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.
And it's been generally used as a gamer term for those who aren't magic oriented (and also those who aren't gamers), since at least the late 1980s (when I started hearing it).
mundane -> antonym of supernatural supernatural -> synonym of (mystic, mythical, miraculous) -> all synonyms of magical
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.
So being able to be swallowed by at giant worm and cut your way out and be totally fine isn't supernatural? Being able to just stand there and get hit by the breath of an ancient white dragon, and keep standing there isn't supernatural? Being able to survive a 100 ft jump off a cliff isn't supernatural? Being able to pick an impossible to pick lock (DC 30) isn't supernatural? Those all sound pretty supernatural to me.
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.
So being able to be swallowed by at giant worm and cut your way out and be totally fine isn't supernatural? Being able to just stand there and get hit by the breath of an ancient white dragon, and keep standing there isn't supernatural? Being able to survive a 100 ft jump off a cliff isn't supernatural? Being able to pick an impossible to pick lock (DC 30) isn't supernatural? Those all sound pretty supernatural to me.
Classes that aren't fundamentally built around spell casting are mundane classes. Characters that don't have spell casting are mundane characters. A "mundane Expert" is someone the game would categorize as an Expert, but who doesn't cast spells.
So being able to be swallowed by at giant worm and cut your way out and be totally fine isn't supernatural?
It's not obviously supernatural. It's not realistic, but it fits within the standards of cinematic realism (by those standards, Batman is realistic, but...).
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.
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.
None of these archetypes listed are rogues. These are those archetypes NOT rogues. You can't "Slip up" and use thieves cant in front of someone. If the person doesn't know thieves cant than it is designed in a way that they won't know you are using thieves cant. What communicates "I am a rogue" as an RPG class besides sneak attack, Thieves cant and thieves tool proficiency?
Speaking thieves cant has to do with being a Rogue because all Rogue characters are street smart and know those social ques and Lingo as a CLASS. What does knowing sylvan have to do with being a rogue? What does Draconic have to do with being a Rogue? What makes Rogue classes know Sylvan how does that say to the player AH this... this is a rogue, it knows one more language than we do....? Knowing how to use thieves tools makes sense for a Rogue class makes sense because this class is expected to know the tools to get you in and out of trouble, because this is the street wise character the Aladdin of the group the guy that had to use his wits and his bag of tricks to get himself out of any pinch as an adventurer. What does pottery tools have to do with being that guy? What does calligraphy tools have to do with being that guy?
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,
Or a Mastermind Rogue.
An investigator that can't pick locks or speak the lingo, isn't a Rogue (capital R) investigator. They can be an investigator but they aren't a Rogue.
And then in all of these examples. What is the difference between the Swashbuckling bard and the rogue? More skills, Thieves Cant, Thieves Tools and sneak attack vs spells and bardic inspiration.
A dex fighter can be a fighter or a monk or a rogue. The fighter gets fighting styles, second wind and all armor and martial weapon proficiency, the monk uses their unarmed strikes. The rogue gets Thieves cant and thieves tools and sneak attack.
For the artificer, it is ANY class with tinker tools. They all have the same access to it through backgrounds. Being an inventor has nothing to do with being a rogue.
Mastermind is a subclass. It isn't what the character can do at level 1. Drop the name of the subclass. Define Rogue first, then define the subclass. You are still working backwards with the Subclass first Rogue second.
No it is CLASS than Subclass. Rogue first. Define Rogue as a class first, Make the class features at level 1 define this as a ROGUE.... ignore the subclasses, ignore the archetypes. Archetypes are not limited to 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 hear you.
It's just...ignore all the "how well does rogue map to all these tropes / jobs" stuff (a bane of any class-based system), and think about how rogues traditionally make themselves useful in D&D. The number 1 thing is sneak attack, and the number 2 thing is disarming traps and opening doors. I have no problem with a rogue that chooses, dunno, smithing tools over thieves' tools, but I don't really see the point of it, in anything like a "usual" D&D game (i.e. the combat and the exploration, at least). Someone in the party needs to pick locks and stuff. Nowadays, it's easy enough for some non-rogue to have thieves' tools and the proficiency, at least.
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.
Artificers aren't casters. Their "magic" is specifically things they have created to do magical things. Like web isn't magic for them it is a web shooter that they made. What makes the character a Rogue if they don't have thieves tools? How are you a Rogue if you do not have them?
