You mean like Princess Leia? or Padme? Politicians (and thus a form of courtier) who end up on adventures. Or the Scarlet Pimpernel (swashbuckling courtier). Courtiers aren’t just servants, they are everyone who makes their life and livelihood as a part of courtly life, but aren’t the regent. Specifically:
”a person who is often in attendance at the court of a king or other royal personage”
They are the professional politicians of their age, and we have plenty of them going off to adventures in our fiction.
Both Leia and Padme could easily be done as Mastermind Rogues with Courtier backgrounds, whose diplomatic missions as courtiers lead them into adventures
You mean Princess Leia who belongs to a criminal organization (rebels) and is rather familiar with smugglers?
Given that the context at this part of the post is "do courtiers go on adventures", the fact that she might be a Rogue who happens to technically be a criminal doesn't really change that she's an adventuring courtier.
and Padme who doesn't do anything but follow around the actual adventurers?
And gets into actual blaster fights, and play parts in the main story line. And "following around adventurers [during their adventures]" is ... going on adventures.
Courtiers and politicians are escort targets in fiction, they generally aren't adventurers because they have no combat skills.
Whether or not someone is specifically an adventurer is not the core point, but whether or not they are Player Characters (not the same thing). The answer is yes, they can be (and I will call back to: there are those who play D&D as a court focused game, so not all PCs are "adventurers"). But even then, some of them are adventurers as well. Whether it's a courtier on a diplomatic mission that gets waylaid in an adventure, a courtier who is a runaway bride from her wedding and winds up being rescued by an unknown prince and his dog-man companion, the daughter of a slain nobleman who (while committing no crime herself) sets out to become a swashbuckler so she can avenge her father's death (and true to fiction ends up on a very different path than she originally intended), or her sister who remains an actual courtier while trying to navigate the court intrigue and manipulations around her. Or a younger academic and not-very-warrior focused son of a nobleman (who also isn't a caster) who has to figure out his place in a fantasy apocalypse and journeys from one cloistered militant monastery to an academia focused cloister, where he discovers facts key to the larger plot ... courtiers are not just escort targets, they're often main characters.
Those that do have combat skills are almost always associated with criminal elements - rebels (Leia), thieves (Cat woman), or assassins. Because politicians in power can get everything they want legally and without needing to adventure.
Prior to circumstance forcing her down a particular path, as she is being raised at court, and then during her tutelage as a Swashbuckler, and before her father's death, what is Arya's criminal association?
Sam Tarly's criminality, prior to stealing his father's sword late in the saga? He does end up being forced to associate with criminals, but even then he distances himself from that part of the group and focuses on Jon. But before he's at The Wall? Not a criminal, doesn't associate with criminals, but already an Expert (who isn't a spell caster nor outdoorsman, so a Rogue). His being a Rogue is independent of his later* non-close forced association with _former_ criminals. (* later compared to when he starts being a Rogue, where his niche as an Expert starts before he is sent to The Wall). Adventuring courtier.
Princess Vespa, prior to being rescued by Lonestar? And even after being rescued, Lonestar has a debt to a criminal, but isn't particularly identified as being a criminal himself ... just a lowlife mercenary hired by a legitimate government. So while he has criminal associates (without being established as a criminal himself), who are _her_ criminal associates? The government to whom she is actually associated with certainly never charged her with any crimes, and even the government that she is not associated with only treats her as a hostage and not a criminal. Or is being a victim of a kidnapping, being held hostage without a criminal charge, who then gets rescued, a criminal offense?
Dutchess Carline ConDoin, during the Riftwar and before she becomes a Dutchess? Definitely a courtier, who ends up as an adventurer, and even a point of view main character (PC).
Princess Anna of Arendelle? Adventurer? yep (she's even the hero of both movies). Courtier? yep (even if that's not what game mechanic background you might pick for her, she's still raised in/at court and navigates that life well enough to eventually become the regent -- as a general statement apart from the single D&D background game mechanic, there's no conflict between being both a Noble and a Courtier, as long as you're not the primary noble of that court -- many of the people at the king's court are lesser (than the king) nobility).
What crime, exactly, was committed by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? (especially as depicted in Stoppard's play; but even in Shakespeare where they're depicted more as agents of the regent, that specifically depicts them as non-criminals because they act within the authority of the regent) While executed, it was done as a diplomatic order and not a criminal sentence, while they were courtiers on a mission/adventure. And they're even the main characters (so, the PC's) in their own side of the story (a famous play and movie).
Jack Ryan -- has a Solider "Background", but isn't a soldier by the time we meet him (so, not a Fighter by class, just a Soldier by background). He is an analyst and not an operative (which makes him an extension of his nation-state's bureaucracy, which makes him a modern courtier). He has lesser combat skills (compared to the actual warriors he meets, like Clark and Chavez) by the time we meet him, and he is an Expert in his field (not a caster, so not a Bard; and definitely not a Ranger) ... and in his first book/adventure, who are his criminal associates?
Aya is an NPC until she becomes a PC-Rogue when she joins the Faceless. Note the key aspect as to whether a character is an NPC or PC is whether they take an active role in the adventure. Until she joins the Faceless, Aya does not decide where she goes, or what she does. She is escorted, controlled or kidnapped by adults. Everything that happens to Aya prior to her joining the Faceless would be your PCs backstory.
Princess Vespa's story is NPC / backstory until she is rescued by Lonestar at which point she becomes a PC and gains player levels, for the same reasons as Aya. Vespa has minimal agency until she is rescued by Lonestar. Also she isn't a rogue, she's an Artificer.
Sam Tarly before he is at the wall isn't a PC, he's a nobody. He doesn't become a PC until he goes on the first excursion beyond the Wall, and he is NPCed when he retires from adventuring to be with the wildling woman & her kid. Sam also isn't a Rogue, he's a suboptimal Fighter with INT and WIS as his highest stats, with the Noble background, when he goes to Maestor School he gains the Skill Expert Feat.
A courtier who is no longer regularly attending court is not a courtier any more, they are an adventurer with the courtier background. Failed ex-courtiers absolutely can be adventurers and can be great fun to play, but D&D doesn't work well as a social-intrigue focused game where combat is non-existent. Sure you can try to play it that way but you can drive a screw into the wall with a hammer if you really want to as well, but that doesn't invalidate the argument that screws are not nails.
Isn't Jack Ryan a CIA analyst? He would absolutely know Thieve's Cant so he can decipher criminal communications to analyze criminal networks and patterns in criminal activity. CIA analysts typically know tons of languages for these same reasons since they need to track criminal activity happening in many different languages.
Anna is a bard, not a rogue, she inspires he sister is charismatic and outgoing and succeeds through the power of love.
At no point is she an NPC. Until we meet her at Winterfell, she's a PC who is still in her background. When she leaves Winterfell, her life of adventure starts and she's now an active PC, who is a courtier and Rogue (both established fairly well; Sansa might be picking Noble over Courtier as her background, but Arya never buys into the role of being a Noble -- she's a Courtier: raised at court in courtly life, rejecting the roles/rules/obligations of nobility, and doing everything she can to be a Rogue).
until she becomes a PC-Rogue when she joins the Faceless.
