Weapon
>>> Standard Action
>>> Melee weapon
>>> Requirement: You must be wielding a light blade.
>>> Target: One creature
>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
>>>
>>> Hit: 1[W] + Dexterity modifier damage.
>>> Increase damage to 2[W] + Dexterity modifier at 21st level.
>> Okay, so this attack bypasses armor.
>
> Looks like the entire concept of armor as we know it is...gone. Perhaps the
> rogue is merely a wild exception, but this writeup shows attacks that go
> specifically after AC, Will, Fort, and Reflex. It's all just different
> kinds of defense.

Presumably AC is a defense that's influenced by armour. Perhaps Ref +
armour.


--
Jasin
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

"Jasin Zujovic" <jzujovic RemoveThis @inet.hr> wrote in message
news:47C29E7B.1050305@inet.hr...
> Matt Frisch wrote:

>> I think it's even stranger that they mention Stealth and Thievery in the
>> selectable skill field, when those are given automatically. Why bother?
>
> If multiclassing and skills work anything similar to Star Wars Saga, those
> who start as rogues get Stealth and Thievery, while those who multiclass
> into rogue only get access to Stealth and Thievery.

Before anyone misinterprets this, he means you get access to the whole Rogue
list, but you just don't get the Stealth & Thievery for free like you do
when you start 1st level as a Rogue.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:54:51 +0100, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic.TakeThisOut@inet.hr>
scribed into the ether:

>Matt Frisch wrote:

>>>> Artful Dodger: You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Charisma modifier
>>>> against opportunity attacks.
>>>> Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal to
>>>> your Strength modifier.
>>> Interesting.
>>
>> Brutal scoundrel is, by itself, pitifully underpowered, considering you
>> only get 1 sneak attack per round now.
>
>I'm not sure how you can judge that considering we only have a vague
>idea of what damage values are like or how common opportunity attacks are.

It's a strength bonus (probably not your highest attribute) once per
round...better than nothing, to be sure, but the real virtue of this
ability isn't in itself, it's how it interacts with other powers.

>>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
>>> Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?
>>
>> Doesn't seem like it. The Pit Fiend has a 44 AC.
>>
>> If you're fighting him at level 26, even getting 1/2 BAB would make missing
>> almost impossible after you factor in the + from your weapon, + from a
>> rogue using a dagger, beneficial magic (Bless), etc. Plus I assume combat
>> advantage comes with something akin to the +2 to hit that flanking
>> currently gives.
>
>+13 BAB, +10 Dex, +5 weapon, +1 rogue using a dagger, +2 from flanking
>still needs a roll of 13 to hit.

It doesn't say "Dexterity modifier", it says "Dexterity". 24 dex at level
26 would be quite easily achievable. 24 dex +5 dagger +1 for a dagger +13
BAB +2 flanking = You only miss on a 1, and then only because a 1 is an
automatic miss.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Alien mind control rays made Matt Frisch <matuse73.DeleteThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> write:
>>> Hit Points per Level Gained: 5
>>
>> Notice the lack of Constitution bonus?
>
> Didn't notice that, however. Maybe it's in the level-up rules, so no need
> to mention it in each class' writeup?

i'd guess not. they're making a point of "you don't have to go
searching all over for stuff" elsewhere (e.g. monsters).

--
n_n n_n drow.DeleteThis@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
|"|n_n_n|"| ---------------------------------------------------------------
| | " " | | "And how can man die better than facing fearful odds,
|_|_[T]_|_| For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods."
-- Thomas Babington Macaulay
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Del Rio wrote:

> Every D&D rule set has had mechanics that you have to bend your brain a
> bit to rationalize.

My brain may be more flexible than most. Or something.

> Why does a Colossal Red Dragon take the same 5' combat "step" as a
> halfling?

Better speed but worse power to weight. They cancel out.

> What is the rationale behind Great Cleave?

The cheeky monkey snatches the grapes, or any other number of long
trained combinations that gain advantage against groups of weaker
opponents.

> If Hit Points are a way of scaling damage due to higher level character
> rolling with the punches better, then why don't Cure spells heal a
> percentage of your HP total?

They do, IMC.

But if you haven't fixed them, then they don't strictly heal any
injury, rather they retroactivly prevent the damage from the past.
Retroactive attack absorbtion is naturally relative to the strength of
the attack (combinations or parts thereof) that it absorbs.

> I imagine most of the new mechanics that everyone feels are unrealistic
> will eventually end up accepted as a normal part of the system, just
> like heavy armor making you harder to hit, rather than absorbing damage.

