[4e] Rogues, Rangers, and Warlocks

[thereaper]

So, there's been a few threads comparing the Fighter and Paladin. I've thumbed through the PHB a bit for the strikers, but it's not immediately obvious to me what the relative pros and cons of each is.

So, for the less number-crunchingly-inclined among us, comes this thread for the experts to spell it out for us with big bold letters. It begins...

(wait for it)



...NOW!!!

[kieza]

Well, all Strikers are meant to deal lots of damage, stay out of the front lines, and be very mobile. The three classes do this in different ways that support slightly different styles:

Ranger: Damage bonus to a chosen target, More attacks than other classes (A lot of powers have multiple attacks, secondary attacks, etc.), bonus to AC against opportunity attacks that allows you to move without worrying as much. Good against normal enemies, since they can affect multiple targets in a round

Rogue: Damage bonus from combat advantage (harder to get than Hunter's Quarry/Curse, but more damage), lots of powers that let you move or force movement, lots of shifting powers like Tumble that let you move without taking OAs. Good against tough enemies, since their high damage can be overkill on normal ones, and at moving into and out of the enemy ranks.

Warlock: Damage bonus from Curse (weaker than Quarry/Sneak attack, but you can choose targets and get multiple Curses easily), concealment whenever you move 3 squares, lots of teleportation that doesn't provoke OAs. Good at hit-and run tactics and escaping combat.

[Charity]

Damagewise (which is the strikes shtick)
I belive it goes Rogue > Ranger > Warlock
However Warlocks find it easier to defend themselves, and can lay some nasty effects on the enemy, the Ranger has good defensive capabilities and is the most adaptable. Rogues are short range and melee but can hit very regularly and can really put the hurt on.

[Saph]

I haven't crunched the numbers, but I'm pretty sure the StealthCheese (TM) Rogue build comes out highest in terms of damage.

Take Deft Strike and Sly Flourish for your at-wills, and grab the Backstabber feat at level 1. Spam Stealth checks mercilessly without concern for believability or game balance, and you should be able to get Sneak Attack on practically every strike. Either hide behind an ally and use Sly Flourish to shoot them, or if you can flank use Deft Strike for an 80% to 90% hit rate.

Kind of a one-trick pony, but effective. As you level up, add Fleeting Ghost, Chameleon, and Stealth-boosting feats and items to make your character outrageously difficult to detect.

"The StealthCheese Ninja is nowhere to be seen."
"What do you mean I can't see him! He's five ****ing feet in front of me!"
"The ways of the StealthCheese Ninja are inscrutable."

- Saph

[Crow]

That is in fact, cheese. How did that make it through playtesting? Frost weapon + wintertouched + lasting frost is pretty good for rogues (or anyone else) too.

[Dan_Hemmens]

That is in fact, cheese. How did that make it through playtesting? Frost weapon + wintertouched + lasting frost is pretty good for rogues (or anyone else) too.

I think it probably made it through because anything which relies on operating "without concern for believability or game balance" should be ruled out pretty much automatically.

Stealth Cheese is pretty good, but "hiding" behind an ally is only one step up from the old 3.X "Tower Shield Invisibility" trick (use your tower shield for cover, hide, concealing yourself and all your gear including, of course, your Tower Shield).

[Crow]

I think it probably made it through because anything which relies on operating "without concern for believability or game balance" should be ruled out pretty much automatically.

Stealth Cheese is pretty good, but "hiding" behind an ally is only one step up from the old 3.X "Tower Shield Invisibility" trick (use your tower shield for cover, hide, concealing yourself and all your gear including, of course, your Tower Shield).

I hate RAW vs. RAI.

[Dan_Hemmens]

I hate RAW vs. RAI.

That's fair. All I care about is RAIaDMIT: Rules As I as DM Interpret Them.