Expert isn't Rogue. Rogue is Rogue, Expert is Expert.
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.
Artificers aren't casters.
They have the Spellcasting class feature. And it is explicitly defined as "You’ve studied the workings of magic and how to cast spells"
If they didn't mean that to be spellcasting, they would have done something like Pact Magic to differentiate it from other types of casting.
They're casters.
Expert isn't Rogue. Rogue is Rogue, Expert is Expert.
Rogue is a type of Expert. Says so right in the OneD&D UA documents.
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.
Artificers aren't casters.
They have the Spellcasting class feature. And it is explicitly defined as "You’ve studied the workings of magic and how to cast spells"
If they didn't mean that to be spellcasting, they would have done something like Pact Magic to differentiate it from other types of casting.
They're casters.
Expert isn't Rogue. Rogue is Rogue, Expert is Expert.
Rogue is a type of Expert. Says so right in the OneD&D UA documents.
Not in the most recent one. You may have noticed that the most recent UA document removed all mention of the class groups, and even when it did Rogue was ONE type of expert. Rogue is Rogue, Expert covers a lot more types than just Rogue. Rangers can flavor their spells mundane, Artificers can as well. Rogues do not have a monopoly on expert.
Artificer: "To observers, you don't appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you appear to produce wonders from mundane items and outlandish inventions."
Tools Required
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus - specifically thieves' tools or some kind of artisan's tool - in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an "M" component when you cast it). You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See the equipment chapter in the Player's Handbook for descriptions of these tools.
They DID make something specific like pact magic to distinguish artificers as casters.
Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic. For the mechanics of the game it is magical, for the fantasy it can be or it can not be.
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.
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.
None of these archetypes listed are rogues. These are those archetypes NOT rogues.
They're archetypes that are sub-sets of the Rogue class, as evidenced by the fact that they later advance from this hopeful-X path into the X subclass.
You can't "Slip up" and use thieves cant in front of someone. If the person doesn't know thieves cant than it is designed in a way that they won't know you are using thieves cant.
So, what you're saying is: having them know Thieves Cant is not going to signal to the party that this is a Rogue.
Speaking thieves cant has to do with being a Rogue because all Rogue characters are street smart and know those social ques and Lingo as a CLASS.
Except it doesn't communicate that this is a Rogue, because non-Rogues might also know it, via their Background (or via a Feat or Feature that grants a new Rare Language proficiency, etc.).
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.
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.
None of these archetypes listed are rogues. These are those archetypes NOT rogues.
They're archetypes that are sub-sets of the Rogue class, as evidenced by the fact that they later advance from this hopeful-X path into the X subclass.
You can't "Slip up" and use thieves cant in front of someone. If the person doesn't know thieves cant than it is designed in a way that they won't know you are using thieves cant.
So, what you're saying is: having them know Thieves Cant is not going to signal to the party that this is a Rogue.
Speaking thieves cant has to do with being a Rogue because all Rogue characters are street smart and know those social ques and Lingo as a CLASS.
Except it doesn't communicate that this is a Rogue, because non-Rogues might also know it, via their Background (or via a Feat or Feature that grants a new Rare Language proficiency, etc.).
On its own this is correct. Same with thieves tools. Even together it isn't enough, it is the combination of those + sneak attack that makes it go OH this is a rogue. What does Sylvan have to do with being a rogue?
What does knowing pottery have to do with being a Rogue? What makes that AH this this is a rogue.
The others are indicators, not automatic but play to the FEEL of the CLASS. This is why I keep harping on "what would you if you were designing a class" because you need to put yourself in THAT space. You need to put your MIND in that space. How do you make the Rogue Class stand out to a new player reading the PHB. These players are gamers, they understand and have certain expectations for what the rogue is. What do you give the class to make sure it fulfills that expectation?
The player is now playing with their friends and they tell them "I am a rogue" What are those friends going to expect from that player? Door is locked "hey rogue get up here"... I am not that kinda rogue guys... "Hey man we are stuck do you think you can help us gather information"..., Not that kinda rogue guys. "Oh we are in trouble can you lie your way out of this one?"... "Not that kind of rogue guys" "Can you sneak past the guards and get the keys?" Sorry guys I am not that kind of Rogue. At that point what kinda Rogue are you? I am the guy that took pottery. I make pots and speak elvish. Why is this an adventurer?
