Wisdom Traps and Perception.

74 posts / 0 new
Last post
Hello,  
 
I am new to the forums.  I have been trying to get some feedback on perception checks and traps.    
 
Wisdom is not really expressed as a nessecary ability score for a rogue.  Yet perception skill is nessecary to find traps.  There is something wrong with the treatment of rogue in 4th editon.  They are no longer the trap finders.  But whomever has the highest wisdom score.  I find this a little odd.  And detremental to the build of a rogue in play. 
I have to ask:  why do you think Rogues are the only people who have eyes and can see a trap?

While Wisdom isn't a main stat, considering that most rogues can simply take Dex and dump everything else, there is nothing stopping a rogue from taking Dex as their primary and wisdom as their second-highest stat, and then having perception trained, since it IS on their class list.  They just won't take as many powers that would ride on, say, Cha.

 
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Hello,  
 
There is something wrong with the treatment of rogue in 4th editon.  They are no longer the trap finders.  But whomever has the highest wisdom score.




Actually, one can easily build a rogue with Wisdom as their third-highest stat, who has a better perception than a Wisdom Cleric, for example.

Say cleric at level 1 has an 18 to wis, so a +4 bonus.  Now has +4 to perception.  Cleric doesn't train in perception, because they have limited skill choices.

Say rogue at level 1 has, say 13 to Wis, so a +1 bonus.  Take Perception as a trained skill.  Now has a +6 bonus.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Hello,  
 
I am new to the forums.  I have been trying to get some feedback on perception checks and traps.    
 
Wisdom is not really expressed as a nessecary ability score for a rogue.  Yet perception skill is nessecary to find traps.  There is something wrong with the treatment of rogue in 4th editon.  They are no longer the trap finders.  But whomever has the highest wisdom score.  I find this a little odd.  And detremental to the build of a rogue in play. 


my rogues would give you the evil eye as they are most definitely not trapfinders.

"aquisition experts" and "treasure hunters", maybe...

but "trapfinders"? never.

that's the fighter's job.

or, specifically, his face. 

maybe the barbarian's too.  

but to shoehorn "trapfinder" into "Rogue" would mean that any group NEEDS a rogue if the gm plans on adding traps. this mean someone, somewhere, will be stuck playing the rogue. kinda like how whoever arrived late to the 2nd ed game got stuck playing the healbot cleric.

one shouldn't strive to make a given class a requirement for group play.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
I have to ask:  why do you think Rogues are the only people who have eyes and can see a trap?

While Wisdom isn't a main stat, considering that most rogues can simply take Dex and dump everything else, there is nothing stopping a rogue from taking Dex as their primary and wisdom as their second-highest stat, and then having perception trained, since it IS on their class list.  They just won't take as many powers that would ride on, say, Cha.

 




I do not think that only rogues have eyes and can see traps.  But that the perception skills does not reflect the nessecary training required to find hidden traps.

To elborate,  an adventuring group  would have to have training to see certain types of latches,  pressure plates etc, that the triggers of traps are based around. (Insert photo of Lidda from 3.5 sitting infront of a disarmed chest and tell me a ranger knows how to do that)  

If anything finding traps should be under dungeonearing(which should be based on INT not WIS).   I will give you an example.  "Rogue encouters a tressure chest,  she examins the chest from all sides, after years of training in the local guild, she reckonizes the "oddly" dimond shaped handle is infact a spring loaded bolt and crossbow hidden inside the chest.  And looks for another way into the chest".  

  I am not saying that you are incorrect in anyway I think that there should be a way for all playesr to spend skill points to detect traps that are not based on wisdom.   But there should be a very specific skill set for finding traps reckonizing dangers in dungeons, such as pitfalls etc.  So it should be under dungeonering not perception.  

Rogues are no longer needed and thus destroy the utility use of the character.  Just my two copper.
Hello,  
 
I am new to the forums.  I have been trying to get some feedback on perception checks and traps.    
 
Wisdom is not really expressed as a nessecary ability score for a rogue.  Yet perception skill is nessecary to find traps.  There is something wrong with the treatment of rogue in 4th editon.  They are no longer the trap finders.  But whomever has the highest wisdom score.  I find this a little odd.  And detremental to the build of a rogue in play. 


my rogues would give you the evil eye as they are most definitely not trapfinders.

