Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant,
And that is the objection and proposed change. Because we can propose it now, as they’re preparing a new iteration of the rules.
And Clerics Have to have channel divinity,
But they don’t have to have heavy armor proficiency. They can make a basic choice, up front, picking from one set of proficiencies vs another set of things, via their Divine Order. What is so difficult about that same thing being applied to the Rogue?
The language on TOP of this is already an additional change that allows you to have your cake and eat it to. You get the language AND thieves cant rather than just thieves cant.
Where did I say “a language on top of thieves cant”, as opposed to a language instead of thieves cant?
so it is just a replacement for those […] features
Yep. Just a replacement for a hard coded set of features. Your War Cleric doesn’t have to have heavy armor now, and can pick some other benefit instead. Your Trickery Cleric CAN have martial weapons now.
See how that works?
Because you can't pick trickery or War at level 1 anymore.
Right, at first level you pick a set of options that used to be hard coded. You can prepare your character in the same way as the old set up, or a different way. And you can end up with a Trickery Cleric who has martial weapons… or a War Cleric who does not.
So the idea is take away a language from rogues in that case
No. It is to give them a choice about their language. And they can still pick the same language as before… or a different one.
Why should a rogue get an extra language at all then? Why should they have an extra tool proficiency at all?
That’s not the proposal. The proposal is a substitution for the two proficiencies, not a net subtraction, nor a net addition. And the substitution also allows you to maintain status quo (again, with no net subtraction nor net addition).
Status quo is net subtraction from Current UA. And if you are just going to subtract from the current UA. why should they have it at all?
If these aren't the tools why should they get extra tools at all? What part of being a rogue means they should get a language or a tool?
I understand the proposition, the reason doesn't make sense. The only reason the tools and the language exists is because it is part of the flavor of the class. If you don't want the flavor, than why should they have it at all?
You can get any tools you need for the flavor of your rogue from your background. Same with languages. These features are here for the class flavor. So if you are just going to toss the flavor why not just toss the features entirely?
Right now your arguments support throwing it out entirely not your proposal.
Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant,
And that is the objection and proposed change. Because we can propose it now, as they’re preparing a new iteration of the rules.
And Clerics Have to have channel divinity,
But they don’t have to have heavy armor proficiency. They can make a basic choice, up front, picking from one set of proficiencies vs another set of things, via their Divine Order. What is so difficult about that same thing being applied to the Rogue?
The language on TOP of this is already an additional change that allows you to have your cake and eat it to. You get the language AND thieves cant rather than just thieves cant.
Where did I say “a language on top of thieves cant”, as opposed to a language instead of thieves cant?
so it is just a replacement for those […] features
Yep. Just a replacement for a hard coded set of features. Your War Cleric doesn’t have to have heavy armor now, and can pick some other benefit instead. Your Trickery Cleric CAN have martial weapons now.
See how that works?
Because you can't pick trickery or War at level 1 anymore.
Right, at first level you pick a set of options that used to be hard coded. You can prepare your character in the same way as the old set up, or a different way. And you can end up with a Trickery Cleric who has martial weapons… or a War Cleric who does not.
So the idea is take away a language from rogues in that case
No. It is to give them a choice about their language. And they can still pick the same language as before… or a different one.
Why should a rogue get an extra language at all then? Why should they have an extra tool proficiency at all?
That’s not the proposal. The proposal is a substitution for the two proficiencies, not a net subtraction, nor a net addition. And the substitution also allows you to maintain status quo (again, with no net subtraction nor net addition).
If you could pick all of that at level 1 with cleric you would have a point it wasn't decoupled for more options or because clerics were expected to have more options, it was done so they could still get heavy armor at level 1 and buy chain mail with their starting gold if they wanted. It was done as COMPENSATION for pushing the subclasses back 2 levels
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Mechanics aren’t the only way to answer the question.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill.
Is that what I said? no, not in any way. I’m not the one who is saying that because one Rogue is good at X, all Rogues should be good at X. It would take a pretty severe misreading of what I have said to derive that conclusion.
They all must have a disguise kit?
When did I mention a disguise kit for that character?
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards?
With Thieves Cant? Not depicted for them in any way (and I would call back to their era of TV: it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to portray them with such a specifically criminal culture skill). And not what I would pick for my character based on them, either. With some other non-verbal language? possibly, but not Thieves Cant. Just not a good fit for how the source characters were portrayed.
My question specifically, was how do you communicate being an unscrupulous individual THROUGH MECHANICS... as a CLASS. Mechanically how do you show that a class in unscrupulous? That was the question. That is why I said you did not answer that question. Here you admit. That you did not answer that question.
You asked how I would
“How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class?”
I answered THAT by mentioning the character idea as a Rogue. Then I described their personality … because the state of being unscrupulous is a personality feature. Nor do the mechanics we are discussing establish being unscrupulous, so it’s neither here nor there. Knowing Thieves Cant establishes knowledge of, and immersion in, criminal cultures, but that alone doesn’t establish that the speaker is unscrupulous. Knowing Thieves Cant doesn’t in any way mechanically show someone to be unscrupulous.
Thieves cant doesn't say it is verbal. it says.
I didn’t say it is,
Right IN AN RPG AS A CLASS... that is mechanical...
And I gave the class in the answer. I mentioned rogue and roguish. Mechanics were addressed.
Thieves tool proficiency sure shows someone to be unscrupulous.