Archetypes are archetypes, they don't solely apply to rogue, Subclasses are pulled later than classes. Class first, then subclass. Archetypes are completely different from subclasses or classes.
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.
Artificers aren't casters.
They have the Spellcasting class feature. And it is explicitly defined as "You’ve studied the workings of magic and how to cast spells"
If they didn't mean that to be spellcasting, they would have done something like Pact Magic to differentiate it from other types of casting.
They're casters.
Expert isn't Rogue. Rogue is Rogue, Expert is Expert.
Rogue is a type of Expert. Says so right in the OneD&D UA documents.
Not in the most recent one. You may have noticed that the most recent UA document removed all mention of the class groups,
Yet, they also didn't say they've revoked it. The association is there, and is also not a new association.
and even when it did Rogue was ONE type of expert.
Yes. The mundane one.
Artificer: "To observers, you don't appear to be casting spells in a conventional way
"you don't appear to be casting spells" is not the same as "you aren't casting spells."
And the class description even says "To cast a spell, an artificer might use " -- they're casting spells.
They DID make something specific like pact magic to distinguish artificers as casters.
They made it involve tools, but that is not the same type of distinguishing that they did for Warlocks in that same edition: Warlocks do not have a spellcasting class feature in that edition, they have a "Pact Magic" class feature instead, and what they do has things that don't intersect with other casters. For example, the Artificer caster's focus related features often say "as a spellcasting focus", meaning that if they are a Artificer/Warlock, they can't use that item as a focus for warlock spells (but they could use it to cast spells they got through any other multiclassing) ... Because it specifically references "spellcasting", it doesn't work for Warlocks, because there is a fundamental disconnect from other casters.
But Artificers don't have this fundamental disconnect from any other caster class: that same focus works fine with any arcane spellcaster's spells. Because they are Arcane Spellcasters.
Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic. For the mechanics of the game it is magical, for the fantasy it can be or it can not be.
And yet, that is not what the rules say. The rules say spellcaster whose spells work through tools. Not tools that are so advanced that they appear to be magic.
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.
Artificers aren't casters.
They have the Spellcasting class feature. And it is explicitly defined as "You’ve studied the workings of magic and how to cast spells"
If they didn't mean that to be spellcasting, they would have done something like Pact Magic to differentiate it from other types of casting.
They're casters.
Expert isn't Rogue. Rogue is Rogue, Expert is Expert.
Rogue is a type of Expert. Says so right in the OneD&D UA documents.
Not in the most recent one. You may have noticed that the most recent UA document removed all mention of the class groups,
Yet, they also didn't say they've revoked it. The association is there, and is also not a new association.
and even when it did Rogue was ONE type of expert.
Yes. The mundane one.
Artificer: "To observers, you don't appear to be casting spells in a conventional way
"you don't appear to be casting spells" is not the same as "you aren't casting spells."
And the class description even says "To cast a spell, an artificer might use " -- they're casting spells.
They DID make something specific like pact magic to distinguish artificers as casters.
They made it involve tools, but that is not the same type of distinguishing that they did for Warlocks in that same edition: Warlocks do not have a spellcasting class feature in that edition, they have a "Pact Magic" class feature instead, and what they do has things that don't intersect with other casters. For example, the Artificer caster's focus related features often say "as a spellcasting focus", meaning that if they are a Artificer/Warlock, they can't use that item as a focus for warlock spells (but they could use it to cast spells they got through any other multiclassing) ... Because it specifically references "spellcasting", it doesn't work for Warlocks, because there is a fundamental disconnect from other casters.
But Artificers don't have this fundamental disconnect from any other caster class: that same focus works fine with any arcane spellcaster's spells. Because they are Arcane Spellcasters.
Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic. For the mechanics of the game it is magical, for the fantasy it can be or it can not be.
And yet, that is not what the rules say. The rules say spellcaster whose spells work through tools. Not tools that are so advanced that they appear to be magic.
Pact magic is still spells. you do know that right? It is still the warlocks own spell casting?
And the tools REQUIRED means the artificer CAN'T use any normal arcane focus. You know that right? That is something to distinguish the Artificer they have to use it for every spell even if it doesn't normally have a material component. So artificers MUST be magic.... I guess that means Rogues MUST be linked to the law. "Some Rogues began their careers as criminals, while others used their cunning to fight crime."