Arya gets her 3rd level subclass when she joins the Faceless. From the show opening until then, she's a courtier Rogue who had intended to be a Swashbuckler. 1st level: Rogue hoping to be a Swashbuckler. Somewhere during 2nd level, she changes course and decides to become something else.
Note the key aspect as to whether a character is an NPC or PC is whether they take an active role in the adventure.
She's taking part in the adventures from the moment she leaves Winterfell to go to King's Landing. At that point, she's a Rogue courtier on an adventure. And the difference between being an NPC or a PC is whether or not she's played by a player vs controlled by the DM. Being in transition from your background to your career doesn't mean "an NPC to PC transition". They're a PC who hasn't yet started their career, not an NPC.
Princess Vespa's story is NPC / backstory until she is rescued by Lonestar at which point she becomes a PC and gains player levels, for the same reasons as Aya. Vespa has minimal agency until she is rescued by Lonestar. Also she isn't a rogue, she's an Artificer.
Minimal agency in that she completely breaks from her expected path to abandon her wedding? That's when her PC career starts. Nor is she ever depicted as having magical abilities nor being any kind of maker/repairer of devices. She doesn't build Dot, Dot is her sidekick who happens to be gearforged/warforged. There is absolutely nothing that establishes her as an Artificer.
Sam Tarly before he is at the wall isn't a PC, he's a nobody.
Doesn't change that he's already an Expert (of no magical focus) and courtier (as disinterested nobility as Arya), and that his Rogue level and background is not based on being a criminal nor associate of criminals. And, as with Arya, he's not an NPC. He's a PC who starts his career when he gets to The Wall.
A courtier who is no longer regularly attending court is not a courtier any more, they are an adventurer with the courtier background. Failed ex-courtiers absolutely can be adventurers and can be great fun to play,
It's in their background, whether they choose to continue as that or not. Courtiers are also people who are part of the bureaucracy (explicitly stated in the background), and bureaucrats are not necessarily physically in the court at all times. Nor does the background dictate anything about "failed ex-courtiers". As I said, there is plenty of room in the larger description that they are still working with their previous organization, and therefore could still be members just as much as "Noble" doesn't mean you stopped being nobility when you started your PC career.
Sure you can try to play it that way
Exactly.
Isn't Jack Ryan a CIA analyst? He would absolutely know Thieve's Cant
At no point is it established that he has any sort of understanding of Thieves Cant (or anything like it -- especially keeping in mind that he could actually know Thieves Cant, since it's a real world thing -- he doesn't know anything like that), nor is Languages his area of expertise (Economics and History are his areas), but that's also not the point of this side thread. The point of the side-thread is that he's a courtier who goes on adventures. And he's neither "failed" nor "ex-" -- he's a currently active courtier who is going on adventures.
Edit: if he was someone who was expected to have fluency with some sort of professional jargon that isn't his own profession (Economist), the opportunity to display that would have been with the professional jargon for the group he has been studying: submariners, as well as Navy History. Instead, he's actually somewhat depicted as being not familiar with the details of submariner life, Navy Jargon, and is analyzing Ramius as a Lithuanian dealing with Soviet Russia and not specifically as submariner. And Ryan is completely at odds with US Captain Bart Mancuso, contrasting their completely different professional cultures. That professional jargon (navy, and submariner specifically) is one he actually could have plausibly known ... and yet he is depicted as not really being proficient in that regard. The idea that he would then know yet a completely different and further removed professional jargon (thieves cant) is more than a slight stretch.
so he can decipher criminal communications to analyze criminal networks and patterns in criminal activity.
When is he depicted deciphering anything directly, as opposed to using other resources for it?
CIA analysts typically know tons of languages for these same reasons since they need to track criminal activity happening in many different languages.
That depends on their area of expertise and analysis. Not all analysts are language analysts.
Anna is a bard, not a rogue, she inspires he sister is charismatic and outgoing and succeeds through the power of love.
Both movies go out of their way to contrast her with Elsa as being the non-magical sister, with no extra-normal abilities (including anything like "Bardic Inspiration"). It is comically stated in the first movie, when the Duke of Weasel-town asks if she's magical too, and both Hans and Anna establish that she is plain/normal/uninteresting in every way. It is stated more explicitly in the 2nd movie when Olaf (recapping the 1st movie for the people who have been trapped in the forrest) says Elsa has magical powers, and Anna does not. Nor does she ever do anything that is depicted as magical or paranormal, which would be an unusual choice for the way the sisters are intentionally contrasted and where magical/paranormal things in the stories are specifically called to our attention.
She's a courtier Rogue, with no criminal associations, who goes on adventures (her background pick could have been Noble or Courtier (capital c), but either way she is a courtier (lower case c) until Elsa abdicates and Anna is the one who assumes the role of being the head of that court instead of a member of that court). And there's nothing that prevents a Rogue from being Charismatic. After all, 4 of their 11 class skills (in 5e, 3/10 in OneD&D) are associated with Charisma. Contrast that with 3/10 being associated with Dexterity. Charisma is as much a part of their skill set as Dexterity.
At no point is she an NPC. Until we meet her at Winterfell, she's a PC who is still in her background. When she leaves Winterfell, her life of adventure starts and she's now an active PC, who is a courtier and Rogue (both established fairly well; Sansa might be picking Noble over Courtier as her background, but Arya never buys into the role of being a Noble -- she's a Courtier: raised at court in courtly life, rejecting the roles/rules/obligations of nobility, and doing everything she can to be a Rogue).
until she becomes a PC-Rogue when she joins the Faceless.
Arya gets her 3rd level subclass when she joins the Faceless. From the show opening until then, she's a courtier Rogue who had intended to be a Swashbuckler. 1st level: Rogue hoping to be a Swashbuckler. Somewhere during 2nd level, she changes course and decides to become something else.
Note the key aspect as to whether a character is an NPC or PC is whether they take an active role in the adventure.
She's taking part in the adventures from the moment she leaves Winterfell to go to King's Landing. At that point, she's a Rogue courtier on an adventure. And the difference between being an NPC or a PC is whether or not she's played by a player vs controlled by the DM. Being in transition from your background to your career doesn't mean "an NPC to PC transition". They're a PC who hasn't yet started their career, not an NPC.
Princess Vespa's story is NPC / backstory until she is rescued by Lonestar at which point she becomes a PC and gains player levels, for the same reasons as Aya. Vespa has minimal agency until she is rescued by Lonestar. Also she isn't a rogue, she's an Artificer.
Minimal agency in that she completely breaks from her expected path to abandon her wedding? That's when her PC career starts. Nor is she ever depicted as having magical abilities nor being any kind of maker/repairer of devices. She doesn't build Dot, Dot is her sidekick who happens to be gearforged/warforged. There is absolutely nothing that establishes her as an Artificer.
Sam Tarly before he is at the wall isn't a PC, he's a nobody.
Doesn't change that he's already an Expert (of no magical focus) and courtier (as disinterested nobility as Arya), and that his Rogue level and background is not based on being a criminal nor associate of criminals. And, as with Arya, he's not an NPC. He's a PC who starts his career when he gets to The Wall.