So now you’re saying only unscrupulous people would use them? Not merely someone trying to disarm a trap for legitimate reasons? That seems to contradict several pages of these comments. Because the other side of that is: not all definitions of Rogue (dictionary or class) imply unscrupulousness… but this line above implies that knowing how to use them makes you unscrupulous. Your own quotation of the rules includes crime fighters… so now all crime fighting Rogues are unscrupulous about it?
allows for discreet communication, which is itself unscrupulous.
A husband and wife giving each other the nod across the room of “it’s time to go home” is unscrupulous? Or giving a hand signal because they don’t want to wake the baby? Or two people using sign language so as to not disrupt a quiet room? Or to not distract from a person giving a speech?
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Mechanics aren’t the only way to answer the question.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill.
Is that what I said? no, not in any way. I’m not the one who is saying that because one Rogue is good at X, all Rogues should be good at X. It would take a pretty severe misreading of what I have said to derive that conclusion.
They all must have a disguise kit?
When did I mention a disguise kit for that character?
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards?
With Thieves Cant? Not depicted for them in any way (and I would call back to their era of TV: it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to portray them with such a specifically criminal culture skill). And not what I would pick for my character based on them, either. With some other non-verbal language? possibly, but not Thieves Cant. Just not a good fit for how the source characters were portrayed.
My question specifically, was how do you communicate being an unscrupulous individual THROUGH MECHANICS... as a CLASS. Mechanically how do you show that a class in unscrupulous? That was the question. That is why I said you did not answer that question. Here you admit. That you did not answer that question.
You asked how I would
“How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class?”
I answered THAT by mentioning the character idea as a Rogue. Then I described their personality … because the state of being unscrupulous is a personality feature. Nor do the mechanics we are discussing establish being unscrupulous, so it’s neither here nor there. Knowing Thieves Cant establishes knowledge of, and immersion in, criminal cultures, but that alone doesn’t establish that the speaker is unscrupulous. Knowing Thieves Cant doesn’t in any way mechanically show someone to be unscrupulous.
Thieves cant doesn't say it is verbal. it says.
I didn’t say it is,
Right IN AN RPG AS A CLASS... that is mechanical...
And I gave the class in the answer. I mentioned rogue and roguish. Mechanics were addressed.
Naming a class as part of a description is not making a class. Mechanics were not addressed at all. Just stop.
Also please find me a different definition of rogue that isn't unprincipled or dishonest.
Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant,
And that is the objection and proposed change. Because we can propose it now, as they’re preparing a new iteration of the rules.
And Clerics Have to have channel divinity,
But they don’t have to have heavy armor proficiency. They can make a basic choice, up front, picking from one set of proficiencies vs another set of things, via their Divine Order. What is so difficult about that same thing being applied to the Rogue?
The language on TOP of this is already an additional change that allows you to have your cake and eat it to. You get the language AND thieves cant rather than just thieves cant.
Where did I say “a language on top of thieves cant”, as opposed to a language instead of thieves cant?
so it is just a replacement for those […] features
Yep. Just a replacement for a hard coded set of features. Your War Cleric doesn’t have to have heavy armor now, and can pick some other benefit instead. Your Trickery Cleric CAN have martial weapons now.
See how that works?
Because you can't pick trickery or War at level 1 anymore.
Right, at first level you pick a set of options that used to be hard coded. You can prepare your character in the same way as the old set up, or a different way. And you can end up with a Trickery Cleric who has martial weapons… or a War Cleric who does not.
So the idea is take away a language from rogues in that case
No. It is to give them a choice about their language. And they can still pick the same language as before… or a different one.
Why should a rogue get an extra language at all then? Why should they have an extra tool proficiency at all?
That’s not the proposal. The proposal is a substitution for the two proficiencies, not a net subtraction, nor a net addition. And the substitution also allows you to maintain status quo (again, with no net subtraction nor net addition).
If you could pick all of that at level 1 with cleric you would have a point it wasn't decoupled for more options or because clerics were expected to have more options, it was done so they could still get heavy armor at level 1 and buy chain mail with their starting gold if they wanted. It was done as COMPENSATION for pushing the subclasses back 2 levels
Why it was decoupled isn’t the issue: that it was decoupled is the issue.
At first level a Cleric makes a choice that we previously associated with their subclass. A choice they can use to reinforce how it used to be done, or that can go in a completely different direction than the old way. Or they might make a choice at 1st level in anticipation of picking subclass A .. but then they end up picking a different subclass (making for individual flavor).
At 1st level, a Rogue is not given the choice to do the same, They are still pigeonholed with a pair of proficiencies that may or may not actually be serving the subclass they pick 2 levels later.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Mechanics aren’t the only way to answer the question.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill.
Is that what I said? no, not in any way. I’m not the one who is saying that because one Rogue is good at X, all Rogues should be good at X. It would take a pretty severe misreading of what I have said to derive that conclusion.
They all must have a disguise kit?
When did I mention a disguise kit for that character?
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards?
With Thieves Cant? Not depicted for them in any way (and I would call back to their era of TV: it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to portray them with such a specifically criminal culture skill). And not what I would pick for my character based on them, either. With some other non-verbal language? possibly, but not Thieves Cant. Just not a good fit for how the source characters were portrayed.
My question specifically, was how do you communicate being an unscrupulous individual THROUGH MECHANICS... as a CLASS. Mechanically how do you show that a class in unscrupulous? That was the question. That is why I said you did not answer that question. Here you admit. That you did not answer that question.