Damn it, *HARDER TO HIT FOR DAMAGE*. <sigh>

--
tussock

Zzzzzzzzzz... uh, wha? What the hell? I was sleeping, bugger off.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

In article <47c26c04 DeleteThis @clear.net.nz>, tussock <scrub DeleteThis @clear.net.nz> wrote:
>Del Rio wrote:
>
>> I imagine most of the new mechanics that everyone feels are unrealistic
>> will eventually end up accepted as a normal part of the system, just
>> like heavy armor making you harder to hit, rather than absorbing damage.
>
> Damn it, *HARDER TO HIT FOR DAMAGE*. <sigh>

You're right, 3e finally made that true - at least, as long as
attacks are correctly classified as regular or Touch AC attacks...
In prior editions, better AC just plain made you harder to hit.

--
"I know I promised, Lord, never again. But I also know
that YOU know what a weak-willed person I am."
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Matt Frisch wrote:
> Malachias Invictus wrote:


>>> http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dramp/20080222a
>
>>> Weapon Proficiencies: Dagger, hand crossbow, shuriken, sling,
>>> short sword
>>
>>That is pretty thin as well. Hopefully, burning a feat will get you
>>more than just one proficiency.
>
> Extremely thin. I was quite disheartened to see the weapon list be so
> tiny.

Maybe the whole weapon list is down to a dozen or so.


<snips>
> I think it's even stranger that they mention Stealth and Thievery in the
> selectable skill field, when those are given automatically. Why bother?

You can probably only get the Skill Focus feat on your class skills,
and other things similarly. So ease of writing combinations ("only with
class skills").


>>> Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal to
>>> your Strength modifier.
>>
>>Interesting.
>
> Brutal scoundrel is, by itself, pitifully underpowered, considering you
> only get 1 sneak attack per round now. I assume it is going to pre-req a
> bunch of other stuff (in addition to being a booster on other powers, as
> mentioned below).

Stat mods effectively include a half level bonus, and stats increase
with level. That Str mod could get /very/ big, compared to 3e.


>>So, a 2 square bonus to movement? You already can move, after all. I
>>can see some good tactical applications.
>
> Seems to doom the concept of the mobile archery feats, when you can do
> this maneuver on a constant basis. IIRC, from the miniature handbook,
> you had the option of taking a 1 square step after an attack...this
> power would seem to make rogues quite difficult to pin down. Move a
> square (or two) in, fire off this attack, then take another square of
> movement after so your opponent is forced to expend movement to reach
> you.

The playtest notes about Rogues mentioned them being able to skip and
flip around the battlefield slowly killing off the mooks without ever
being attacked. Mobile Striker: in, bang, out.
Various monsters will have special powers to stop you. RPS.


>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
>>
>>Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?
>
> Doesn't seem like it. The Pit Fiend has a 44 AC.

"Dexterity" will be 1/2 level + Dex Mod (or rather, Dex Mod will be
plus half level, like the mini stat cards).

> If you're fighting him at level 26, even getting 1/2 BAB would make
> missing almost impossible after you factor in the + from your weapon, +
> from a rogue using a dagger, beneficial magic (Bless), etc.

Dex mod + 3 (weapon). We've seen that stats grow with level, so that
might be +23 (13 level + 10 stat), feats seem to give rerolls rather than
bonuses so not much there, and there's the odd +2 (perhaps +4 or +5 at
epic) from team bonuses that probably don't stack.
Perhaps need 15+ to hit, with a reroll. Seems right for a Rogue. Give
it a few conditions and it gets easier.

> Plus I assume combat advantage comes with something akin to the +2 to
> hit that flanking currently gives.

Were I'd assume it lets you use your combat advantage powers, and
maybe counts as a condition step on the track.


> Looks like the entire concept of armor as we know it is...gone. Perhaps
> the rogue is merely a wild exception, but this writeup shows attacks
> that go specifically after AC, Will, Fort, and Reflex. It's all just
> different kinds of defense.

No different to 3e, really, just a few more save-based effects for
martial characters.

--
tussock

Zzzzzzzzzz... uh, wha? What the hell? I was sleeping, bugger off.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