A courtier who is no longer regularly attending court is not a courtier any more, they are an adventurer with the courtier background. Failed ex-courtiers absolutely can be adventurers and can be great fun to play,
It's in their background, whether they choose to continue as that or not. Courtiers are also people who are part of the bureaucracy (explicitly stated in the background), and bureaucrats are not necessarily physically in the court at all times. Nor does the background dictate anything about "failed ex-courtiers". As I said, there is plenty of room in the larger description that they are still working with their previous organization, and therefore could still be members just as much as "Noble" doesn't mean you stopped being nobility when you started your PC career.
Sure you can try to play it that way
Exactly.
Isn't Jack Ryan a CIA analyst? He would absolutely know Thieve's Cant
At no point is it established that he has any sort of understanding of Thieves Cant (or anything like it -- especially keeping in mind that he could actually know Thieves Cant, since it's a real world thing -- he doesn't know anything like that), nor is Languages his area of expertise (Economics and History are his areas), but that's also not the point of this side thread. The point of the side-thread is that he's a courtier who goes on adventures. And he's neither "failed" nor "ex-" -- he's a currently active courtier who is going on adventures.
Edit: if he was someone who was expected to have fluency with some sort of professional jargon that isn't his own profession (Economist), the opportunity to display that would have been with the professional jargon for the group he has been studying: submariners, as well as Navy History. Instead, he's actually somewhat depicted as being not familiar with the details of submariner life, Navy Jargon, and is analyzing Ramius as a Lithuanian dealing with Soviet Russia and not specifically as submariner. And Ryan is completely at odds with US Captain Bart Mancuso, contrasting their completely different professional cultures. That professional jargon (navy, and submariner specifically) is one he actually could have plausibly known ... and yet he is depicted as not really being proficient in that regard. The idea that he would then know yet a completely different and further removed professional jargon (thieves cant) is more than a slight stretch.
so he can decipher criminal communications to analyze criminal networks and patterns in criminal activity.
When is he depicted deciphering anything directly, as opposed to using other resources for it?
CIA analysts typically know tons of languages for these same reasons since they need to track criminal activity happening in many different languages.
That depends on their area of expertise and analysis. Not all analysts are language analysts.
Anna is a bard, not a rogue, she inspires he sister is charismatic and outgoing and succeeds through the power of love.
Both movies go out of their way to contrast her with Elsa as being the non-magical sister, with no extra-normal abilities (including anything like "Bardic Inspiration"). It is comically stated in the first movie, when the Duke of Weasel-town asks if she's magical too, and both Hans and Anna establish that she is plain/normal/uninteresting in every way. It is stated more explicitly in the 2nd movie when Olaf (recapping the 1st movie for the people who have been trapped in the forrest) says Elsa has magical powers, and Anna does not. Nor does she ever do anything that is depicted as magical or paranormal, which would be an unusual choice for the way the sisters are intentionally contrasted and where magical/paranormal things in the stories are specifically called to our attention.
She's a courtier Rogue, with no criminal associations, who goes on adventures (her background pick could have been Noble or Courtier (capital c), but either way she is a courtier (lower case c) until Elsa abdicates and Anna is the one who assumes the role of being the head of that court instead of a member of that court). And there's nothing that prevents a Rogue from being Charismatic. After all, 4 of their 11 class skills (in 5e, 3/10 in OneD&D) are associated with Charisma. Contrast that with 3/10 being associated with Dexterity. Charisma is as much a part of their skill set as Dexterity.
What type of analyst doesn't matter. The CIA is a law enforcement agency which deals with crime and antigoverment entities in a way that involves covert survellance instead of brute force.
But it doesn't really matter, because I feel like you are willfully denying any evidence presented, and I feel adding to this conversation or in any way commenting after this is just adding fuel to the fire and giving this topic more than it deserves. I reiterate my stance that this isn't worthy of a rewrite, and I don't think there's enough interest in redesigning the entire class from the ground up, and if they were to do so, it would anger a lot more people than just myself. The rogue, as is, is a perennial favorite of players, and I reiterate, if you want to, I would advice homebrew with your own table and your own DM.
At no point is she an NPC. Until we meet her at Winterfell, she's a PC who is still in her background. When she leaves Winterfell, her life of adventure starts and she's now an active PC, who is a courtier and Rogue (both established fairly well; Sansa might be picking Noble over Courtier as her background, but Arya never buys into the role of being a Noble -- she's a Courtier: raised at court in courtly life, rejecting the roles/rules/obligations of nobility, and doing everything she can to be a Rogue).
until she becomes a PC-Rogue when she joins the Faceless.
Arya gets her 3rd level subclass when she joins the Faceless. From the show opening until then, she's a courtier Rogue who had intended to be a Swashbuckler. 1st level: Rogue hoping to be a Swashbuckler. Somewhere during 2nd level, she changes course and decides to become something else.
Note the key aspect as to whether a character is an NPC or PC is whether they take an active role in the adventure.
She's taking part in the adventures from the moment she leaves Winterfell to go to King's Landing. At that point, she's a Rogue courtier on an adventure. And the difference between being an NPC or a PC is whether or not she's played by a player vs controlled by the DM. Being in transition from your background to your career doesn't mean "an NPC to PC transition". They're a PC who hasn't yet started their career, not an NPC.
Princess Vespa's story is NPC / backstory until she is rescued by Lonestar at which point she becomes a PC and gains player levels, for the same reasons as Aya. Vespa has minimal agency until she is rescued by Lonestar. Also she isn't a rogue, she's an Artificer.
Minimal agency in that she completely breaks from her expected path to abandon her wedding? That's when her PC career starts. Nor is she ever depicted as having magical abilities nor being any kind of maker/repairer of devices. She doesn't build Dot, Dot is her sidekick who happens to be gearforged/warforged. There is absolutely nothing that establishes her as an Artificer.
Sam Tarly before he is at the wall isn't a PC, he's a nobody.
Doesn't change that he's already an Expert (of no magical focus) and courtier (as disinterested nobility as Arya), and that his Rogue level and background is not based on being a criminal nor associate of criminals. And, as with Arya, he's not an NPC. He's a PC who starts his career when he gets to The Wall.
A courtier who is no longer regularly attending court is not a courtier any more, they are an adventurer with the courtier background. Failed ex-courtiers absolutely can be adventurers and can be great fun to play,
It's in their background, whether they choose to continue as that or not. Courtiers are also people who are part of the bureaucracy (explicitly stated in the background), and bureaucrats are not necessarily physically in the court at all times. Nor does the background dictate anything about "failed ex-courtiers". As I said, there is plenty of room in the larger description that they are still working with their previous organization, and therefore could still be members just as much as "Noble" doesn't mean you stopped being nobility when you started your PC career.
Sure you can try to play it that way
Exactly.