You asked how I would
“How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class?”
I answered THAT by mentioning the character idea as a Rogue. Then I described their personality … because the state of being unscrupulous is a personality feature. Nor do the mechanics we are discussing establish being unscrupulous, so it’s neither here nor there. Knowing Thieves Cant establishes knowledge of, and immersion in, criminal cultures, but that alone doesn’t establish that the speaker is unscrupulous. Knowing Thieves Cant doesn’t in any way mechanically show someone to be unscrupulous.
Thieves cant doesn't say it is verbal. it says.
I didn’t say it is,
Right IN AN RPG AS A CLASS... that is mechanical...
And I gave the class in the answer. I mentioned rogue and roguish. Mechanics were addressed.
Naming a class as part of a description is not making a class. Mechanics were not addressed at all. Just stop.
I don’t need to make a whole class, I can reference an existing template.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Mechanics aren’t the only way to answer the question.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill.
Is that what I said? no, not in any way. I’m not the one who is saying that because one Rogue is good at X, all Rogues should be good at X. It would take a pretty severe misreading of what I have said to derive that conclusion.
They all must have a disguise kit?
When did I mention a disguise kit for that character?
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards?
With Thieves Cant? Not depicted for them in any way (and I would call back to their era of TV: it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to portray them with such a specifically criminal culture skill). And not what I would pick for my character based on them, either. With some other non-verbal language? possibly, but not Thieves Cant. Just not a good fit for how the source characters were portrayed.
My question specifically, was how do you communicate being an unscrupulous individual THROUGH MECHANICS... as a CLASS. Mechanically how do you show that a class in unscrupulous? That was the question. That is why I said you did not answer that question. Here you admit. That you did not answer that question.
You asked how I would
“How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class?”
I answered THAT by mentioning the character idea as a Rogue. Then I described their personality … because the state of being unscrupulous is a personality feature. Nor do the mechanics we are discussing establish being unscrupulous, so it’s neither here nor there. Knowing Thieves Cant establishes knowledge of, and immersion in, criminal cultures, but that alone doesn’t establish that the speaker is unscrupulous. Knowing Thieves Cant doesn’t in any way mechanically show someone to be unscrupulous.
Thieves cant doesn't say it is verbal. it says.
I didn’t say it is,
Right IN AN RPG AS A CLASS... that is mechanical...
And I gave the class in the answer. I mentioned rogue and roguish. Mechanics were addressed.
Naming a class as part of a description is not making a class. Mechanics were not addressed at all. Just stop.
I don’t need to make a whole class, I can reference an existing template.
I am not asking you to make a whole class. I am asking you to show a mechanical feature that suggests a dishonest or unprincipled person as a class. Right from level 1. How do you communicate that this is a Rogue to the player.
Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant,
And that is the objection and proposed change. Because we can propose it now, as they’re preparing a new iteration of the rules.
And Clerics Have to have channel divinity,
But they don’t have to have heavy armor proficiency. They can make a basic choice, up front, picking from one set of proficiencies vs another set of things, via their Divine Order. What is so difficult about that same thing being applied to the Rogue?
The language on TOP of this is already an additional change that allows you to have your cake and eat it to. You get the language AND thieves cant rather than just thieves cant.
Where did I say “a language on top of thieves cant”, as opposed to a language instead of thieves cant?
so it is just a replacement for those […] features
Yep. Just a replacement for a hard coded set of features. Your War Cleric doesn’t have to have heavy armor now, and can pick some other benefit instead. Your Trickery Cleric CAN have martial weapons now.
See how that works?
Because you can't pick trickery or War at level 1 anymore.
Right, at first level you pick a set of options that used to be hard coded. You can prepare your character in the same way as the old set up, or a different way. And you can end up with a Trickery Cleric who has martial weapons… or a War Cleric who does not.
So the idea is take away a language from rogues in that case
No. It is to give them a choice about their language. And they can still pick the same language as before… or a different one.
Why should a rogue get an extra language at all then? Why should they have an extra tool proficiency at all?
That’s not the proposal. The proposal is a substitution for the two proficiencies, not a net subtraction, nor a net addition. And the substitution also allows you to maintain status quo (again, with no net subtraction nor net addition).
If you could pick all of that at level 1 with cleric you would have a point it wasn't decoupled for more options or because clerics were expected to have more options, it was done so they could still get heavy armor at level 1 and buy chain mail with their starting gold if they wanted. It was done as COMPENSATION for pushing the subclasses back 2 levels
Why it was decoupled isn’t the issue: that it was decoupled is the issue.
At first level a Cleric makes a choice that we previously associated with their subclass. A choice they can use to reinforce how it used to be done, or that can go in a completely different direction than the old way. Or they might make a choice at 1st level in anticipation of picking subclass A .. but then they end up picking a different subclass (making for individual flavor).
At 1st level, a Rogue is not given the choice to do the same, They are still pigeonholed with a pair of proficiencies that may or may not actually be serving the subclass they pick 2 levels later.
Why matters and it has always mattered, and it shall always matter. The decoupling was done because the subclasses were pushed back 2 levels. They can't make the choice to get heavy armor from a subclass at level 1, or get skills or cantrips from a subclass at level 1 anymore because you can't get a subclass at level 1. The decoupling was a way to fix the level 1 cleric.