No double standards here my friend. If artificers MUST be magical, than Rogues MUST be linked to criminal life somehow.
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.
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.
None of these archetypes listed are rogues. These are those archetypes NOT rogues.
They're archetypes that are sub-sets of the Rogue class, as evidenced by the fact that they later advance from this hopeful-X path into the X subclass.
You can't "Slip up" and use thieves cant in front of someone. If the person doesn't know thieves cant than it is designed in a way that they won't know you are using thieves cant.
So, what you're saying is: having them know Thieves Cant is not going to signal to the party that this is a Rogue.
Speaking thieves cant has to do with being a Rogue because all Rogue characters are street smart and know those social ques and Lingo as a CLASS.
Except it doesn't communicate that this is a Rogue, because non-Rogues might also know it, via their Background (or via a Feat or Feature that grants a new Rare Language proficiency, etc.).
On its own this is correct. Same with thieves tools. Even together it isn't enough, it is the combination of those + sneak attack that makes it go OH this is a rogue.
a) By roleplaying the NPC with a Roguish personality. The players might never see anything mechanical about the character that makes them go "that was a Rogue" because not all interactions get into the game mechanics. But most interactions involve at least a little bit of roleplaying.
b) it isn't either of the first two things; the only mechanical things that makes anyone say "this is a Rogue" is: specific skill sets are a hint, Expertise* in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster, and very likely relies on skirmishing sucker-punches instead of direct fights. Which brings us back to: no, Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant are not the mechanics fingerprints of being a Rogue, and that's not how you communicate that this is a Rogue.
(* meaning they have a remarkably high demonstrated proficiency with part of that skill set)
What does Sylvan have to do with being a rogue?
It was mentioned as a possible alternative that Scouts might have. Since, you know, they're out in the wilderness a lot.
a) By roleplaying the NPC with a Roguish personality. The players might never see anything mechanical about the character that makes them go "that was a Rogue" because not all interactions get into the game mechanics. But most interactions involve at least a little bit of roleplaying.
b) it isn't either of the first two things; the only mechanical things that makes anyone say "this is a Rogue" is: specific skill sets are a hint, Expertise* in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster, and very likely relies on skirmishing sucker-punches instead of direct fights. Which brings us back to: no, Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant are not the mechanics fingerprints of being a Rogue, and that's not how you communicate that this is a Rogue.
(* meaning they have a remarkably high demonstrated proficiency with part of that skill set)
What does Sylvan have to do with being a rogue?
It was mentioned as a possible alternative that Scouts might have. Since, you know, they're out in the wilderness a lot.
So sylvan has to do with being a scout..
What does it have to do with being a Rogue?
So bards are rogues now, because they have expertise. Rangers were rogues in the previous play test because they also had expertise. Man good thing they got rid of that otherwise we would have 3 rogues.
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.
Artificers aren't casters.
They have the Spellcasting class feature. And it is explicitly defined as "You’ve studied the workings of magic and how to cast spells"
If they didn't mean that to be spellcasting, they would have done something like Pact Magic to differentiate it from other types of casting.
They're casters.
Expert isn't Rogue. Rogue is Rogue, Expert is Expert.
Rogue is a type of Expert. Says so right in the OneD&D UA documents.
Not in the most recent one. You may have noticed that the most recent UA document removed all mention of the class groups,
Yet, they also didn't say they've revoked it. The association is there, and is also not a new association.
and even when it did Rogue was ONE type of expert.
Yes. The mundane one.
Artificer: "To observers, you don't appear to be casting spells in a conventional way
"you don't appear to be casting spells" is not the same as "you aren't casting spells."
And the class description even says "To cast a spell, an artificer might use " -- they're casting spells.
They DID make something specific like pact magic to distinguish artificers as casters.
They made it involve tools, but that is not the same type of distinguishing that they did for Warlocks in that same edition: Warlocks do not have a spellcasting class feature in that edition, they have a "Pact Magic" class feature instead, and what they do has things that don't intersect with other casters. For example, the Artificer caster's focus related features often say "as a spellcasting focus", meaning that if they are a Artificer/Warlock, they can't use that item as a focus for warlock spells (but they could use it to cast spells they got through any other multiclassing) ... Because it specifically references "spellcasting", it doesn't work for Warlocks, because there is a fundamental disconnect from other casters.