Strict adherence to RAW is always stupid, in any game (there's a famous example from Shadowrun in which somebody tried to wear a cardboard box as armour, on the grounds that it should block line of sight and make them effectively invulnerable.

[Edea]

Or, as another houserule, simply ramp up enemy Perception mods by 10 points across the board. I have -ZERO- idea why they're so crappy on a per-level basis, but that's a large part of the exploit.

[Kurald Galain]

I think it probably made it through because anything which relies on operating "without concern for believability or game balance" should be ruled out pretty much automatically.

Of course not.

Players should not have to concern themselves with game balance, since it is a major selling point that 4E is so extremely well balanced. Furthermore, players should not have to concern themselves with believability either, since the whole point of 4E is to be cinematic and quick to play, rather than purely realistic.

What Saph suggests is simply one of the default rogue builds in the very first player's handbook. You can't seriously suggest that should be ruled out.

[SeraphKast]

As to the rogue question, they still have to be concealed/covered. I personally wouldn't allow allies to count for that, but anything else is intended. Mike Mearls came out and made a post stating that they expect rogues to have CA on almost every round, and it doesn't get much more official about intent than a designer. The question about warlocks being able to hide in plain sight is something else entirely, but I doubt it was supposed to work like the way people are abusing it.

Back on topic: Rangers are highly mobile and have very high 1-2 target damage. Ranged ones have the best reach in the game, while melee ones have quite a few close burst powers.

Rogues are sneakiest, pretty mobile, and have the best chances to hit along with damage on par/slightly less than rangers. The also have more attacks that target defenses other than AC than rangers, and can be very effective ranged attackers as well.

Warlocks are almost entire ranged and almost exclusively target non-AC defenses. The have a good number of defensive powers, but lack the damage of the other two strikers. Making up for that is the sheer number of status effects they can inflict, making them almost mini-controllers. They're less mobile in some respects, but do have a fair number of teleport powers.

[Orzel]

Rogues are huge damage dealers. They set up and kill their foes.
Rangers are reliable damage dealers. They grind out good damage with low risk.
Warlocks are versatile damage dealers. They take a target out the fight with many methods.

[SCPRedMage]

Stealth Cheese is pretty good, but "hiding" behind an ally is only one step up from the old 3.X "Tower Shield Invisibility" trick (use your tower shield for cover, hide, concealing yourself and all your gear including, of course, your Tower Shield).

Does your tower shield have cover? If someone were to attempt to sunder it, would the shield get a cover bonus? No? Then how can you hide it?

Seriously, this isn't a problem with RAW. It's a problem with how people UNDERSTAND RAW.

For anything to be hidden, it needs cover or concealment. A tower shield can grant YOU cover, but it can't grant ITSELF cover.

[Vortling]

Actually, could someone explain to me what all the rogue stealth at-will utilities do? I've read them over and it really seems like they either overlap completely or do nothing at all.

[The New Bruceski]

Does your tower shield have cover? If someone were to attempt to sunder it, would the shield get a cover bonus? No? Then how can you hide it?

Seriously, this isn't a problem with RAW. It's a problem with how people UNDERSTAND RAW.

For anything to be hidden, it needs cover or concealment. A tower shield can grant YOU cover, but it can't grant ITSELF cover.

But when you hide all your gear goes with you, not "all your gear that isn't giving cover."

[SCPRedMage]

But when you hide all your gear goes with you, not "all your gear that isn't giving cover."

Your gear is hidden because it, too, has cover. Except the tower shield. The tower shield DOESN'T have cover, but everything ELSE you have DOES.

Bottom line: no cover/concealment, no cover. Tower shield can't grant itself cover, then it can't be hidden by virtue of it granting YOU cover.

Any claims otherwise are flawed logic.

EDIT: If it helps any, think of the tower shield as a piece of scenery you can move around. You could hide under a table, but you couldn't hide the table by holding onto it while you hide under it. Same principle.