"aquisition experts" and "treasure hunters", maybe...

but "trapfinders"? never.

that's the fighter's job.

or, specifically, his face. 

maybe the barbarian's too.  

but to shoehorn "trapfinder" into "Rogue" would mean that any group NEEDS a rogue if the gm plans on adding traps. this mean someone, somewhere, will be stuck playing the rogue. kinda like how whoever arrived late to the 2nd ed game got stuck playing the healbot cleric.

one shouldn't strive to make a given class a requirement for group play.


I always felt that "trapfinder" was a job requirement placed in the fine print of a henchman's contract.
"Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” ~Mark Twain
If your Rogue is "just" a trapfinder, you are missing out on a lot of the things that a Rogue is.

On the other hand, if your Rogue is "just" a Trapfinder then you should have no problems in picking up Wis as your secondary, and then getting Skill Focus in both Perception and Thievery so that you can spot and disable all the traps. 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.

I really liked how 1e and 2e broke down rogue skills.   It really helped to differentiate every rogue from each other and from the other classes.   

That's not to say that other classes shouldn't be trained in some of those skills (Ranger, Bard, etc), I just see the rogue specializing more.     I also see a Burglar being more adept at picking locks than a master pick pocket who is specialized more in slight of hand.    


The 4e thievery skill makes every rogue the same.  Actually, it makes anyone who is trained in thievery capable of doing everything that falls under thievery with equal proficiency. 


 As a result, you can’t have a group of rogues that are specialized in different subskills of theivery as we often see in any great heist movie. 

people still use henchmen? those guys ask for a share of the loot... a 25lbs log doesn't AND doesn't whine for a sip of the 'ol potion skin after "oh noes, i got ker-spear'd!". upgrade your hardware dude.

as for rogues no longer being "required"... that's a good thing. if your class is defined by "finds hidden pointy bits" i think you need to redefine your outlook.

same with clerics no longer being "required".

you shouldn't have to make your D&D party like you would a shopping list...

-Bread
-Milk
-Coffee
-Hotdogs
-Rogue
-Dr.Pepper
-Spagetti
-Cleric
-etc... 
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
 As a result, you can’t have a group of rogues that are specialized in different subskills of theivery as we often see in any great heist movie.



Unless, you know, you actually put some effort into it. Thievery is not Stealth, nor Acrobatics, nor Bluff, nor Diplomacy, nor a Knowledge Skill.

Not to mention when you start adding in Utility powers and Skill powers. 
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
Hello,  
 
I am new to the forums.  I have been trying to get some feedback on perception checks and traps.    
 
Wisdom is not really expressed as a nessecary ability score for a rogue.  Yet perception skill is nessecary to find traps.  There is something wrong with the treatment of rogue in 4th editon.  They are no longer the trap finders.  But whomever has the highest wisdom score.  I find this a little odd.  And detremental to the build of a rogue in play. 




If I recal we often had the ranger or the rogue searching for traps.   Knowledge of traps doesn't help in 4e.  Everything is rolled up into perception which makes even those savage wilderness types experts in finding traps on chests and doors.  
To elborate,  an adventuring group  would have to have training to see certain types of latches,  pressure plates etc, that the triggers of traps are based around. (Insert photo of Lidda from 3.5 sitting infront of a disarmed chest and tell me a ranger knows how to do that)


No, they'd just need training to know something is not quite right. Remember, we're talking about spotting a trap, not disarming one (which would be Thievery).
If anything finding traps should be under dungeonearing.


Depends on the trap, and there is nothing from preventing a DM from requiring a Dungeoneering check to discover an untriggered trap (for instance, I've used it for pressure plates located under a few inches of water).

As for the "it must be INT-based" argument. While it makes logical sense, it does not necessarily make mechanical sense. Attributes are balanced so that they are all equally useful, and one does not take a penalty simply because the class is based on an under-powered attribute. Wisdom and Charisma are the heavy skill-based attributes. Int is mid-range, as it grants an AC bonus. Dex is low-mid range for skills as it also gives an AC bonus and a initiative bonus. Str and Con are bottom of the barrel as they provide damage/to-hit bonuses for MBAs and healing surges. By saying Int should help detect traps, you're shifting the balance.

Besides, why would a rogue that wants to be good at handling traps take a high Int? He'd want a high Dex for the Thievery, and he'd avoid Int because his high Dex score nullifies any AC or Reflex benefit from it. That leaves Wis as a perfect pick-up. If you made Int the primary trap-finding score, the trap monkey would be left with terrible defenses.

I really liked how 1e and 2e broke down rogue skills.   It really helped to differentiate every rogue from each other and from the other classes.   