On 25 Feb, 22:13, Matt Frisch <matus....RemoveThis@yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:54:51 +0100, Jasin Zujovic <jzujo....RemoveThis@inet.hr>
> scribed into the ether:
>
> >Matt Frisch wrote:
> >>>> Artful Dodger: You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Charisma modifier
> >>>> against opportunity attacks.
> >>>> Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal to
> >>>> your Strength modifier.
> >>> Interesting.
>
> >> Brutal scoundrel is, by itself, pitifully underpowered, considering you
> >> only get 1 sneak attack per round now.
>
> >I'm not sure how you can judge that considering we only have a vague
> >idea of what damage values are like or how common opportunity attacks are.
>
> It's a strength bonus (probably not your highest attribute) once per
> round...better than nothing, to be sure, but the real virtue of this
> ability isn't in itself, it's how it interacts with other powers.
>
> >>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
> >>> Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?
>
> >> Doesn't seem like it. The Pit Fiend has a 44 AC.
>
> >> If you're fighting him at level 26, even getting 1/2 BAB would make missing
> >> almost impossible after you factor in the + from your weapon, + from a
> >> rogue using a dagger, beneficial magic (Bless), etc. Plus I assume combat
> >> advantage comes with something akin to the +2 to hit that flanking
> >> currently gives.
>
> >+13 BAB, +10 Dex, +5 weapon, +1 rogue using a dagger, +2 from flanking
> >still needs a roll of 13 to hit.
>
> It doesn't say "Dexterity modifier", it says "Dexterity". 24 dex at level
> 26 would be quite easily achievable.

Let me stop you there. 4E has done away with stat boosting items,
maybe with any form of stat boosting magic. Actually, i think I should
have stopped you a sentence earlier as you are assuming "Dexterity vs.
AC" isn't a term of art, or maybe I should have prevented you from
replying at all, as Jasin is assuming that the modifiers from stats
have the same breakpoints as in 3rd edition, which doesn't look to be
the case.

Mark
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

Matt Frisch wrote:
>>>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
>>>> Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?
>>> Doesn't seem like it. The Pit Fiend has a 44 AC.
>>>
>>> If you're fighting him at level 26, even getting 1/2 BAB would make missing
>>> almost impossible after you factor in the + from your weapon, + from a
>>> rogue using a dagger, beneficial magic (Bless), etc. Plus I assume combat
>>> advantage comes with something akin to the +2 to hit that flanking
>>> currently gives.
>> +13 BAB, +10 Dex, +5 weapon, +1 rogue using a dagger, +2 from flanking
>> still needs a roll of 13 to hit.
>
> It doesn't say "Dexterity modifier", it says "Dexterity".

The current MM stat block says "Dex" rather than "Dex modifier" in the
AC breakdown, and it means Dex modifier.

Note that in the pit fiend stat block, the numbers next to the stats,
where you'd put stat modifiers in 3E, are equal to (level/2 + 3E stat
modifier). Whether that number is called Dexterity, Dexterity modifier
or level-modified Dexterity modifier, I'm betting it's the same thing
that the powers are referencing.


--
Jasin
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue! 

"Matt Frisch" <matuse73 DeleteThis @yahoo.spam.me.not.com> wrote in message
news:26f6s3l8d07gk0befjr0sr58a8s8cet3p7@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:54:51 +0100, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic DeleteThis @inet.hr>
> scribed into the ether:
>
>>Matt Frisch wrote:
>
>>>>> Artful Dodger: You gain a bonus to AC equal to your Charisma
>>>>> modifier
>>>>> against opportunity attacks.
>>>>> Brutal Scoundrel: You gain a bonus to Sneak Attack damage equal to
>>>>> your Strength modifier.
>>>> Interesting.
>>>
>>> Brutal scoundrel is, by itself, pitifully underpowered, considering you
>>> only get 1 sneak attack per round now.
>>
>>I'm not sure how you can judge that considering we only have a vague
>>idea of what damage values are like or how common opportunity attacks are.
>
> It's a strength bonus (probably not your highest attribute) once per
> round...better than nothing, to be sure, but the real virtue of this
> ability isn't in itself, it's how it interacts with other powers.
>
>>>>> Attack: Dexterity vs. AC
>>>> Is this going to be "BAB" plus Dexterity modifier?
>>>
>>> Doesn't seem like it. The Pit Fiend has a 44 AC.
>>>
>>> If you're fighting him at level 26, even getting 1/2 BAB would make
>>> missing
>>> almost impossible after you factor in the + from your weapon, + from a
>>> rogue using a dagger, beneficial magic (Bless), etc. Plus I assume
>>> combat
>>> advantage comes with something akin to the +2 to hit that flanking
>>> currently gives.
>>
>>+13 BAB, +10 Dex, +5 weapon, +1 rogue using a dagger, +2 from flanking
>>still needs a roll of 13 to hit.
>
> It doesn't say "Dexterity modifier", it says "Dexterity". 24 dex at level
> 26 would be quite easily achievable. 24 dex +5 dagger +1 for a dagger +13
> BAB +2 flanking = You only miss on a 1, and then only because a 1 is an
> automatic miss.

So, you think your theory is correct, given that it lets a Rogue autohit a
Pit Fiend?

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] The rogue!