But Artificers don't have this fundamental disconnect from any other caster class: that same focus works fine with any arcane spellcaster's spells. Because they are Arcane Spellcasters.
Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic. For the mechanics of the game it is magical, for the fantasy it can be or it can not be.
And yet, that is not what the rules say. The rules say spellcaster whose spells work through tools. Not tools that are so advanced that they appear to be magic.
Pact magic is still spells. you do know that right?
Pact Magic is spells, but it is not Spellcasting.
And the tools REQUIRED means the artificer CAN'T use any normal arcane focus.
"After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus."
If you put an infusion (any infusion that can be put on that type of item) on an arcane focus, especially an arcane focus that grants bonuses to spell casting, an Artificer can use it with full benefits.
If artificers MUST be magical, than Rogues MUST be linked to criminal life somehow.
Except that the rules DO say the former, but DO NOT say the latter.
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.
Artificers aren't casters.
They have the Spellcasting class feature. And it is explicitly defined as "You’ve studied the workings of magic and how to cast spells"
If they didn't mean that to be spellcasting, they would have done something like Pact Magic to differentiate it from other types of casting.
They're casters.
Expert isn't Rogue. Rogue is Rogue, Expert is Expert.
Rogue is a type of Expert. Says so right in the OneD&D UA documents.
Not in the most recent one. You may have noticed that the most recent UA document removed all mention of the class groups,
Yet, they also didn't say they've revoked it. The association is there, and is also not a new association.
and even when it did Rogue was ONE type of expert.
Yes. The mundane one.
Artificer: "To observers, you don't appear to be casting spells in a conventional way
"you don't appear to be casting spells" is not the same as "you aren't casting spells."
And the class description even says "To cast a spell, an artificer might use " -- they're casting spells.
They DID make something specific like pact magic to distinguish artificers as casters.
They made it involve tools, but that is not the same type of distinguishing that they did for Warlocks in that same edition: Warlocks do not have a spellcasting class feature in that edition, they have a "Pact Magic" class feature instead, and what they do has things that don't intersect with other casters. For example, the Artificer caster's focus related features often say "as a spellcasting focus", meaning that if they are a Artificer/Warlock, they can't use that item as a focus for warlock spells (but they could use it to cast spells they got through any other multiclassing) ... Because it specifically references "spellcasting", it doesn't work for Warlocks, because there is a fundamental disconnect from other casters.
But Artificers don't have this fundamental disconnect from any other caster class: that same focus works fine with any arcane spellcaster's spells. Because they are Arcane Spellcasters.
Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic. For the mechanics of the game it is magical, for the fantasy it can be or it can not be.
And yet, that is not what the rules say. The rules say spellcaster whose spells work through tools. Not tools that are so advanced that they appear to be magic.
Pact magic is still spells. you do know that right?
Pact Magic is spells, but it is not Spellcasting.
And the tools REQUIRED means the artificer CAN'T use any normal arcane focus.
"After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus."
If you put an infusion (any infusion that can be put on that type of item) on an arcane focus, especially an arcane focus that grants bonuses to spell casting, an Artificer can use it with full benefits.
If artificers MUST be magical, than Rogues MUST be linked to criminal life somehow.
Except that the rules DO say the former, but DO NOT say the latter.
No they don't. There is nothing in the rules that says any of the things listed is exhaustive. It is either A. Artificers dont have to be magical or B. Rogues must be related to crime element. If you are applying the same logic to both. At this point it is an impossible impasse. You must admit one or the other. If you can't, it is an agree to disagree. Because any other continuation of the argument is a violation of site rules.
a) By roleplaying the NPC with a Roguish personality. The players might never see anything mechanical about the character that makes them go "that was a Rogue" because not all interactions get into the game mechanics. But most interactions involve at least a little bit of roleplaying.
b) it isn't either of the first two things; the only mechanical things that makes anyone say "this is a Rogue" is: specific skill sets are a hint, Expertise* in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster, and very likely relies on skirmishing sucker-punches instead of direct fights. Which brings us back to: no, Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant are not the mechanics fingerprints of being a Rogue, and that's not how you communicate that this is a Rogue.