Isn't Jack Ryan a CIA analyst? He would absolutely know Thieve's Cant
At no point is it established that he has any sort of understanding of Thieves Cant (or anything like it -- especially keeping in mind that he could actually know Thieves Cant, since it's a real world thing -- he doesn't know anything like that), nor is Languages his area of expertise (Economics and History are his areas), but that's also not the point of this side thread. The point of the side-thread is that he's a courtier who goes on adventures. And he's neither "failed" nor "ex-" -- he's a currently active courtier who is going on adventures.
Edit: if he was someone who was expected to have fluency with some sort of professional jargon that isn't his own profession (Economist), the opportunity to display that would have been with the professional jargon for the group he has been studying: submariners, as well as Navy History. Instead, he's actually somewhat depicted as being not familiar with the details of submariner life, Navy Jargon, and is analyzing Ramius as a Lithuanian dealing with Soviet Russia and not specifically as submariner. And Ryan is completely at odds with US Captain Bart Mancuso, contrasting their completely different professional cultures. That professional jargon (navy, and submariner specifically) is one he actually could have plausibly known ... and yet he is depicted as not really being proficient in that regard. The idea that he would then know yet a completely different and further removed professional jargon (thieves cant) is more than a slight stretch.
so he can decipher criminal communications to analyze criminal networks and patterns in criminal activity.
When is he depicted deciphering anything directly, as opposed to using other resources for it?
CIA analysts typically know tons of languages for these same reasons since they need to track criminal activity happening in many different languages.
That depends on their area of expertise and analysis. Not all analysts are language analysts.
Anna is a bard, not a rogue, she inspires he sister is charismatic and outgoing and succeeds through the power of love.
Both movies go out of their way to contrast her with Elsa as being the non-magical sister, with no extra-normal abilities (including anything like "Bardic Inspiration"). It is comically stated in the first movie, when the Duke of Weasel-town asks if she's magical too, and both Hans and Anna establish that she is plain/normal/uninteresting in every way. It is stated more explicitly in the 2nd movie when Olaf (recapping the 1st movie for the people who have been trapped in the forrest) says Elsa has magical powers, and Anna does not. Nor does she ever do anything that is depicted as magical or paranormal, which would be an unusual choice for the way the sisters are intentionally contrasted and where magical/paranormal things in the stories are specifically called to our attention.
She's a courtier Rogue, with no criminal associations, who goes on adventures (her background pick could have been Noble or Courtier (capital c), but either way she is a courtier (lower case c) until Elsa abdicates and Anna is the one who assumes the role of being the head of that court instead of a member of that court). And there's nothing that prevents a Rogue from being Charismatic. After all, 4 of their 11 class skills (in 5e, 3/10 in OneD&D) are associated with Charisma. Contrast that with 3/10 being associated with Dexterity. Charisma is as much a part of their skill set as Dexterity.
What type of analyst doesn't matter. The CIA is a law enforcement agency which deals with crime and antigoverment entities in a way that involves covert survellance instead of brute force.
The CIA doesn't do law enforcement. They're an intelligence agency. They turn law enforcement cases over to the FBI.
(and they go way past surveillance)
But it doesn't really matter, because I feel like you are willfully denying any evidence presented,
I'm rejecting things that I can show to be provably false if they're of a factual nature, and offering counter opinions for those things that are opinion in nature (and therefore not factual in nature).
I don't think there's enough interest in redesigning the entire class from the ground up,
No one has suggested that. Just a minor generalization of an existing mechanic, that is completely backward compatible to the current Rogue playtest... and the same change could also be made to the 5e Rogue and also be completely backward compatible to all 5e Rogue builds. No one is losing a single thing with this suggestion.
Welp, I'm going to duck out of this conversation since you are choosing to use ridiculously narrow definitions for things in order to justify every fictional character who isn't a moron and doesn't use magic as a rogue, and anyone who isn't a peasant as a courtier. I mean by your silly definition Jaskier / Dandelion is a rogue despite him called "bard" constantly in that series. So good bye and good luck, it's not worth my time to continue this conversation, plus it is veering off topic.
she's a Courtier: raised at court in courtly life, rejecting the roles/rules/obligations of nobility
That is not what a courtier is.
def. courtier. noun. : one in attendance at a royal court.
If you are not inside a royal court you are not a courtier. A son of a butcher can be a courtier if they have the favour of the queen, and the daughter of the king is not a courtier if they leave to go adventuring.
Welp, I'm going to duck out of this conversation since you are choosing to use ridiculously narrow definitions for things in order to justify every fictional character who isn't a moron and doesn't use magic as a rogue, and anyone who isn't a peasant as a courtier. I mean by your silly definition Jaskier / Dandelion is a rogue despite him called "bard" constantly in that series. So good bye and good luck, it's not worth my time to continue this conversation, plus it is veering off topic.
Are all bards D&D Bards?
Is Dr Strange, a book learned spell caster, a D&D Sorcerer just because his title is Sorcerer Supreme?
Do you see where I’m going with that? Is Jaskier a D&D Bard just because in-world people call him a bard? Wouldnt that be the same as saying William Shakespeare is spell casting healer just because he’s called The Bard?
I have not once suggested that someone is a Rogue due to their in fiction title being “rogue”.
I have placed them as being a Rogue due to what their role is, and is not, and how it works it’s way back to who and what they are in D&D terms. And the objections have been counter-factual assertions like “all D&D Rogues are either criminals or cops” or “courtiers in D&D can’t be adventurers”, when the game’s own use of those terms does not match those assertions.
she's a Courtier: raised at court in courtly life, rejecting the roles/rules/obligations of nobility
That is not what a courtier is.
def. courtier. noun. : one in attendance at a royal court.
If you are not inside a royal court you are not a courtier. A son of a butcher can be a courtier if they have the favour of the queen, and the daughter of the king is not a courtier if they leave to go adventuring.
Dictionary.com:
a person who is often in attendance at the court of a king or other royal personage
OED:
a person who attends a royal court as a companion or adviser to the king or queen:
(neither says it’s only when you’re in attendance that you are a courtier)
Or how about Wikipedia:
”Monarchs very often expected the more important nobles to spend much of the year in attendance on them at court. Not all courtiers were noble, as they included clergy, soldiers, clerks, secretaries, agents and middlemen with business at court. All those who held a court appointment could be called courtiers but not all courtiers held positions at court.””
So not everyone who was a courtier had positions at court.
But here’s the most apropos definition: The D&D definition of a courtier, from the Courtier background in SCAG:
“In your earlier days, you were a personage of some significance in a noble court or a bureaucratic organization. You might or might not come from an upper-class family; your talents, rather than the circumstances of your birth, could have secured you this position.
You might have been one of the many functionaries, attendants, and other hangers-on in the Court of Silverymoon, or perhaps you traveled in Waterdeep’s baroque and sometimes cutthroat conglomeration of guilds, nobles, adventurers, and secret societies. You might have been one of the behind-the-scenes law-keepers or functionaries in Baldur’s Gate or Neverwinter, or you might have grown up in and around the castle of Daggerford.”
Again, no statement that you are only a courtier during the moments you are present at court, It references the larger notion of the bureaucracy of courtiers, as they were in the Forbidden City, where courtiers were as much a profession and social caste. Bureaucrats , functionaries, and attendants, … and their numbers can include adventurers. So, within the D&D use and definition of the term, you could be part of a bureaucratic organization of courtiers … and an adventurer. Nor any statement that you aren’t a courtier anymore just because you went off adventuring.