That's not to say that other classes shouldn't be trained in some of those skills (Ranger, Bard, etc), I just see the rogue specializing more.     I also see a Burglar being more adept at picking locks than a master pick pocket who is specialized more in slight of hand.    


The 4e thievery skill makes every rogue the same.  Actually, it makes anyone who is trained in thievery capable of doing everything that falls under thievery will equal proficiency. 


 As a result, you can’t have a group of rogues that are specialized in different subskills of theivery as we often see in any great heist movie. 




if i was playing GURPS, a game that has a proper skill system built around allocating points, sure. it would be supported for all characters, not just the rogue and "sometimes" the bard & ranger.

as for the Burglar/Master Pickpocket thing... "My character was trained more in burglary so i'm not going take the proficiency bonus to sleight of hand".

yes, 4th ed uses blanket skills. that's because it understands that it's not a game that focuses around individual skills. then again, i never understood why my fighters in 2nd ed couldn't climb or how every not-rogue was stomping around with a neon "I AM RIGHT HERE" sign, unable to hide.
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
By the by, rogues don't have much use for Intelligence, either.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Make a rogue. Take Wisdom as your highest stat. Have fun.


I really liked how 1e and 2e broke down rogue skills.   It really helped to differentiate every rogue from each other and from the other classes.




I can't speak for First Edition, but in regards to Second, you recall incorrectly. Every thief (not rogue) referenced the same table. There was no desicion-making involved. Each thief skill had a percentile chance of success, possibly modified by high dexterity, based on the character's level. That was it.
Make a rogue. Take Wisdom as your highest stat. Have fun.



Or, play a class that uses Dexterity and Wisdom like a monk or ranger, train Perception and Thievery, and call yourself a 'trapfinder'.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Make a rogue. Take Wisdom as your highest stat. Have fun.


I really liked how 1e and 2e broke down rogue skills.   It really helped to differentiate every rogue from each other and from the other classes.




I can't speak for First Edition, but in regards to Second, you recall incorrectly. Every thief (not rogue) referenced the same table. There was no desicion-making involved. Each thief skill had a percentile chance of success, possibly modified by high dexterity, based on the character's level. That was it.



that's not true, each thief level granted you points to distribute on that table making every thief different.  you started at 1st level with 60 discretionary percentage points and each level you received another 30 points.
It's a no-win situation. If the rogue actually has a high wisdom to benefit maximally from his Perception, he is also wise enough to know that the front position (you know, where the person who WILL find the trap...one way or another...goes) is a stupid position to be in.
It's a no-win situation. If the rogue actually has a high wisdom to benefit maximally from his Perception, he is also wise enough to know that the front position (you know, where the person who WILL find the trap...one way or another...goes) is a stupid position to be in.



Actually when exploring a dungeon we typically have our sneaky trap finders way up front outside the party light source.     That way, we at least have the chance to get the drop on the bad guys and avoid surprise attacks.  
the party that stays together, denies all affiliation with each other?
3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
Wisdom represents intuition, instinct, and to a degree even "street smarts". I have no idea how you'd see this as something alien to a Rogue.
EVERY DAY IS HORRIBLE POST DAY ON THE D&D FORUMS. Everything makes me ANGRY (ESPECIALLY you, reader)
I defend 4e all the time. But I do have to admit, Rogues not being able to find traps IS one of the dumbest things in 4e.

That and Monks not actually being able to punch people.
I defend 4e all the time. But I do have to admit, Rogues not being able to find traps IS one of the dumbest things in 4e.

That and Monks not actually being able to punch people.



Huh? I've played rogues that can find traps and monks that most certainly punch people.  I have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because a Ranger is better at spotting traps does not mean the rogue can't do it. 
I defend 4e all the time. But I do have to admit, Rogues not being able to find traps IS one of the dumbest things in 4e.

That and Monks not actually being able to punch people.



Huh? I've played rogues that can find traps and monks that most certainly punch people.  I have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because a Ranger is better at spotting traps does not mean the rogue can't do it. 


Don't be obtuse. A cleric, a avenger, or hell even a Wizard is going to pants a rogue at trapfinding. Seriously, my wizard is 49 passive perception at level 22. Try doing that with a rogue.

And monks can't punch since they are a dex based class and they aren't awarded melee training (old style) by their class. See Thief essentials build for how this should go.

This is simple stuff guy. 
I defend 4e all the time. But I do have to admit, Rogues not being able to find traps IS one of the dumbest things in 4e.