(* meaning they have a remarkably high demonstrated proficiency with part of that skill set)
What does Sylvan have to do with being a rogue?
It was mentioned as a possible alternative that Scouts might have. Since, you know, they're out in the wilderness a lot.
So sylvan has to do with being a scout..
What does it have to do with being a Rogue?
Because Scouts are Rogues.
So bards are rogues now, because they have expertise.
"Expertise in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster". Bards fail that requirement.
Rangers were rogues in the previous play test because they also had expertise.
Rangers also fail the "Expertise in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster" requirement, as well as not having that sucker-punch (Sneak Attack).
a) By roleplaying the NPC with a Roguish personality. The players might never see anything mechanical about the character that makes them go "that was a Rogue" because not all interactions get into the game mechanics. But most interactions involve at least a little bit of roleplaying.
b) it isn't either of the first two things; the only mechanical things that makes anyone say "this is a Rogue" is: specific skill sets are a hint, Expertise* in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster, and very likely relies on skirmishing sucker-punches instead of direct fights. Which brings us back to: no, Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant are not the mechanics fingerprints of being a Rogue, and that's not how you communicate that this is a Rogue.
(* meaning they have a remarkably high demonstrated proficiency with part of that skill set)
What does Sylvan have to do with being a rogue?
It was mentioned as a possible alternative that Scouts might have. Since, you know, they're out in the wilderness a lot.
So sylvan has to do with being a scout..
What does it have to do with being a Rogue?
Because Scouts are Rogues.
So bards are rogues now, because they have expertise.
"Expertise in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster". Bards fail that requirement.
Rangers were rogues in the previous play test because they also had expertise.
Rangers also fail the "Expertise in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster" requirement, as well as not having that sucker-punch (Sneak AttaZScoutck).
Not all Scouts are rogues. Scouts are scouts, Rogues are Rogues. Scouts can be rogues, and rogues can be scouts, but not all scouts are rogues and not all rogues are scouts.
You added the "Not-a-caster" moving goal posts. Simultaneously adding that Rangers can't be mundane, nothing says they can't. See artificer argument.
And it's been generally used as a gamer term for those who aren't magic oriented (and also those who aren't gamers), since at least the late 1980s (when I started hearing it).
mundane -> antonym of supernatural
supernatural -> synonym of (mystic, mythical, miraculous) -> all synonyms of magical
So being able to be swallowed by at giant worm and cut your way out and be totally fine isn't supernatural? Being able to just stand there and get hit by the breath of an ancient white dragon, and keep standing there isn't supernatural? Being able to survive a 100 ft jump off a cliff isn't supernatural? Being able to pick an impossible to pick lock (DC 30) isn't supernatural? Those all sound pretty supernatural to me.
Classes that aren't fundamentally built around spell casting are mundane classes. Characters that don't have spell casting are mundane characters. A "mundane Expert" is someone the game would categorize as an Expert, but who doesn't cast spells.
It's not obviously supernatural. It's not realistic, but it fits within the standards of cinematic realism (by those standards, Batman is realistic, but...).
None of these archetypes listed are rogues. These are those archetypes NOT rogues. You can't "Slip up" and use thieves cant in front of someone. If the person doesn't know thieves cant than it is designed in a way that they won't know you are using thieves cant. What communicates "I am a rogue" as an RPG class besides sneak attack, Thieves cant and thieves tool proficiency?
Speaking thieves cant has to do with being a Rogue because all Rogue characters are street smart and know those social ques and Lingo as a CLASS. What does knowing sylvan have to do with being a rogue? What does Draconic have to do with being a Rogue? What makes Rogue classes know Sylvan how does that say to the player AH this... this is a rogue, it knows one more language than we do....? Knowing how to use thieves tools makes sense for a Rogue class makes sense because this class is expected to know the tools to get you in and out of trouble, because this is the street wise character the Aladdin of the group the guy that had to use his wits and his bag of tricks to get himself out of any pinch as an adventurer. What does pottery tools have to do with being that guy? What does calligraphy tools have to do with being that guy?
An investigator that can't pick locks or speak the lingo, isn't a Rogue (capital R) investigator. They can be an investigator but they aren't a Rogue.
And then in all of these examples. What is the difference between the Swashbuckling bard and the rogue? More skills, Thieves Cant, Thieves Tools and sneak attack vs spells and bardic inspiration.