I don't understand the desire to remove all flavor from all classes.
That’s not what’s being suggested, What’s being suggested is a small change to make the mechanics better fit the flavor given to the class for the last 23 years,
I don’t understand how this is still a debate. They asked to make thieves cant and thieves tools optional. It makes sense when I can name many typical rogues that wouldn’t have one or both. Locksmith doesn’t need thieves cant. Investigator doesn’t need either. Exterminator doesn’t need either. Smuggler doesn’t need thieves tools, probably should, but doesn’t need them. StrRogue Thug doesn’t need thieves tools. Inquisitor doesn’t need either. Swashbuckler doesn’t need either. Scout doesn’t need either.
I don’t understand how this is still a debate. They asked to make thieves cant and thieves tools optional. It makes sense when I can name many typical rogues that wouldn’t have one or both. Locksmith doesn’t need thieves cant. Investigator doesn’t need either. Exterminator doesn’t need either. Smuggler doesn’t need thieves tools, probably should, but doesn’t need them. StrRogue Thug doesn’t need thieves tools. Inquisitor doesn’t need either. Swashbuckler doesn’t need either. Scout doesn’t need either.
A NORMAL locksmith doesn't need Theive's can't. A Rogue Locksmith does. A NORMAL Investigator doesn't need either.... a Rogue Investigator does A NORMAL Exterminator doesn't need either.... a ROGUE Exterminator does. A average every day Smuggler may not need, a ROGUE smuggler absolutely does. A Strength THUG... doesn't.... but a rogue.... still does. A legal normal inquisitor doesn't need either.... but a rogue inquisitor does. A normal swashbuckler doesn't need.... a rogue swashbuckler..... Your average scout doesn't, but your rogue subclass scout isn't your average scout.
I don’t understand how this is still a debate. They asked to make thieves cant and thieves tools optional. It makes sense when I can name many typical rogues that wouldn’t have one or both. Locksmith doesn’t need thieves cant. Investigator doesn’t need either. Exterminator doesn’t need either. Smuggler doesn’t need thieves tools, probably should, but doesn’t need them. StrRogue Thug doesn’t need thieves tools. Inquisitor doesn’t need either. Swashbuckler doesn’t need either. Scout doesn’t need either.
A NORMAL locksmith doesn't need Theive's can't. A Rogue Locksmith does. A NORMAL Investigator doesn't need either.... a Rogue Investigator does A NORMAL Exterminator doesn't need either.... a ROGUE Exterminator does. A average every day Smuggler may not need, a ROGUE smuggler absolutely does. A Strength THUG... doesn't.... but a rogue.... still does. A legal normal inquisitor doesn't need either.... but a rogue inquisitor does. A normal swashbuckler doesn't need.... a rogue swashbuckler..... Your average scout doesn't, but your rogue subclass scout isn't your average scout.
Why do any of them _need_ those things? Why will a Rogue Scout out in the woods _need_ Thieves Tools or Thieves Cant specifically, instead of some other tool or special language? Why doesn’t that Rogue Scout more appropriately know Sylvan or sign language (for silently signaling other scouts) instead of Thieves Cant? Why would they know how to pick locks if it’s not part of their job?
Rogue first... everything else second.
“Rogue first”…. since Rogues are, by the actual class description, not all criminals or criminal related, how is it relevant that being a Rogue first somehow dictates knowing criminal jargon and tools?
I don’t understand how this is still a debate. They asked to make thieves cant and thieves tools optional. It makes sense when I can name many typical rogues that wouldn’t have one or both. Locksmith doesn’t need thieves cant. Investigator doesn’t need either. Exterminator doesn’t need either. Smuggler doesn’t need thieves tools, probably should, but doesn’t need them. StrRogue Thug doesn’t need thieves tools. Inquisitor doesn’t need either. Swashbuckler doesn’t need either. Scout doesn’t need either.
A NORMAL locksmith doesn't need Theive's can't. A Rogue Locksmith does. A NORMAL Investigator doesn't need either.... a Rogue Investigator does A NORMAL Exterminator doesn't need either.... a ROGUE Exterminator does. A average every day Smuggler may not need, a ROGUE smuggler absolutely does. A Strength THUG... doesn't.... but a rogue.... still does. A legal normal inquisitor doesn't need either.... but a rogue inquisitor does. A normal swashbuckler doesn't need.... a rogue swashbuckler..... Your average scout doesn't, but your rogue subclass scout isn't your average scout.
Why do any of them _need_ those things? Why will a Rogue Scout out in the woods _need_ Thieves Tools or Thieves Cant specifically, instead of some other tool or special language? Why doesn’t that Rogue Scout more appropriately know Sylvan or sign language (for silently signaling other scouts) instead of Thieves Cant? Why would they know how to pick locks if it’s not part of their job?
Rogue first... everything else second.
“Rogue first”…. since Rogues are, by the actual class description, not all criminals or criminal related, how is it relevant that being a Rogue first somehow dictates knowing criminal jargon and tools?
"Some Rogues began their careers as criminals, while others used their cunning to fight crime. 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."
Please explain to me how you mechanically show this on a class without giving theive's cant or Theif's tools to all rogues.
Am I to presume you do not like that all paladin's in this playtest get Find Steed prepared, or that all ranger get conjure barrage, or that all clerics get medium armor proficiency? Or that all wizards have a spell book? Or that all fighters have heavy armor proficiency, or all Barbarians have Unarmed defense, Or all barbarians have medium armor proficiency, or bards all have proficiency with 3 musical instruments, all druids can wild shape. At that point why don't we throw away all the ribbon narrative features in every class or hell why have classes at all? Why not just a system where we pick proficiencies and abilities based on character concepts in a buy system.... to be fair that does exist, just not in a class based game like DnD.
Who says a rogue scout DOESN'T need to pick locks? Or better yet, SET AND DISARM TRAPS... in the woods, where setting and disarming traps are very common. Thieves tools are more than just lock picks. Also Thieves cant isn't just spoken jargan, signs in the woods would qualify AND it gives you an ADDITIONAL language besides just thieves cant, so who says the Scout doesn't know both Thieves can't AND Sylvan.
Edit: Thieves tools This set of tools includes a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers. Scissors for cutting wires and traps, files for filing off serial numbers or what ever else you may think of, mirrors for SCOUTING and peaking around corners. It isn't just for picking locks.
I don’t understand how this is still a debate. They asked to make thieves cant and thieves tools optional. It makes sense when I can name many typical rogues that wouldn’t have one or both. Locksmith doesn’t need thieves cant. Investigator doesn’t need either. Exterminator doesn’t need either. Smuggler doesn’t need thieves tools, probably should, but doesn’t need them. StrRogue Thug doesn’t need thieves tools. Inquisitor doesn’t need either. Swashbuckler doesn’t need either. Scout doesn’t need either.