The Bard is pigeon holed into instruments. The Barbarian is pigeon holed into medium armor and a shield, the Cleric is pigeon holed into shields, the Druid is pigeon holed into Druidic language, the Fighter is pigeon holed into heavy armor and martial weapons, The monk is pigeon holed into unarmed attacks and having no martial weapons, the Paladin is pigeon holed into melee for smiting, the Ranger is pigeon holed into natural terrains, the sorcerer is pigeon holed into charisma for spell casting, warlocks are pigeon holed into eldritch blast, Wizards are pigeon holed into having a spell book. It is called being a class in an RPG. Classes get features that help define the flavor of that class. They get proficiencies that help define the flavor of that class.
Edit: Ask this question with the Cleric. The holy orders do they communicate a type of Cleric independent of a subclass? Is there anything about them that says "what does that have to do with a cleric?" without having the subclass included
Now ask that question with the rogue and language. What does sylvan have to do with being a rogue. What does dwarvish have to do with being a rogue? Lets go to tools. What does pottery have to do with being a rogue? The subclass isn't for 2 more levels, and has nothing to do with level 1. Being a magic focused or martial focused cleric does have to do with being a cleric at level 1.
A police investigator doesn't need Thieves Tools in order to search for evidence. Not even evidence inside of a locked drawer. Having the weight of the local authority on your side, you can just smash the lock if the owner wont open it for you. Nor do they need Thieves Cant to interrogate people.
A police investigator doesn't need to be a rogue, an investigator who can't pick locks or understand thieves cant is a generic guard not a specialized investigator and is a fighter not a rogue.
A charming womanizing gambler is a bard not a rogue (stop using a double standard where "rogue" is defined as used in common parlance and "bard" is defined as per the class, a "bard" in common parlance has nothing at all to do with magic, and D&D bards can flavour their magic as silly songs, jokes, charming personality, etc.. just as artificers flavour their magic as tools / inventions / engineering)
There is a fantastic book called "Rogues" with a collection of short stories in a wide variety of settings all focused on rogue characters and they all demonstrate familiarity with at least one of Thieve's Cant or Thieves tools.
A Lawful Good non-magical non-shady person can be a fighter, barbarian, paladin, artificer or monk. Personality doesn't define class - you can be a smirking sarcastic monk, paladin, barbarians or fighter, you can be a clever and quick witted fighter, barbarian, paladin, artificer or monk. Every class and character gets skill proficiencies, and Skill Expert gives anyone who wants it Expertise, you don't need to be a rogue in order to be someone who isn't utterly incompetent at everything.
Beyond simply Thieves Cant and Thieves tools, "Sneak Attack" - the core mechanic of the class - is explicitly an underhanded dishonourable way of fighting, it is stabbing someone in the back while they are distracted, or cutting someone's throat while they are incapacitated, or throwing sand in their eyes then stabbing them in the gut, or stabbing someone when they are already down after tripping over your trip wire, or hiding in a barrel and popping out to shoot someone with a crossbow.
A non-magical intelligent combatant is a Dex-Fighter with Skill Expert, they aren't a Rogue. A non-criminal swashbuckler is a Swords Bard or Paladin, not a Rogue. A non-shady intelligent resourceful improviser is an Artificer, not a Rogue. A courtier who gets what they want by talking to people forging alliances and diplomacy without using poisons or literally stabbing their enemies in the back is a Bard or a Paladin, not a Rogue.
sorry to combo-break, but can someone lurking provide a brief synopsis of the last three pages of the "all rogues are bastards!" vs "a few bad apples!" debate?
i missed a day and yet somehow everyone still seems to be powering up and recapping previous episodes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Mechanics aren’t the only way to answer the question.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill.
Is that what I said? no, not in any way. I’m not the one who is saying that because one Rogue is good at X, all Rogues should be good at X. It would take a pretty severe misreading of what I have said to derive that conclusion.
They all must have a disguise kit?
When did I mention a disguise kit for that character?
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards?
With Thieves Cant? Not depicted for them in any way (and I would call back to their era of TV: it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to portray them with such a specifically criminal culture skill). And not what I would pick for my character based on them, either. With some other non-verbal language? possibly, but not Thieves Cant. Just not a good fit for how the source characters were portrayed.
My question specifically, was how do you communicate being an unscrupulous individual THROUGH MECHANICS... as a CLASS. Mechanically how do you show that a class in unscrupulous? That was the question. That is why I said you did not answer that question. Here you admit. That you did not answer that question.
You asked how I would
“How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class?”
I answered THAT by mentioning the character idea as a Rogue. Then I described their personality … because the state of being unscrupulous is a personality feature. Nor do the mechanics we are discussing establish being unscrupulous, so it’s neither here nor there. Knowing Thieves Cant establishes knowledge of, and immersion in, criminal cultures, but that alone doesn’t establish that the speaker is unscrupulous. Knowing Thieves Cant doesn’t in any way mechanically show someone to be unscrupulous.
Thieves cant doesn't say it is verbal. it says.
I didn’t say it is,
Right IN AN RPG AS A CLASS... that is mechanical...
And I gave the class in the answer. I mentioned rogue and roguish. Mechanics were addressed.
Naming a class as part of a description is not making a class. Mechanics were not addressed at all. Just stop.
I don’t need to make a whole class, I can reference an existing template.
I am not asking you to make a whole class.
And yet, when I referenced it via short hand or trope, you balk.