That and Monks not actually being able to punch people.



Huh? I've played rogues that can find traps and monks that most certainly punch people.  I have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because a Ranger is better at spotting traps does not mean the rogue can't do it. 


Don't be obtuse. A cleric, a avenger, or hell even a Wizard is going to pants a rogue at trapfinding. Seriously, my wizard is 49 passive perception at level 22. Try doing that with a rogue.

And monks can't punch since they are a dex based class and they aren't awarded melee training (old style) by their class. See Thief essentials build for how this should go.

This is simple stuff guy. 



Five Storms?  Punching people.
Crane's Wings?  Punching people.
Dragon's Tail?  Punching people.
Every single melee or close burst 1 attack monks make?  Punching people.
Close burst 2+ or close blasts?  Running around and punching people.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Don't be obtuse. A cleric, a avenger, or hell even a Wizard is going to pants a rogue at trapfinding. Seriously, my wizard is 49 passive perception at level 22. Try doing that with a rogue.


That's actually good design. It means the rogue's ability to scout ahead does not nullify the perception checks of everyone else in the party, and that more players can participate in handling traps. It also means that, unlike in 3.5, the rogue actually has some flexibility in the skills he chooses, as opposed to having three of his choices pre-selected for him, as other party members can pick up the slack.

All that, and the rogue is still the best at the overall handling of traps, even if others outshine him in specific areas.

I also sympathize with the OP. It was never said that the rogue had to be the only person able to find traps, or that it was impossible to build a rogue that is good at finding traps. The OP is merely noting that a rogue who takes one of the normal secondary stats (STR or CHA) isn't very good at finding traps. Finding traps IS one of the traditional iconic functions of the rogue, afterall.

I've always thought it would be good to make a wisdom based build for the rogue with more of an emphasis on dungeon exploration than the present rogue possesses. Short of that, perhaps a house rule that thievery may be used to search for mechanical traps could be used (it's inelegant, and creates an equally puzzling situation of why dexterity makes one better at finding traps--but it does restore rogues to their rightful spot as master trapfinders).
Don't be obtuse.

He's not being obtuse. He's pointing out that a Rogue *can* be effective at trap finding. This isn't the Optimization Board where every decision is made in relation to their efficacy against all other decisions.
A cleric, a avenger, or hell even a Wizard is going to pants a rogue at trapfinding.

IF they put points into perception. Those who do are sacrificing their limited trainable skill slots, which is fine. But if they did so, then the party Rogue should not waste his or her skill resources to duplicate it. A 4e party is quite effective when it works together, and this is one of those areas that proves it.
Seriously, my wizard is 49 passive perception at level 22. Try doing that with a rogue.

Why? If the Wizard has a 49 passive perception at level 22, the Rogue can spend his skill resource development on removing the traps his buddy the Wizard keeps finding.

But if there is an all-Rogue party, such that there is no Cleric or Wizard or Avenger to pour Wisdom-assisted points into Perception, at least one of the Rogues is perfectly capable of doing so.

And all of this is IF we want to think of "the Rogue" as the trapfinder. Another beauty of 4e is that I can build just about *any* class to meet my character concept. And if I want a superb and sneaky trapfinder, I'll likely build a Ranger instead of a Rogue. He'll still be a rogue, just not a Rogue.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
Don't be obtuse. A cleric, a avenger, or hell even a Wizard is going to pants a rogue at trapfinding.

IF they put points into perception. Those who do are sacrificing their limited trainable skill slots, which is fine. But if they did, then the party rogue should not waste his or her skill resources to duplicate it. A 4e party is quite effective when it works together, and this is one of those areas that proves it.
Seriously, my wizard is 49 passive perception at level 22. Try doing that with a rogue.

Why? If the wizard has a 49 passive perception at level 22, the rogue can spend his skill resource development on removing the traps his buddy the wizard keeps finding.



Exactly.  That's called teamwork.  Teamwork is to be encouraged.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
While it is unfortunate that rogues don't have much use for wisdom, this is far from headline news. In fact, I can't recall a single edition where rogues got much mileage out of wisdom.

It's a no-win situation. If the rogue actually has a high wisdom to benefit maximally from his Perception, he is also wise enough to know that the front position (you know, where the person who WILL find the trap...one way or another...goes) is a stupid position to be in.


Haha, here have a cookie!
I find it puzzling how the OP insists that only Rogues know what traps look like.