[The New Bruceski]

Actually, could someone explain to me what all the rogue stealth at-will utilities do? I've read them over and it really seems like they either overlap completely or do nothing at all.

Scenario: Start in view, sneak behind a pillar (pillar1), sneak from there to another pillar (pillar2) and kill a guy standing there (guy 1) (burn an action point so this is all in one turn. Trying to cover all cases.). There is an observer (guy 2) not getting killed whose line of sight is blocked by the first and second pillars but clear in the middle. Guy 1 has clear line of sight once you leave the first pillar.

Normal: full move (>2 squares) to get into cover behind pillar1. Stealth check is -5 versus guy 1 and 2.
Full move behind pillar2. Stealth at -5 vs guy 2, guy 1 automatically sees you, no combat advantage. Both guys saw you move between the pillars.
Guy 2 knows you're behind pillar 2, but you have effects of being hidden.

Fleeting Ghost (level 2): Stealth checks are full instead of -5, otherwise no change.

Chameleon (level 6): If you succeed in Stealth moving behind pillar2, Guy 1 does not see you until it's too late. Combat advantage and sneak attack.

Shadow Stride (level 10): after moving between pillar1 and pillar2, Guy 2 still believes you're behind pillar1 (maybe not in this particular example since you killed a guy back there, but in general.) Shadow Stride is completely better than Fleeting Ghost, use your retraining at level 10.

Moving outside of cover normally makes you visible immediately. Thus as far as I know you cannot make melee stealth attacks until level 6 (though you can get combat advantage other ways).

[The New Bruceski]

Your gear is hidden because it, too, has cover. Except the tower shield. The tower shield DOESN'T have cover, but everything ELSE you have DOES.

Bottom line: no cover/concealment, no cover. Tower shield can't grant itself cover, then it can't be hidden by virtue of it granting YOU cover.

Any claims otherwise are flawed logic.

EDIT: If it helps any, think of the tower shield as a piece of scenery you can move around. You could hide under a table, but you couldn't hide the table by holding onto it while you hide under it. Same principle.

That was the entire nature of the bug in 3.0. I agree that's how it SHOULD have been ruled, but the way it was written that wasn't what happened. It was fixed in 3.5.

[JaxGaret]

So a Rogue who maxes out stealthiness is pretty darn deadly - what's the problem here?

To think that the anti-4e folks were recently complaining that the Fighter was out-Strikering the Rogue; now the complaint is that the Rogue is still the damage champ. What's the next item on the agenda?

[skywalker]

As to the rogue question, they still have to be concealed/covered. I personally wouldn't allow allies to count for that,

What if the rogue is a halfling and the ally is a massive dragonborn?

To the original discussion, I've not seen a ranger(nor read its powers, really) but as has been said, the warlock does good damage every turn while the rogue waits and then absolutely owns with CA.

EDIT: Jax, who was complaining?

[Collin152]

Your gear is hidden because it, too, has cover. Except the tower shield. The tower shield DOESN'T have cover, but everything ELSE you have DOES.

Bottom line: no cover/concealment, no cover. Tower shield can't grant itself cover, then it can't be hidden by virtue of it granting YOU cover.

Any claims otherwise are flawed logic.

EDIT: If it helps any, think of the tower shield as a piece of scenery you can move around. You could hide under a table, but you couldn't hide the table by holding onto it while you hide under it. Same principle.

You do understand what RAW means, don't you?

[Eldmor]

Rogues are the new glass cannons. When in the right situation, they can ream the ever-living crap out of a baddie. If he survives, he'll probably return the favor. Without support from allies, they fall flat on their face.
Rangers are a solid balance of damage and survivability. If something gets in their face, they can go toe-to-toe (2wep) or reliably retreat (arch). Less reliant on allies, but melee occupying baddies helps a lot.
Warlocks are survivalists. They'll never deal as much damage as the Rogue or Ranger, but they have a shopping list of ways to stay out of trouble. One of the best choices for a low PC party or one that consistently needs their rumps saved.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Take Deft Strike and Sly Flourish for your at-wills, and grab the Backstabber feat at level 1. Spam Stealth checks mercilessly without concern for believability or game balance, and you should be able to get Sneak Attack on practically every strike. Either hide behind an ally and use Sly Flourish to shoot them, or if you can flank use Deft Strike for an 80% to 90% hit rate.