I am asking you to show a mechanical feature that suggests a dishonest or unprincipled person as a class.
And I'm telling you those are personality traits.
Right from level 1. How do you communicate that this is a Rogue to the player.
Not by something so cliched and clunky as revealing that they're carrying Thieves Tools or having them slip up and use Thieves Cant in front of the PCs.
There are LOTS of ways I can communicate that they've met a Rogue, without mechanics.
Are they (by archetype, not yet subclass) an actual thief? Maybe the PCs witness them picking someone's pocket. Are they (by archetype, not yet subclass) a swashbuckler? Dressed like Porthos or Errol Flynn or maybe even Barron Munchausen, wearing a rapier or other finesse sword on their hip, dressed more for social impression than armor. Are they (by archetype, not yet subclass) a scout? Unkempt, uncombed hair, maybe some slight traces of wilderness (stray leaves, grass stains, etc.) on their utilitarian skirmisher's type clothes. Are they (by archetype, not yet subclass) a inquisitive? They're clearly people watchers, and dressed to be unimpressive and not attract attention to themselves. Are they an "Expert"? They have the garb and trappings of their trade. Are they an Assassin? I wouldn't communicate that to the players at all.
Overall, I think "let Rogues swap in an extra tool and an extra language, in exchange for the thieves' stuff" would be a fine option, especially since they're the archetypal "expert" class. It might tread on Artificer's toes a little bit, but I'm OK with that (Artificer treads on Rogue's toes a little bit, too).
However...Thieves' Tools are, far and away, the most useful adventuring toolset. I have trouble imagining a player (of a dungeon-delving adventurer rogue) giving them up. And I think, flavor-wise, they make really good sense for investigators and cops and scouts and tinkerers and other "expert" types (some more than others), so I don't worry about them for flavor reasons.
D&D's handling of languages is so haphazard that I just can't care about swapping Thieves' Cant out for something else; One D&D's direction seems to be "choose whatever languages you want" because that's better for diverse handling of cultures and such, so I wouldn't be suprised if they made the extra language swappable.
A police investigator doesn't need Thieves Tools in order to search for evidence. Not even evidence inside of a locked drawer. Having the weight of the local authority on your side, you can just smash the lock if the owner wont open it for you. Nor do they need Thieves Cant to interrogate people.
A police investigator doesn't need to be a rogue, an investigator who can't pick locks or understand thieves cant is a generic guard not a specialized investigator and is a fighter not a rogue.
An investigator who can't pick locks isn't an investigator? Father Dowling isn't a non-casting investigator? Jessica Fletcher? Hercule Poirot? Miss Marple?
A charming womanizing gambler is a bard not a rogue
Or a rogue and not a bard.
(stop using
No. For one, it's not a double standard. For two, it's a truism: Not all bards are Bards. Not all rangers are Rangers, and so on. Because D&D doesn't define the meaning of those words when they are referencing things outside of D&D. Being called a bard in a non-D&D specific fictional work (or in non-fiction) does not pin someone to being a D&D Bard. Just like being called a barbarian outside of D&D doesn't mean someone is a D&D berserking rage Barbarian.
A Lawful Good non-magical non-shady person can be a fighter, barbarian, [...] or monk.
Or a Rogue.
Personality doesn't define class
Correct, nor does class define personality. A Rogue doesn't have to be unscrupulous or dishonest. But that wasn't the ask I was responding to.
"Sneak Attack" - the core mechanic of the class - is explicitly an underhanded dishonourable way of fighting
Underhanded and dishonourable is not coequal with illegal/criminal.
it is stabbing someone in the back
If it has to be stabbing someone in the back, why isn't it called "Backstabbing" anymore? And why can you do it as a sniper and not literally limited to melee?
hiding in a barrel and popping out to shoot someone with a crossbow.
Which is explicitly "not backstabbing."
Sneak Attack is a stealthy precision attack, where quality counts more than quantity, getting you a lot more damage than the people who get quantity over quality in their physical combat. You waited for the right moment when someone is vulnerable to your precision attack, instead of trying to overwhelm their defenses. Snipers do that. Skirmishers do that. A courtier, or someone like Richard Castle, who is defending themselves in a melee that developed around them might do that (because they know they can't go toe to toe with the Fighters).
A non-magical intelligent combatant is a Dex-Fighter with Skill Expert,
Or a Rogue.
A non-criminal swashbuckler is a Swords Bard or Paladin
Or a Swashbuckler Rogue.
A non-shady intelligent resourceful improviser is an Artificer,
Or a Rogue who has Tinkers Tools.
A courtier who gets what they want by talking to people forging alliances and diplomacy without using poisons or literally stabbing their enemies in the back is a Bard or a Paladin,
Overall, I think "let Rogues swap in an extra tool and an extra language, in exchange for the thieves' stuff" would be a fine option, especially since they're the archetypal "expert" class. It might tread on Artificer's toes a little bit, but I'm OK with that (Artificer treads on Rogue's toes a little bit, too).
I mean ... Rogues came first :-)
In as much as they're all Experts, Rogues are the mundane version of the intersection of Artificers, Rangers, and Bards. Or, rather, Artificers are the caster version of the artisan Rogue. Rangers are the caster version of the scout Rogue. Bards are the caster version of the charismatic entertaining Rogue.
