Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition is on the way...

[damonors]

um, maybe i missed it, but was there anything in that description of 4e rogues doing things like picking locks and disarming traps?

 

in fact, was there anything in that description that wasn't purely combat-orientated?

 

call me being old-fashioned, but that looks like a description of a Diablo character, not a D&D one.

NOnonoonon, they do thiefy things, but it all goes under the skill of 'thievery' (clever name!)!

 

But, yes, all that they've released seems to be all about combat. Don't know if that will truly be how 4e is, or just a bias in what they are releasing.

[Stephen Amber]

D&D rulebooks have always been primarily about combat...

[newc0253]

D&D rulebooks have always been primarily about combat...

 

really? the 1e PHB had no combat rules. it had a list of weapons and, of course, spells like fireball, etc.

 

but it was nothing like as munchkin as the description of a 4e rogue above. sure, that's probably just a description for marketing purposes but it hardly augurs well.

Edited February 24, 2008 by newc0253

[Gromnir]

D&D rulebooks have always been primarily about combat...

 

really? the 1e PHB had no combat rules. it had a list of weapons and, of course, spells like fireball, etc.

 

but it was nothing like as munchkin as the description of a 4e rogue above. sure, that's probably just a description for marketing purposes but it hardly augurs well.

 

am guessing that thiefy skills is, well, skills. pretty much all the rogue build suggested skills includes "thievery" but am not sure exactly how that works, and what it includes. is lockpick, find trap, set trap and sleight o' hand all included in 1 skill for 4e? whatever changes 4e makes to skills & feats, wotc not seem to wanna let us see for the nonce. the little bit o' info we has gotten so far seems to suggest a clear move towards streamlining skills, but this thievery stuff does seem a bit... extreme.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited February 24, 2008 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

btw, having 4-5 past skills all rolled up into one does seem to suggest that the new rogue is far less 'bout recreating the archetypal thief role.

 

...

 

am ok with the goal, but the means o' achieving seems odd.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Spider]

Although grouping them all into one skill makes sure that every last damn rogue will have those skills. Since it's a mandatory skill for the class and all (and with how all skills autoprogress in 4e).

[ramza]

I don't know about you, guys, but I will stay far away from 4E. Moreover, I don't wish (or even have time) to learn the rules all over again. The fact that they look retarded doesn't help either.

 

No thanks, sir. I will stick to my slightly modified 3.5 edition rules...

Edited February 24, 2008 by ramza

[Gromnir]

Although grouping them all into one skill makes sure that every last damn rogue will have those skills. Since it's a mandatory skill for the class and all (and with how all skills autoprogress in 4e).

 

 

is thievery and stealth actually compulsory? wording is kinda funny.

 

"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)"

 

thievery and stealth is on the "choose" list. is poorly written regardless, but there is an ambiguity created especially in light o' the following:

 

"Suggested Skills: Acrobatics, Bluff, Insight, Perception, Stealth, Thievery"

 

is kinda counter-intuitive to suggest the choosing o' a mandatory skill.

 

the only thing we has viewed is the above pasted material, so spider most likely knows far more than Gromnir does 'bout this aspect. kinda sucks though if it is required. am wondering how many other Choices wotc will make for us as we build characters with 4e.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

am wondering how many other Choices wotc will make for us as we build characters with 4e.

 

in 4e, it will be mandatory for rogues to be both cool and awesome.

 

actual thieving be optional.

[Spider]

the only thing we has viewed is the above pasted material, so spider most likely knows far more than Gromnir does 'bout this aspect. kinda sucks though if it is required. am wondering how many other Choices wotc will make for us as we build characters with 4e.

 

Nope, I've got the exact same intel as you. I just felt it was fairly obvious that the recommendation was sort of redundancy against idiots. Or wait, wasn't there something about skills having different levels?

 

(re-reads thread)

 

Yeah, there was the whol trained vs focused thing. So I guess Thieving and Stealth are in the selectable list in case you want to chose to be focused in them from the get go as opposed to just trained. Makes sense to me anyway.

 

(then the inclusion of the skills in the build option would just be a redundancy check, so to speak)

[Jorian Drake]

am wondering how many other Choices wotc will make for us as we build characters with 4e.

 

in 4e, it will be mandatory for rogues to be both cool and awesome.

 

actual thieving be optional.

i had an indiana jones style rogue in 3.5 not long ago, it was fun and it was not the usual stereotype neither

[Stephen Amber]

really? the 1e PHB had no combat rules. it had a list of weapons and, of course, spells like fireball, etc.

 

Weapons and spells most of which are a part of the combat rules... which in fact have no meaning outside of combat. Granted, 3e and now 4e, have introduced reams of rules minutiae and options compared to previous editions, but the books have always been combat heavy.

[newc0253]

Weapons and spells most of which are a part of the combat rules... which in fact have no meaning outside of combat.