A dex fighter can be a fighter or a monk or a rogue. The fighter gets fighting styles, second wind and all armor and martial weapon proficiency, the monk uses their unarmed strikes. The rogue gets Thieves cant and thieves tools and sneak attack.
For the artificer, it is ANY class with tinker tools. They all have the same access to it through backgrounds. Being an inventor has nothing to do with being a rogue.
Mastermind is a subclass. It isn't what the character can do at level 1. Drop the name of the subclass. Define Rogue first, then define the subclass. You are still working backwards with the Subclass first Rogue second.
No it is CLASS than Subclass. Rogue first. Define Rogue as a class first, Make the class features at level 1 define this as a ROGUE.... ignore the subclasses, ignore the archetypes. Archetypes are not limited to Rogue.
I hear you.
It's just...ignore all the "how well does rogue map to all these tropes / jobs" stuff (a bane of any class-based system), and think about how rogues traditionally make themselves useful in D&D. The number 1 thing is sneak attack, and the number 2 thing is disarming traps and opening doors. I have no problem with a rogue that chooses, dunno, smithing tools over thieves' tools, but I don't really see the point of it, in anything like a "usual" D&D game (i.e. the combat and the exploration, at least). Someone in the party needs to pick locks and stuff. Nowadays, it's easy enough for some non-rogue to have thieves' tools and the proficiency, at least.
Artificers aren't casters. Their "magic" is specifically things they have created to do magical things. Like web isn't magic for them it is a web shooter that they made. What makes the character a Rogue if they don't have thieves tools? How are you a Rogue if you do not have them?
Expert isn't Rogue. Rogue is Rogue, Expert is Expert.
They have the Spellcasting class feature. And it is explicitly defined as "You’ve studied the workings of magic and how to cast spells"
If they didn't mean that to be spellcasting, they would have done something like Pact Magic to differentiate it from other types of casting.
They're casters.
Rogue is a type of Expert. Says so right in the OneD&D UA documents.
Not in the most recent one. You may have noticed that the most recent UA document removed all mention of the class groups, and even when it did Rogue was ONE type of expert. Rogue is Rogue, Expert covers a lot more types than just Rogue. Rangers can flavor their spells mundane, Artificers can as well. Rogues do not have a monopoly on expert.
Artificer:
"To observers, you don't appear to be casting spells in a conventional way; you appear to produce wonders from mundane items and outlandish inventions."
Tools Required
You produce your artificer spell effects through your tools. You must have a spellcasting focus - specifically thieves' tools or some kind of artisan's tool - in hand when you cast any spell with this Spellcasting feature (meaning the spell has an "M" component when you cast it). You must be proficient with the tool to use it in this way. See the equipment chapter in the Player's Handbook for descriptions of these tools.
They DID make something specific like pact magic to distinguish artificers as casters.
Any sufficiently advance technology is indistinguishable from magic. For the mechanics of the game it is magical, for the fantasy it can be or it can not be.
They're archetypes that are sub-sets of the Rogue class, as evidenced by the fact that they later advance from this hopeful-X path into the X subclass.
So, what you're saying is: having them know Thieves Cant is not going to signal to the party that this is a Rogue.
Except it doesn't communicate that this is a Rogue, because non-Rogues might also know it, via their Background (or via a Feat or Feature that grants a new Rare Language proficiency, etc.).
On its own this is correct. Same with thieves tools. Even together it isn't enough, it is the combination of those + sneak attack that makes it go OH this is a rogue. What does Sylvan have to do with being a rogue?
What does knowing pottery have to do with being a Rogue? What makes that AH this this is a rogue.
The others are indicators, not automatic but play to the FEEL of the CLASS. This is why I keep harping on "what would you if you were designing a class" because you need to put yourself in THAT space. You need to put your MIND in that space. How do you make the Rogue Class stand out to a new player reading the PHB. These players are gamers, they understand and have certain expectations for what the rogue is. What do you give the class to make sure it fulfills that expectation?