However...Thieves' Tools are, far and away, the most useful adventuring toolset. I have trouble imagining a player (of a dungeon-delving adventurer rogue) giving them up. And I think, flavor-wise, they make really good sense for investigators and cops and scouts and tinkerers and other "expert" types (some more than others), so I don't worry about them for flavor reasons.
Yeah, my point has not been whether or not Thieves Tools are useful, it's that they shouldn't be mandatory. It should be a choice left to the individual Rogue as to whether or not that's their form of utility and flavor within the Rogue class. You can still be a Rogue without them.
Yeah, my point has not been whether or not Thieves Tools are useful, it's that they shouldn't be mandatory. It should be a choice left to the individual Rogue as to whether or not that's their form of utility and flavor within the Rogue class. You can still be a Rogue without them.
I've generally had more issues with justifying sneak attack than thieves' tools. A mundane expert that isn't based on the rogue would be useful.
Yeah, my point has not been whether or not Thieves Tools are useful, it's that they shouldn't be mandatory. It should be a choice left to the individual Rogue as to whether or not that's their form of utility and flavor within the Rogue class. You can still be a Rogue without them.
I've generally had more issues with justifying sneak attack than thieves' tools. A mundane expert that isn't based on the rogue would be useful.
I have seen (but am currently having trouble putting a name to) quite a few movie fight scenes where a non-combat oriented character (protagonists and antagonists) hides under a table or behind some type of cover or concealment ... and then sees an enemy has their back to them, unaware that the non-combat character is there, or they're unconcerned about the non-combat character because they assume that character is harmless due to being a non-combatant. So the non-combatant hits them with a sucker-punch type attack.
That character might be a scientist, a bookworm, a jeweler, a mundane medic, a mundane musician, etc. In other words: a mundane expert.
I would even say that Anna does it to Hans at the end of Frozen. Not so much a sneak up on him attack, as an unexpected sucker-punch that Hans doesn't see coming because he thinks Anna is harmless.
IMO: having a character's main combat utility be that they have to do a sneak attack/sucker punch in order to be useful in combat, can work for a mundane expert. So that aspect of a Rogue isn't troubling to me in using them as the "mundane expert".
Miss Marple, Poirot, [...], etc... are not adventurers - they don't go on adventures, they don't live in fantasy worlds. They don't belong in D&D because 90% of your character sheet would be entirely irrelevant
The specific statement I was responding to was about detectives/investigators without lock picking. Now that I've shown there are several who are not reduced as detectives/investigators for not having lock picks (therefore successfully refuting the actual thing I replied to), trying to say "well, they're not adventurers" is goal post shifting.
And they are perfectly valid inspirations for D&D characters, just as any fictional character might be.
If you want to play a game where you walk around town solving a murder, go play a game designed for that - something like Call of Cthulhu is designed specifically for playing mundane people unconvering a mystery.
Or I can play D&D that way, because it's a perfectly valid way to play D&D.
There is no "ordinary dude" class in D&D because no "ordinary dude"
I didn't say "ordinary dude", I said "mundane Expert."
I didn't say "ordinary dude", I said "mundane Expert."
The same points still hold. A random librarian is a level 0 D&D character that will get eaten by a giant clam. Mundane people do not have class levels in D&D.
Fighters are generally mundane (meaning "non-magical" and/or "non-caster"), outside of a proportionally few subclasses. Same with Barbarians. And same with Rogues.
The same points still hold. A random librarian is a level 0 D&D character that will get eaten by a giant clam. Mundane people do not have class levels in D&D.
'Mundane' just means 'not obviously supernatural'. D&D doesn't have a lot of classes like that, but a lot of fighters and rogues qualify.
At this point we're 6 pages in and it's basically, "that's a rogue too!!!" followed by "no it's not!!!".
This conversation is literally going nowhere, and I'm not sure if it should be considered spam or if it should be considered trolling, and there's a good chance that just talking about this will get me dinged yet again, but I sincerely hope that this resolves itself soon.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Status quo is net subtraction from Current UA. And if you are just going to subtract from the current UA. why should they have it at all?
If these aren't the tools why should they get extra tools at all? What part of being a rogue means they should get a language or a tool?
I understand the proposition, the reason doesn't make sense. The only reason the tools and the language exists is because it is part of the flavor of the class. If you don't want the flavor, than why should they have it at all?
You can get any tools you need for the flavor of your rogue from your background. Same with languages. These features are here for the class flavor. So if you are just going to toss the flavor why not just toss the features entirely?
Right now your arguments support throwing it out entirely not your proposal.
If you could pick all of that at level 1 with cleric you would have a point it wasn't decoupled for more options or because clerics were expected to have more options, it was done so they could still get heavy armor at level 1 and buy chain mail with their starting gold if they wanted. It was done as COMPENSATION for pushing the subclasses back 2 levels
And I gave the class in the answer. I mentioned rogue and roguish. Mechanics were addressed.
So now you’re saying only unscrupulous people would use them? Not merely someone trying to disarm a trap for legitimate reasons? That seems to contradict several pages of these comments. Because the other side of that is: not all definitions of Rogue (dictionary or class) imply unscrupulousness… but this line above implies that knowing how to use them makes you unscrupulous. Your own quotation of the rules includes crime fighters… so now all crime fighting Rogues are unscrupulous about it?
A husband and wife giving each other the nod across the room of “it’s time to go home” is unscrupulous? Or giving a hand signal because they don’t want to wake the baby? Or two people using sign language so as to not disrupt a quiet room? Or to not distract from a person giving a speech?