A NORMAL locksmith doesn't need Theive's can't. A Rogue Locksmith does. A NORMAL Investigator doesn't need either.... a Rogue Investigator does A NORMAL Exterminator doesn't need either.... a ROGUE Exterminator does. A average every day Smuggler may not need, a ROGUE smuggler absolutely does. A Strength THUG... doesn't.... but a rogue.... still does. A legal normal inquisitor doesn't need either.... but a rogue inquisitor does. A normal swashbuckler doesn't need.... a rogue swashbuckler..... Your average scout doesn't, but your rogue subclass scout isn't your average scout.
Why do any of them _need_ those things? Why will a Rogue Scout out in the woods _need_ Thieves Tools or Thieves Cant specifically, instead of some other tool or special language? Why doesn’t that Rogue Scout more appropriately know Sylvan or sign language (for silently signaling other scouts) instead of Thieves Cant? Why would they know how to pick locks if it’s not part of their job?
Rogue first... everything else second.
“Rogue first”…. since Rogues are, by the actual class description, not all criminals or criminal related, how is it relevant that being a Rogue first somehow dictates knowing criminal jargon and tools?
First, not the only definition of a rogue. You can see a lot more of those definitions and their analysis earlier in the thread.
Second, while those adjectives are common to criminals, they are not things that inherently make you a criminal. You can be dishonest and not be breaking a law while doing it. You can be unprincipled, and not be breaking a law while doing it. Which means: that definition is not a smoking gun which says all Rogues are criminals and/or their associates.
"Some Rogues began their careers as criminals, while others used their cunning to fight crime. 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."
Please explain to me how you mechanically show this on a class without giving theive's cant or Theif's tools to all rogues.
Please show me how “some Rogues began their careers as criminals, while other Rogues used their cunning to fight crime” is an exhaustive list of all possible Rogues, especially when that same section identifies the idea of an archaeologist Rogue: “Some have learned and perfected their skills with the explicit purpose of infiltrating ancient ruins and hidden crypts in search of treasure.” … why would an Archaeologist for a museum need to know Thieves Cant and automatically know it? The question isn’t whether or not it might be useful, but why is it mandatory that all Archaeologist Rogues would have learned it? Why is it not a completely character driven choice to be a non-Thieves-Cant Archaeologist Rogue instead of having to be a Thieves Cant speaking Archaeologist Rogue?
And, this Archaeologist Rogue, suggested by that latter quote, says nothing about being a criminal nor crime fighter, which then informs this quote: “As adventurers, rogues fall on both sides of the law” — since the Archaeologist Rogue isn’t inherently a crime fighter nor criminal, that mean’s this quote is not limiting rogues to robbers vs cops. It is saying that Rogues can be either law breaking or law abiding, while still being Rogues.
So, how can I have the class state your quote and then not force all Rogues to have Thieves Cant and a Thieves Tools? Easy, because the entirety of the class description makes it clear that you can have a law abiding Rogue, and therefore a law abiding archaeologist or scout, who has no need for Thieves Cant. Or a law abiding swashbuckler who doesn’t bother with picking locks. Or a mastermind of a non-criminal organization who doesn’t deal with either those who speak Thieves Cant nor those who pick locks.
Neither of those proficiencies is key to the actual full class description. Not all Rogues need to speak secretly with criminals. Not all Rogues need to use Thieves Tools.
Who says a rogue scout DOESN'T need to pick locks? Or better yet, SET AND DISARM TRAPS...
Is that the ONLY way to set or disarm a trap? The PHB doesn’t talk about a specific skill at all for setting a hunter’s trap. The DMG doesn't say that Thieves Tools are the ONLY option for setting or disarming. Using Thieves Tools is presented as a “might” not a “must.”
Do Rangers need them to set and disarm non-magical traps? (because you’d think they’d be right in there with the scouts on this one) If a Ranger doesn’t need Thieves Tools for dealing with traps, why would a Scout? The easy answer is that trapping and therefore traps are an extension of hunting, and therefore Survival, which means you could apply Survival to setting and disarming of traps. Guess what skill Scouts have, with double proficiency bonus?
Also Thieves cant isn't just spoken jargan, signs in the woods would qualify AND it gives you an ADDITIONAL language besides just thieves cant,
If sign language and thieves cant are the same (they’re not) why are they two separate languages? If they are the same then why are actual real world scouts not learning actual real world thieves cant when they are learning hand signals for silent communication? Why? because actual thieves cant isn’t a relevant nor necessary skill to actual scouts, And for what scouts actually DO need to do, there’s another perfectly good substitute language for it: sign language.
so who says the Scout doesn't know both Thieves can't AND Sylvan.
That isn’t the question. The question is why does the scout HAVE to know Thieves Cant, when that specific language isn’t relevant to someone who is a non-criminal scout, and they could instead take “sign language” or Sylvan or both of those languages? Why does their silent communication among non-criminal scouts automatically allow them to speak the specific language of non-scout criminals? Why are they being forced to take Thieves Cant…. when a more appropriate alternative is already in the game?
Trying to force it to be Thieves Cant is having a hammer and saying all things must be nails. There are other languages that do the same job, and are thematically more appropriate.
Edit: Thieves tools
This set of tools includes a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers. Scissors for cutting wires and traps, files for filing off serial numbers or what ever else you may think of, mirrors for SCOUTING and peaking around corners. It isn't just for picking locks.
Is that the only way for a scout to get a mirror? I had a survival mirror… it didn’t come with lock picks. And hey, it’s right there in the Adventurers Gear in the PHB.
or a file, scissors, and pliers? You’d think any basic tools (like tinkers tools) would include a file, scissors/snips, and pliers. They’re kind of basic tools for a basic tool set. The pliers are even directly pictured in the Xanthar’s Guide picture for them.
I think the Thieves' Tools are the corresponding to pick locks + disarm traps skills. They decided to join into a single and it was a tool, instead a skill. Then the tools themselves (the mirror, file, scissors) is only an excuse as you need "something" to work.
What I don't understand then is why to restrict it so much closely to the Rogue only. With the new Thief option to use its Sleight of Hand, so can get Expertise on that skill and use for everything related, the base tool proficiency should be more accesible by anyone than specific backgrounds. Then you simply decide if want to use one of your proficiencies on it or another thing. Well the Rogue gets it for free.
In fact a change to the classes getting tools proficiencies could be allowing to get the one wanted instead from a list, giving more versatility. Notice that in the case of the Thief, your tool proficiency is a waste if getting Sleight of Hand, so giving the option to not having Thieves' tool proficiency at level 1 and 2 and getting another one could be good. Another good option could be allow the Thief subclass to change its Thieves' tools proficiency by another tool now that it uses Sleight of Hand skill for it, because someone looking to be a Thief not having Thieves' tools usage at all at level 1 and 2 doesn't sound very nice.
I think the Thieves' Tools are the corresponding to pick locks + disarm traps skills. They decided to join into a single and it was a tool, instead a skill. Then the tools themselves (the mirror, file, scissors) is only an excuse as you need "something" to work.
What I don't understand then is why to restrict it so much closely to the Rogue only. With the new Thief option to use its Sleight of Hand, so can get Expertise on that skill and use for everything related, the base tool proficiency should be more accesible by anyone than specific backgrounds. Then you simply decide if want to use one of your proficiencies on it or another thing. Well the Rogue gets it for free.