 

uh, to be precise, the 1e had one page of weapons.

 

as for spells, please to be explaining now the combat meaning of a spell like divination.

[Gromnir]

Weapons and spells most of which are a part of the combat rules... which in fact have no meaning outside of combat.

 

uh, to be precise, the 1e had one page of weapons.

 

as for spells, please to be explaining now the combat meaning of a spell like divination.

 

superior intelligence is always resulting in a tactical advantage. knowledge of enemy location and numbers alone is a huge combat advantage. a clever diviner can, if played according to the rules, break a game precisely 'cause of impact on combats ant larger strategic aspects.

 

however, the problem with divinations is that the spells that give the player knowledge they should not have will never work, 'cause no dm will let 'em work. have your adventure or campaign broken by a diviner? not likely.

 

as for the rogue, no doubt the wotc developers will at some point explain why it is necessary to force onto characters compulsory skills disguised as a fraudulent choice, but Gromnir ain't amused. regardless, they needs to get their editors to do some better checking, 'cause ambiguity is inevitably gonna lead to argument.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[J.E. Sawyer]

I played a 2nd Ed. cleric with a heavy focus on divination that was extraordinarily effective. The DM would occasionally shield high-value targets with anti-divination spells and items, but I was able to do a lot with what wasn't protected. Between clairaudience/clairvoyance, consequence, divination, and commune, we usually built up a huge tactical (and occasional strategic) advantage. Especially for clerics, prior knowledge of what's ahead makes a great difference in what spells they prepare.

[newc0253]

and you can totally use a fork to kill people too.

 

the point wasn't that divination is incapable of being useful in combat. the point is that it wasn't a combat-orientated spell.

 

d-u-h

[J.E. Sawyer]

How the heck did the extra "ta" get in UK spellings of "oriented"?

[Jorian Drake]

How the heck did the extra "ta" get in UK spellings of "oriented"?

and i thought hungarian translations are terrible, but it can be topped by people not be able to type their own language

[newc0253]

How the heck did the extra "ta" get in UK spellings of "oriented"?

 

dunno. something to do with the french verb orienter.

[Stephen Amber]

Weapons and spells most of which are a part of the combat rules... which in fact have no meaning outside of combat.

 

uh, to be precise, the 1e had one page of weapons.

 

as for spells, please to be explaining now the combat meaning of a spell like divination.

 

d-u-h

 

And I suppose you used burning hands to roast marshmallows with...

[newc0253]

And I suppose you used burning hands to roast marshmallows with...

 

no, but i did use Nystul's Magic Aura to make ordinary mushrooms psychedelic.

[Gromnir]

" the point is that it wasn't a combat-orientated spell."

 

all divination spells is, from Gromnir's pov, combat "orientated." d&d is, first and foremost, a squad-based tactical combat game. is virtually no spell or ability that is complete removed from combat applications. craft items or earn gold? why? to help the local economy or to donate to church o' the bloody nun or somesuch? bah. Gromnir crafts to make better stuff or earn gold to get better stuff... to make us more effective in combat.

 

ultimately there is little in d&d that doesn't come back to combat.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Magister Lajciak]

I don't know about you, guys, but I will stay far away from 4E. Moreover, I don't wish (or even have time) to learn the rules all over again. The fact that they look retarded doesn't help either.

 

No thanks, sir. I will stick to my slightly modified 3.5 edition rules...

 

I am still undecided and am planning to make a decision after D&D Experience at which point we should have ample information about the 4th edition. At the moment, I am leaning towards staying with the 3.5 edition for my PnP gaming, though I would not mind a 4E CRPG? Why the dichotomy? Because, 4e is apparently (hopefully this impression of mine will change after D&D Experience) taking away simulationist tools from the DM, thus making it more work for me to design non-combat stuff and less interesting to design worlds in general (an important motivation for my DMing). Of course, if this work is already done by say Obsidian in a CRPG, then I don't mind playing the game at all.

[Gromnir]

btw, keep in mind that Gromnir enjoys the pure non-combat aspects o' d&d... but no rules is needed to role-play.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[newc0253]

is virtually no spell or ability that is complete removed from combat applications.

 

*cough*nystulsmagicaura*cough*

 

of course combat has always major part of D&D. who would deny it? but even the 1e PHB, the closest to the old chainmail rules of any of the formal editions, made nods to the other aspects of the game besides pure combat.

 

no, you don't need dice to roleplay. but there was a point in the history of CRPGs when it seemed that dice-based rules were adding interesting things to what was otherwise a bunch of rules for minatures. a lot of it was silly, a lot of it turned out to be plain unworkable. but there was at least a recognition that there were other goals in the game. now maybe that 4e rogue description above is just marketing guff. who knows? but even if it's just marketing guff, it's still kinda sad because it's pointing in the opposite direction: a regression back below the mean.