So, a Cleric who notices blood splatters on the ground with large openings in the hallways is not going to deduce that there might be a pendulum trap or something like that?

Rogues are also the people who do "open that door."  Does that mean you're going to prevent the Wizard from just using Magic Missile on the door until it blows of it's hinges?

I don't like having classes that are completely shoehorned into "your class does this" besides the concepts of striker/defender/leader/controller.  It's a decision that's forced upon the player, instead of a decision chosen by the player.  It also reminds me a bit of the old 3.5 alignment restrictions, I guess.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
I find it puzzling how the OP insists that only Rogues know what traps look like. ... It also reminds me a bit of the old 3.5 alignment restrictions, I guess.



That's exactly it, editionitis.  In 3e, only classes with the ability 'trapfinding' could locate or disarm traps that were magical or above a certain difficulty level; the rogue was one (I'm not sure how many others popped up in splatbooks).  This resulted in 'we gotta have a rogue', which sucked because what if nobody wanted to play a rogue?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I defend 4e all the time. But I do have to admit, Rogues not being able to find traps IS one of the dumbest things in 4e.

That and Monks not actually being able to punch people.



Huh? I've played rogues that can find traps and monks that most certainly punch people.  I have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because a Ranger is better at spotting traps does not mean the rogue can't do it. 


Don't be obtuse. A cleric, a avenger, or hell even a Wizard is going to pants a rogue at trapfinding. Seriously, my wizard is 49 passive perception at level 22. Try doing that with a rogue.

And monks can't punch since they are a dex based class and they aren't awarded melee training (old style) by their class. See Thief essentials build for how this should go.

This is simple stuff guy. 



I'm obtuse because you can't figure out how to make a rogue that's good at trapfinding or a monk that's good at hitting people? It's simple stuff guy.

I get that you're afflicted with the curse of hyperbole, but c'mon.  Just because you can munch-out a wizard (I have to admit, I've got no idea how you can possibly have a 49 passive perception) does not mean it's impossible to make a rogue who's competent.

Apparently to some people if you can't be the best, then you can't do it at all.
I find it puzzling how the OP insists that only Rogues know what traps look like. ... It also reminds me a bit of the old 3.5 alignment restrictions, I guess.



That's exactly it, editionitis.  In 3e, only classes with the ability 'trapfinding' could locate or disarm traps that were magical or above a certain difficulty level; the rogue was one (I'm not sure how many others popped up in splatbooks).  This resulted in 'we gotta have a rogue', which sucked because what if nobody wanted to play a rogue?

Yup, and the fact that it is now 'Rogue' and not 'Thief' is for a reason. 4e classes are not pigeonholed in this way. You could be a fighter and be quite credible at finding traps etc.

In fact this all makes perfectly good sense compared to the 2e Thief where you got the points to distribute. Except in that edition ALL of those things were boosted by DEX, which never did entirely make sense... Still, you could be good at climbing, or pick pocketing, or sneaking, etc but not all of them. Now lets see, the 4e equivalent is you can be good at climbing (STR rogue), pick pocketing/lock picking (well, all Rogues will be decent at this), and/or sneaking, and you have options to be streetwise (CHA), or perceptive and maybe knowledgable about dungeons (WIS). It is pretty much the same way.

Oh, and in 1e AD&D Thieves just had a fixed value in every thief skill, there were no choices at all, you just read your chance off a table plus a racial and dex modifier (or often penalty in the case of race).
That is not dead which may eternal lie
Not having wisdom as a primary doesn't make it impossible for a Rogue to find traps.  It just means that they aren't the hands-down best at finding traps (Training is generally enough to reliably hit medium and hard DCs often enough though heroic and early paragon at least).  But this was true in 3e as well; Or it would be if the class-limited Trap Finding feature wasn't required to find traps over 20, and effectively limiting trap-finding to Rogues and very small handful of niche classes.  Otherwise, Wizards and Psions would have made the best counter-trappers since both Search and Disable Device were Int-based.

Not having wisdom as a primary score will only the rogue at most a +10 modifier behind by 30st level, all other things being equal.  This assume that the rogue starts with a 8 in wis (which will eventually increase to a 10), and that the other character starts with a 20, increases wis at every opportunity, and takes an epic destiny that can boost wis.  In practice, the difference will likely be closer to +7, assuming the trap-focused rogue starts with at least 12 in wis and the other character starts with an 18 post racials.  And the rogue could easily make that up by investing in Skill Focus and item bonuses.