In fact I'd change the classes proficiencies so those getting tools could get the one wanted instead from a list, giving more versatility. Notice that in the case of the Thief, your tool proficiency is a waste if getting Sleight of Hand, so giving the option to not having Thieves' tool proficiency at level 1 and 2 and getting another one could be good. Another good option could be allow the Thief subclass to change its Thieves' tools proficiency by another tool now that it uses Sleight of Hand skill for it, because someone looking to be a Thief not having Thieves' tools usage at all at level 1 and 2 doesn't sound very nice.
Ungh... I said I was done with this topic, but I'll bite.
Generally lock picking/disarming traps, and stealing/sleight of hand are the domain of the rogue which has been pretty much the universal dex based class. (disregard the monk for now).
When you have only 3-4 classes the roles become more apparent and defined within a game.
I feel like monk and bard (definitely) and maybe even ranger are more or less offshoots of the rogue that became their own classes, like the sorcerer and warlock are natural offshoots of the wizard, (which, btw, could be an answer to this whole debacle, by proposing a new class altogether based on the rogue, rather than removing the rogue's flavor, though you'd need your own battle mechanic rather than doing the rogue-ish thing and steal it).
I think generally you're right, it is a weird design flaw, and tools in general just need some more mechanical work. The only thing with less usage and flavor are the 7 million instruments and the fact that your bard gets 3 of the useless things when 1 would suffice (and even then, that's purely flavortown).
The problem with 5e is that ANYONE has a halfway decent chance of picking a lock or pocketing something, especially if you have any kind of dex modifier.(10 generally beats, a dex mod of 3 would mean a roll of 7 beats, meaning only 30% chance of failure because of if it meets it beats), which the In older editions which used percentages, and where you had to put points into those skills, most other classes without proficiency or the equivalent of expertise would suck, and most of the time traps would spring.
The tools also were REQUIRED to pick the locks and such. You're not expected to just "pick" a lock with brute force and a stone picked up off the ground (I mean how are you really going to pick a lock without picks? how are you going to get your fingers in the lock to lift the pins?) and on enough failures, they would break, meaning back to town to get another set, and you didn't have the ability to pick or disarm with a broken set.
This is why I say that the biggest fault to 5e is the loss of detail in favor or simplicity of play.
EDIT the loss of detail and such is also why classes blur, which is also part of my gripe about the bard, and why the ranger sucks.
EDIT EDIT: An elegant and simple fix to tools in general is that you need them for specific tasks, and instead of proficiency bonus for being proficient in them, you gain advantage (or if you aren't you get disadvantage), this way, proficiency bonuses can still apply to the skill check for thing you are trying to do, toll proficiency gives advantage to the skill check,and you need the tools to actually attempt it. No expertise to tools, only proficiency.
I.e. you can't pick a lock without lockpicks. No ifs ands or buts...
If you have lock picks but aren't proficient in them, you roll with disadvantage for sleight of hand.
If you are proficient in lockpicks, you can do a sleight of hand skill check with advantage.
If you are proficient in sleight of hand (or expertise), AND you have the tool proficiency, you'd basically get prof bonus, dex bonus, and roll with advantage, which, flavor wise also reflects that you really, really know your picks. (And took two proficiencies to get it). Virtually no lock is beyond your ability to pick.
I don’t understand how this is still a debate. They asked to make thieves cant and thieves tools optional. It makes sense when I can name many typical rogues that wouldn’t have one or both. Locksmith doesn’t need thieves cant. Investigator doesn’t need either. Exterminator doesn’t need either. Smuggler doesn’t need thieves tools, probably should, but doesn’t need them. StrRogue Thug doesn’t need thieves tools. Inquisitor doesn’t need either. Swashbuckler doesn’t need either. Scout doesn’t need either.
A NORMAL locksmith doesn't need Theive's can't. A Rogue Locksmith does. A NORMAL Investigator doesn't need either.... a Rogue Investigator does A NORMAL Exterminator doesn't need either.... a ROGUE Exterminator does. A average every day Smuggler may not need, a ROGUE smuggler absolutely does. A Strength THUG... doesn't.... but a rogue.... still does. A legal normal inquisitor doesn't need either.... but a rogue inquisitor does. A normal swashbuckler doesn't need.... a rogue swashbuckler..... Your average scout doesn't, but your rogue subclass scout isn't your average scout.
Rogue first... everything else second.
Just saying normal doesn’t mean anything. The rogue archetype is not beholden to thieves tools and thieves cant other than by unnecessary rules mechanics. That is literally what they are requesting to be changed. You can’t even think of an argument against it, yet you are fighting it for no reason. It’s weird.
Those checks getting advantage with tools are in the DMG. But in the case of UA for locks/traps is a Thief subclass feature which would not be different with any Rogue with expertise on sleight of hand and thieves’ tools proficiency.
I don’t understand how this is still a debate. They asked to make thieves cant and thieves tools optional.
You can simply...ignore thieves' cant.
And with the change suggested, you could just take Thieves Cant, and pretend everything was how it used to be.
Meanwhile, people doing what the rules suggest you can do (build a non-Criminal non-Cop Rogue) could actually do so in a meaningful way without losing two of their first level mechanics, and do it without being subjected to their DM’s whim.
What they asked for was to make it so those abilities could be exchanged for something they wanted more.
Not merely “wanted more”, but more appropriate to the specific type of Rogue. Since, as has been established and re-established: not all Rogues are criminals nor criminal adjacent.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Given that the context at this part of the post is "do courtiers go on adventures", the fact that she might be a Rogue who happens to technically be a criminal doesn't really change that she's an adventuring courtier.
And gets into actual blaster fights, and play parts in the main story line. And "following around adventurers [during their adventures]" is ... going on adventures.
Whether or not someone is specifically an adventurer is not the core point, but whether or not they are Player Characters (not the same thing). The answer is yes, they can be (and I will call back to: there are those who play D&D as a court focused game, so not all PCs are "adventurers"). But even then, some of them are adventurers as well. Whether it's a courtier on a diplomatic mission that gets waylaid in an adventure, a courtier who is a runaway bride from her wedding and winds up being rescued by an unknown prince and his dog-man companion, the daughter of a slain nobleman who (while committing no crime herself) sets out to become a swashbuckler so she can avenge her father's death (and true to fiction ends up on a very different path than she originally intended), or her sister who remains an actual courtier while trying to navigate the court intrigue and manipulations around her. Or a younger academic and not-very-warrior focused son of a nobleman (who also isn't a caster) who has to figure out his place in a fantasy apocalypse and journeys from one cloistered militant monastery to an academia focused cloister, where he discovers facts key to the larger plot ... courtiers are not just escort targets, they're often main characters.
Prior to circumstance forcing her down a particular path, as she is being raised at court, and then during her tutelage as a Swashbuckler, and before her father's death, what is Arya's criminal association?