This doesn't work at all. Where did you find it?

You must remain in cover or concealment to become "hidden" (PHB 188). Every time you attack, you become revealed (Ibid). You can only gain cover from your allies when you are the target of a ranged attack (PHB 280) so even if Ready a Stealth Check for when you are the target of a ranged attack, you become revealed as soon as the attack has ended (PHB 188; if you are no longer in cover or concealed, you are immediately revealed).

EDIT: oh right, the OP!

So, Rogues are incredibly reliant on Flanking Buddies since there is no more "improved feint." Note that, without at-will Tumbling, it will be slightly harder for Rogues to move into optimal flanking position with every attack without being open to OAs. That said, they are fairly durable (not glass cannons by a long shot!) but should not ever wander into a melee alone.

Warlocks are single-target beasts. They attack well at range, and depending on your Pact Choice, are either decent brawlers (Infernal Warlocks getting free temp HP? Score!) or excellent boss snipers (Fey Warlocks can curse & frag minions to drop into the back ranks where they can Curse and Prime Shot the big bad to pieces.) I'm not sure what you're supposed to do with Astral Warlocks... I guess they're team-players, with all their debuffs. I think their Pact Power is by far the worst, though it can work very well if you use them as Mad Scientist Villains (Have 'em curse 20 peasants and then drop them all in lava at the same time - you now have a +20 to a Knowledge Check ).

Moving on...

Rangers are the reliable strikers. They get tons of extra attacks, but are only able to use their Quarry once per round, so unless you give 'em big weapons (Dual-Wielding Bastard Swords or Longbows) the extra attacks just aren't going to be that neat. But they will hit nearly every time - which is great if you need some minion-killing machines.

[JaxGaret]

4e Rogues are the new glass cannons [just like they were in 3e].

Fixed.

Except that they're a bit more survivable in 4e, so they're actually less of a glass cannon now.

[huttj509]

Fixed.

Except that they're a bit more survivable in 4e, so they're actually less of a glass cannon now.

Pyrex Cannons?

Heavy duty glass cannons?

Corningware Cannons?

Safety Glass Cannons?

What shall the new name be? The world needs to know!

[JaxGaret]

What shall the new name be? The world needs to know!

Fiberglass cannons?

[Oracle_Hunter]

Pyrex Cannons?

Heavy duty glass cannons?

Corningware Cannons?

Safety Glass Cannons?

What shall the new name be? The world needs to know!

Glasswood Cannons

I couldn't resist.

[mikeejimbo]

Plexiglass Cannon?

[skywalker]

So, Rogues are incredibly reliant on Flanking Buddies since there is no more "improved feint." Note that, without at-will Tumbling, it will be slightly harder for Rogues to move into optimal flanking position with every attack without being open to OAs.

There are other ways to get CA, tho. Also, why wouldn't you have a flanking buddy?

[Oracle_Hunter]

There are other ways to get CA, tho. Also, why wouldn't you have a flanking buddy?

Yeah, but it's not as easy as it used to be. Invisibility is hard to get or keep, and as soon as you get within clear line-of-sight you lose your "hidden" status. Plus, since Feinting is a Standard Action, it's risky to rely on it as your primary means of getting CA.

What this does mean is that the "Swashbuckler" types are going to rely more on Sly Flourishes and Easy Target to keep CA without Flanking Buddies.

My 3e Streetfighter can make do with a charge into position followed by Improved Feints, so long as he doesn't get hit too hard... or until I decide to swap into Mithril Breastplates or some nonsense