Or, as others mentioned, if you simply must play a optimized trap-finder Rogue and not some other class, you could ignore the issue completely and take wis as your primary or secondary anyway.  Between multiclassing, hybriding, theme powers, power swap feats, and hundreds of powers, there has to be at least one way to build a rogue that doesn't rely on its normal secondaries.

Thinking about creating a race for 4e? Make things a lil' easier on yourself by reading my Race Mechanic Creation Guide first.
Also remember what your stats say about your character.
An 8 WIS rogue is probably a mouth breathing thug waiting for "Da Boss" to tell him who to thump.

Kind of like an 8 INT cleric dose not spend all his free time reading comperative theology he just qoutes the verses he learned by rote in his youth. 
The sea looks at the stabillity of the mountian and sighs. The mountian watches the freedom of the sea and cries.
Actually, let's be honest.  In 3e, the rogue just used Use Magic Device and a Wand with Find Traps and Knock ...

Sea-Envy: An 8 is not that big of a penalty.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Seriously, I'm on board with you guys about 99% of the time. This is one area that just sucks. Scouting ahead is a trope both in traditional play and the wider genre of fantasy. That rogue are deprived in their ability to fit into this role is a deficiency.

And all Melee Strikers need to be able to make MBAs at least equal to their at-wills in to hit and (roughly) to damage, period. Thiefs can. Monks cannot. That's just silly.
Seriously, I'm on board with you guys about 99% of the time. This is one area that just sucks. Scouting ahead is a trope both in traditional play and the wider genre of fantasy. That rogue are deprived in their ability to fit into this role is a deficiency.



And here I thought Stealth was the skill that determined scouting ahead.... you know since the whole you seeing the ambush and the ambush seeing you thing moreso results in a quick death than actual scouting. Is it anything like when a fighter/warden/paladin/etc. is deprived of the strong-man trop because they (possibly) don't have the CON to make em the best at Endurance? Or the Cha to be the equally as troped Strong, silent, intimdating quiet guy? Or Wis/Cha to be the even more troped Strong, silent guy who doesn't take your crap cause he knows your lying? 



And all Melee Strikers need to be able to make MBAs at least equal to their at-wills in to hit and (roughly) to damage, period. Thiefs can. Monks cannot. That's just silly.



Last I checked Avengers and Rogues didn't have MBA's equal to their at-wills in to hit and damage either.... with the Avengers exception being pretty much only if they pick a Deity with the Domain of skill. Clearly they are both much more terrible strikers than I thought!



"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."-Douglas Adams
Actually, let's be honest.  In 3e, the rogue just used Use Magic Device and a Wand with Find Traps and Knock ...

Sea-Envy: An 8 is not that big of a penalty.



I know it's not a big penalty but it is the biggest penalty you can start with and it is an active choice by the player to have a -1. It is as much a defineing part of your character as any thing else. "Boy that guy is Clueless / Dumb / Weak" what have you. To a degree I feel these flaws should be exagerated a little so that people understand that it IS A THING, even if it is not a big thing.

To an extent people are makeing a character that is bad at one class of skills and complaining that they are not good at those skills.  A 14 is good enough as others have said.

Also why just WIS-perception?
Unless you are a brutal scoundrel you don't need STR so if you put 8 in STR and are the sneaky little rat you can't climb very well.  
The sea looks at the stabillity of the mountian and sighs. The mountian watches the freedom of the sea and cries.
Actually, let's be honest.  In 3e, the rogue just used Use Magic Device and a Wand with Find Traps and Knock ...

Sea-Envy: An 8 is not that big of a penalty.



I know it's not a big penalty but it is the biggest penalty you can start with and it is an active choice by the player to have a -1. It is as much a defineing part of your character as any thing else. "Boy that guy is Clueless / Dumb / Weak" what have you. To a degree I feel these flaws should be exagerated a little so that people understand that it IS A THING, even if it is not a big thing.

To an extent people are makeing a character that is bad at one class of skills and complaining that they are not good at those skills.  A 14 is good enough as others have said.

Also why just WIS-perception?
Unless you are a brutal scoundrel you don't need STR so if you put 8 in STR and are the sneaky little rat you can't climb very well.  



You're rigjt.  Stats should say something more about your character that some arbitrary math.  Certainly your dump-stat and your max-stat in the very least.  A character with an 8 Int or Wis may not be a complete moron, but they're not no intellectual either.
Sign In to post comments