Naming a class as part of a description is not making a class. Mechanics were not addressed at all. Just stop.
Also please find me a different definition of rogue that isn't unprincipled or dishonest.
Why it was decoupled isn’t the issue: that it was decoupled is the issue.
At first level a Cleric makes a choice that we previously associated with their subclass. A choice they can use to reinforce how it used to be done, or that can go in a completely different direction than the old way. Or they might make a choice at 1st level in anticipation of picking subclass A .. but then they end up picking a different subclass (making for individual flavor).
At 1st level, a Rogue is not given the choice to do the same, They are still pigeonholed with a pair of proficiencies that may or may not actually be serving the subclass they pick 2 levels later.
I don’t need to make a whole class, I can reference an existing template.
I am not asking you to make a whole class. I am asking you to show a mechanical feature that suggests a dishonest or unprincipled person as a class. Right from level 1. How do you communicate that this is a Rogue to the player.
Why matters and it has always mattered, and it shall always matter. The decoupling was done because the subclasses were pushed back 2 levels. They can't make the choice to get heavy armor from a subclass at level 1, or get skills or cantrips from a subclass at level 1 anymore because you can't get a subclass at level 1. The decoupling was a way to fix the level 1 cleric.
The Bard is pigeon holed into instruments. The Barbarian is pigeon holed into medium armor and a shield, the Cleric is pigeon holed into shields, the Druid is pigeon holed into Druidic language, the Fighter is pigeon holed into heavy armor and martial weapons, The monk is pigeon holed into unarmed attacks and having no martial weapons, the Paladin is pigeon holed into melee for smiting, the Ranger is pigeon holed into natural terrains, the sorcerer is pigeon holed into charisma for spell casting, warlocks are pigeon holed into eldritch blast, Wizards are pigeon holed into having a spell book.
It is called being a class in an RPG. Classes get features that help define the flavor of that class. They get proficiencies that help define the flavor of that class.
Edit: Ask this question with the Cleric. The holy orders do they communicate a type of Cleric independent of a subclass? Is there anything about them that says "what does that have to do with a cleric?" without having the subclass included
Now ask that question with the rogue and language. What does sylvan have to do with being a rogue. What does dwarvish have to do with being a rogue? Lets go to tools. What does pottery have to do with being a rogue? The subclass isn't for 2 more levels, and has nothing to do with level 1. Being a magic focused or martial focused cleric does have to do with being a cleric at level 1.
A police investigator doesn't need to be a rogue, an investigator who can't pick locks or understand thieves cant is a generic guard not a specialized investigator and is a fighter not a rogue.
A charming womanizing gambler is a bard not a rogue (stop using a double standard where "rogue" is defined as used in common parlance and "bard" is defined as per the class, a "bard" in common parlance has nothing at all to do with magic, and D&D bards can flavour their magic as silly songs, jokes, charming personality, etc.. just as artificers flavour their magic as tools / inventions / engineering)
There is a fantastic book called "Rogues" with a collection of short stories in a wide variety of settings all focused on rogue characters and they all demonstrate familiarity with at least one of Thieve's Cant or Thieves tools.
A Lawful Good non-magical non-shady person can be a fighter, barbarian, paladin, artificer or monk. Personality doesn't define class - you can be a smirking sarcastic monk, paladin, barbarians or fighter, you can be a clever and quick witted fighter, barbarian, paladin, artificer or monk. Every class and character gets skill proficiencies, and Skill Expert gives anyone who wants it Expertise, you don't need to be a rogue in order to be someone who isn't utterly incompetent at everything.
Beyond simply Thieves Cant and Thieves tools, "Sneak Attack" - the core mechanic of the class - is explicitly an underhanded dishonourable way of fighting, it is stabbing someone in the back while they are distracted, or cutting someone's throat while they are incapacitated, or throwing sand in their eyes then stabbing them in the gut, or stabbing someone when they are already down after tripping over your trip wire, or hiding in a barrel and popping out to shoot someone with a crossbow.
A non-magical intelligent combatant is a Dex-Fighter with Skill Expert, they aren't a Rogue. A non-criminal swashbuckler is a Swords Bard or Paladin, not a Rogue. A non-shady intelligent resourceful improviser is an Artificer, not a Rogue. A courtier who gets what they want by talking to people forging alliances and diplomacy without using poisons or literally stabbing their enemies in the back is a Bard or a Paladin, not a Rogue.
sorry to combo-break, but can someone lurking provide a brief synopsis of the last three pages of the "all rogues are bastards!" vs "a few bad apples!" debate?
i missed a day and yet somehow everyone still seems to be powering up and recapping previous episodes.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
And yet, when I referenced it via short hand or trope, you balk.
And I'm telling you those are personality traits.
Not by something so cliched and clunky as revealing that they're carrying Thieves Tools or having them slip up and use Thieves Cant in front of the PCs.
There are LOTS of ways I can communicate that they've met a Rogue, without mechanics.
Are they (by archetype, not yet subclass) an actual thief? Maybe the PCs witness them picking someone's pocket.
Are they (by archetype, not yet subclass) a swashbuckler? Dressed like Porthos or Errol Flynn or maybe even Barron Munchausen, wearing a rapier or other finesse sword on their hip, dressed more for social impression than armor.
Are they (by archetype, not yet subclass) a scout? Unkempt, uncombed hair, maybe some slight traces of wilderness (stray leaves, grass stains, etc.) on their utilitarian skirmisher's type clothes.