The player is now playing with their friends and they tell them "I am a rogue" What are those friends going to expect from that player? Door is locked "hey rogue get up here"... I am not that kinda rogue guys... "Hey man we are stuck do you think you can help us gather information"..., Not that kinda rogue guys. "Oh we are in trouble can you lie your way out of this one?"... "Not that kind of rogue guys" "Can you sneak past the guards and get the keys?" Sorry guys I am not that kind of Rogue. At that point what kinda Rogue are you? I am the guy that took pottery. I make pots and speak elvish. Why is this an adventurer?
Archetypes are archetypes, they don't solely apply to rogue, Subclasses are pulled later than classes. Class first, then subclass. Archetypes are completely different from subclasses or classes.
Yet, they also didn't say they've revoked it. The association is there, and is also not a new association.
Yes. The mundane one.
"you don't appear to be casting spells" is not the same as "you aren't casting spells."
And the class description even says "To cast a spell, an artificer might use " -- they're casting spells.
They made it involve tools, but that is not the same type of distinguishing that they did for Warlocks in that same edition: Warlocks do not have a spellcasting class feature in that edition, they have a "Pact Magic" class feature instead, and what they do has things that don't intersect with other casters. For example, the Artificer caster's focus related features often say "as a spellcasting focus", meaning that if they are a Artificer/Warlock, they can't use that item as a focus for warlock spells (but they could use it to cast spells they got through any other multiclassing) ... Because it specifically references "spellcasting", it doesn't work for Warlocks, because there is a fundamental disconnect from other casters.
But Artificers don't have this fundamental disconnect from any other caster class: that same focus works fine with any arcane spellcaster's spells. Because they are Arcane Spellcasters.
And yet, that is not what the rules say. The rules say spellcaster whose spells work through tools. Not tools that are so advanced that they appear to be magic.
Pact magic is still spells. you do know that right? It is still the warlocks own spell casting?
And the tools REQUIRED means the artificer CAN'T use any normal arcane focus. You know that right? That is something to distinguish the Artificer they have to use it for every spell even if it doesn't normally have a material component. So artificers MUST be magic.... I guess that means Rogues MUST be linked to the law.
"Some Rogues began their careers as criminals, while others used their cunning to fight crime."
No double standards here my friend. If artificers MUST be magical, than Rogues MUST be linked to criminal life somehow.
a) By roleplaying the NPC with a Roguish personality. The players might never see anything mechanical about the character that makes them go "that was a Rogue" because not all interactions get into the game mechanics. But most interactions involve at least a little bit of roleplaying.
b) it isn't either of the first two things; the only mechanical things that makes anyone say "this is a Rogue" is: specific skill sets are a hint, Expertise* in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster, and very likely relies on skirmishing sucker-punches instead of direct fights. Which brings us back to: no, Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant are not the mechanics fingerprints of being a Rogue, and that's not how you communicate that this is a Rogue.
(* meaning they have a remarkably high demonstrated proficiency with part of that skill set)
It was mentioned as a possible alternative that Scouts might have. Since, you know, they're out in the wilderness a lot.
So sylvan has to do with being a scout..
What does it have to do with being a Rogue?
So bards are rogues now, because they have expertise. Rangers were rogues in the previous play test because they also had expertise. Man good thing they got rid of that otherwise we would have 3 rogues.
Pact Magic is spells, but it is not Spellcasting.
"After you gain the Infuse Item feature at 2nd level, you can also use any item bearing one of your infusions as a spellcasting focus."
If you put an infusion (any infusion that can be put on that type of item) on an arcane focus, especially an arcane focus that grants bonuses to spell casting, an Artificer can use it with full benefits.
Except that the rules DO say the former, but DO NOT say the latter.
No they don't. There is nothing in the rules that says any of the things listed is exhaustive. It is either A. Artificers dont have to be magical or B. Rogues must be related to crime element. If you are applying the same logic to both. At this point it is an impossible impasse. You must admit one or the other. If you can't, it is an agree to disagree. Because any other continuation of the argument is a violation of site rules.
Because Scouts are Rogues.
"Expertise in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster". Bards fail that requirement.
Rangers also fail the "Expertise in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster" requirement, as well as not having that sucker-punch (Sneak Attack).
Not all Scouts are rogues. Scouts are scouts, Rogues are Rogues. Scouts can be rogues, and rogues can be scouts, but not all scouts are rogues and not all rogues are scouts.
You added the "Not-a-caster" moving goal posts. Simultaneously adding that Rangers can't be mundane, nothing says they can't. See artificer argument.