Are they (by archetype, not yet subclass) a inquisitive? They're clearly people watchers, and dressed to be unimpressive and not attract attention to themselves.
Are they an "Expert"? They have the garb and trappings of their trade.
Are they an Assassin? I wouldn't communicate that to the players at all.
This thread got weird.
Overall, I think "let Rogues swap in an extra tool and an extra language, in exchange for the thieves' stuff" would be a fine option, especially since they're the archetypal "expert" class. It might tread on Artificer's toes a little bit, but I'm OK with that (Artificer treads on Rogue's toes a little bit, too).
However...Thieves' Tools are, far and away, the most useful adventuring toolset. I have trouble imagining a player (of a dungeon-delving adventurer rogue) giving them up. And I think, flavor-wise, they make really good sense for investigators and cops and scouts and tinkerers and other "expert" types (some more than others), so I don't worry about them for flavor reasons.
D&D's handling of languages is so haphazard that I just can't care about swapping Thieves' Cant out for something else; One D&D's direction seems to be "choose whatever languages you want" because that's better for diverse handling of cultures and such, so I wouldn't be suprised if they made the extra language swappable.
An investigator who can't pick locks isn't an investigator? Father Dowling isn't a non-casting investigator? Jessica Fletcher? Hercule Poirot? Miss Marple?
Or a rogue and not a bard.
No. For one, it's not a double standard. For two, it's a truism: Not all bards are Bards. Not all rangers are Rangers, and so on. Because D&D doesn't define the meaning of those words when they are referencing things outside of D&D. Being called a bard in a non-D&D specific fictional work (or in non-fiction) does not pin someone to being a D&D Bard. Just like being called a barbarian outside of D&D doesn't mean someone is a D&D berserking rage Barbarian.
Or a Rogue.
Correct, nor does class define personality. A Rogue doesn't have to be unscrupulous or dishonest. But that wasn't the ask I was responding to.
Underhanded and dishonourable is not coequal with illegal/criminal.
If it has to be stabbing someone in the back, why isn't it called "Backstabbing" anymore? And why can you do it as a sniper and not literally limited to melee?
Which is explicitly "not backstabbing."
Sneak Attack is a stealthy precision attack, where quality counts more than quantity, getting you a lot more damage than the people who get quantity over quality in their physical combat. You waited for the right moment when someone is vulnerable to your precision attack, instead of trying to overwhelm their defenses. Snipers do that. Skirmishers do that. A courtier, or someone like Richard Castle, who is defending themselves in a melee that developed around them might do that (because they know they can't go toe to toe with the Fighters).
Or a Rogue.
Or a Swashbuckler Rogue.
Or a Rogue who has Tinkers Tools.
Or a Mastermind Rogue.
I mean ... Rogues came first :-)
In as much as they're all Experts, Rogues are the mundane version of the intersection of Artificers, Rangers, and Bards. Or, rather, Artificers are the caster version of the artisan Rogue. Rangers are the caster version of the scout Rogue. Bards are the caster version of the charismatic entertaining Rogue.
Yeah, my point has not been whether or not Thieves Tools are useful, it's that they shouldn't be mandatory. It should be a choice left to the individual Rogue as to whether or not that's their form of utility and flavor within the Rogue class. You can still be a Rogue without them.
I've generally had more issues with justifying sneak attack than thieves' tools. A mundane expert that isn't based on the rogue would be useful.
I have seen (but am currently having trouble putting a name to) quite a few movie fight scenes where a non-combat oriented character (protagonists and antagonists) hides under a table or behind some type of cover or concealment ... and then sees an enemy has their back to them, unaware that the non-combat character is there, or they're unconcerned about the non-combat character because they assume that character is harmless due to being a non-combatant. So the non-combatant hits them with a sucker-punch type attack.
That character might be a scientist, a bookworm, a jeweler, a mundane medic, a mundane musician, etc. In other words: a mundane expert.
I would even say that Anna does it to Hans at the end of Frozen. Not so much a sneak up on him attack, as an unexpected sucker-punch that Hans doesn't see coming because he thinks Anna is harmless.
IMO: having a character's main combat utility be that they have to do a sneak attack/sucker punch in order to be useful in combat, can work for a mundane expert. So that aspect of a Rogue isn't troubling to me in using them as the "mundane expert".
The specific statement I was responding to was about detectives/investigators without lock picking. Now that I've shown there are several who are not reduced as detectives/investigators for not having lock picks (therefore successfully refuting the actual thing I replied to), trying to say "well, they're not adventurers" is goal post shifting.
And they are perfectly valid inspirations for D&D characters, just as any fictional character might be.
Or I can play D&D that way, because it's a perfectly valid way to play D&D.
I didn't say "ordinary dude", I said "mundane Expert."
Fighters are generally mundane (meaning "non-magical" and/or "non-caster"), outside of a proportionally few subclasses. Same with Barbarians. And same with Rogues.
'Mundane' just means 'not obviously supernatural'. D&D doesn't have a lot of classes like that, but a lot of fighters and rogues qualify.
I've started to report some of these comments.
At this point we're 6 pages in and it's basically, "that's a rogue too!!!" followed by "no it's not!!!".
This conversation is literally going nowhere, and I'm not sure if it should be considered spam or if it should be considered trolling, and there's a good chance that just talking about this will get me dinged yet again, but I sincerely hope that this resolves itself soon.