Sam Tarly's criminality, prior to stealing his father's sword late in the saga? He does end up being forced to associate with criminals, but even then he distances himself from that part of the group and focuses on Jon. But before he's at The Wall? Not a criminal, doesn't associate with criminals, but already an Expert (who isn't a spell caster nor outdoorsman, so a Rogue). His being a Rogue is independent of his later* non-close forced association with _former_ criminals. (* later compared to when he starts being a Rogue, where his niche as an Expert starts before he is sent to The Wall). Adventuring courtier.
Princess Vespa, prior to being rescued by Lonestar? And even after being rescued, Lonestar has a debt to a criminal, but isn't particularly identified as being a criminal himself ... just a lowlife mercenary hired by a legitimate government. So while he has criminal associates (without being established as a criminal himself), who are _her_ criminal associates? The government to whom she is actually associated with certainly never charged her with any crimes, and even the government that she is not associated with only treats her as a hostage and not a criminal. Or is being a victim of a kidnapping, being held hostage without a criminal charge, who then gets rescued, a criminal offense?
Dutchess Carline ConDoin, during the Riftwar and before she becomes a Dutchess? Definitely a courtier, who ends up as an adventurer, and even a point of view main character (PC).
Princess Anna of Arendelle? Adventurer? yep (she's even the hero of both movies). Courtier? yep (even if that's not what game mechanic background you might pick for her, she's still raised in/at court and navigates that life well enough to eventually become the regent -- as a general statement apart from the single D&D background game mechanic, there's no conflict between being both a Noble and a Courtier, as long as you're not the primary noble of that court -- many of the people at the king's court are lesser (than the king) nobility).
What crime, exactly, was committed by Rosencrantz and Guildenstern? (especially as depicted in Stoppard's play; but even in Shakespeare where they're depicted more as agents of the regent, that specifically depicts them as non-criminals because they act within the authority of the regent) While executed, it was done as a diplomatic order and not a criminal sentence, while they were courtiers on a mission/adventure. And they're even the main characters (so, the PC's) in their own side of the story (a famous play and movie).
Jack Ryan -- has a Solider "Background", but isn't a soldier by the time we meet him (so, not a Fighter by class, just a Soldier by background). He is an analyst and not an operative (which makes him an extension of his nation-state's bureaucracy, which makes him a modern courtier). He has lesser combat skills (compared to the actual warriors he meets, like Clark and Chavez) by the time we meet him, and he is an Expert in his field (not a caster, so not a Bard; and definitely not a Ranger) ... and in his first book/adventure, who are his criminal associates?
Aya is an NPC until she becomes a PC-Rogue when she joins the Faceless. Note the key aspect as to whether a character is an NPC or PC is whether they take an active role in the adventure. Until she joins the Faceless, Aya does not decide where she goes, or what she does. She is escorted, controlled or kidnapped by adults. Everything that happens to Aya prior to her joining the Faceless would be your PCs backstory.
Princess Vespa's story is NPC / backstory until she is rescued by Lonestar at which point she becomes a PC and gains player levels, for the same reasons as Aya. Vespa has minimal agency until she is rescued by Lonestar. Also she isn't a rogue, she's an Artificer.
Sam Tarly before he is at the wall isn't a PC, he's a nobody. He doesn't become a PC until he goes on the first excursion beyond the Wall, and he is NPCed when he retires from adventuring to be with the wildling woman & her kid. Sam also isn't a Rogue, he's a suboptimal Fighter with INT and WIS as his highest stats, with the Noble background, when he goes to Maestor School he gains the Skill Expert Feat.
A courtier who is no longer regularly attending court is not a courtier any more, they are an adventurer with the courtier background. Failed ex-courtiers absolutely can be adventurers and can be great fun to play, but D&D doesn't work well as a social-intrigue focused game where combat is non-existent. Sure you can try to play it that way but you can drive a screw into the wall with a hammer if you really want to as well, but that doesn't invalidate the argument that screws are not nails.
Isn't Jack Ryan a CIA analyst? He would absolutely know Thieve's Cant so he can decipher criminal communications to analyze criminal networks and patterns in criminal activity. CIA analysts typically know tons of languages for these same reasons since they need to track criminal activity happening in many different languages.
Anna is a bard, not a rogue, she inspires he sister is charismatic and outgoing and succeeds through the power of love.
At no point is she an NPC. Until we meet her at Winterfell, she's a PC who is still in her background. When she leaves Winterfell, her life of adventure starts and she's now an active PC, who is a courtier and Rogue (both established fairly well; Sansa might be picking Noble over Courtier as her background, but Arya never buys into the role of being a Noble -- she's a Courtier: raised at court in courtly life, rejecting the roles/rules/obligations of nobility, and doing everything she can to be a Rogue).
Arya gets her 3rd level subclass when she joins the Faceless. From the show opening until then, she's a courtier Rogue who had intended to be a Swashbuckler.
1st level: Rogue hoping to be a Swashbuckler. Somewhere during 2nd level, she changes course and decides to become something else.
She's taking part in the adventures from the moment she leaves Winterfell to go to King's Landing. At that point, she's a Rogue courtier on an adventure. And the difference between being an NPC or a PC is whether or not she's played by a player vs controlled by the DM. Being in transition from your background to your career doesn't mean "an NPC to PC transition". They're a PC who hasn't yet started their career, not an NPC.
Minimal agency in that she completely breaks from her expected path to abandon her wedding? That's when her PC career starts. Nor is she ever depicted as having magical abilities nor being any kind of maker/repairer of devices. She doesn't build Dot, Dot is her sidekick who happens to be gearforged/warforged. There is absolutely nothing that establishes her as an Artificer.
Doesn't change that he's already an Expert (of no magical focus) and courtier (as disinterested nobility as Arya), and that his Rogue level and background is not based on being a criminal nor associate of criminals. And, as with Arya, he's not an NPC. He's a PC who starts his career when he gets to The Wall.
It's in their background, whether they choose to continue as that or not. Courtiers are also people who are part of the bureaucracy (explicitly stated in the background), and bureaucrats are not necessarily physically in the court at all times. Nor does the background dictate anything about "failed ex-courtiers". As I said, there is plenty of room in the larger description that they are still working with their previous organization, and therefore could still be members just as much as "Noble" doesn't mean you stopped being nobility when you started your PC career.
Exactly.
At no point is it established that he has any sort of understanding of Thieves Cant (or anything like it -- especially keeping in mind that he could actually know Thieves Cant, since it's a real world thing -- he doesn't know anything like that), nor is Languages his area of expertise (Economics and History are his areas), but that's also not the point of this side thread. The point of the side-thread is that he's a courtier who goes on adventures. And he's neither "failed" nor "ex-" -- he's a currently active courtier who is going on adventures.
Edit: if he was someone who was expected to have fluency with some sort of professional jargon that isn't his own profession (Economist), the opportunity to display that would have been with the professional jargon for the group he has been studying: submariners, as well as Navy History. Instead, he's actually somewhat depicted as being not familiar with the details of submariner life, Navy Jargon, and is analyzing Ramius as a Lithuanian dealing with Soviet Russia and not specifically as submariner. And Ryan is completely at odds with US Captain Bart Mancuso, contrasting their completely different professional cultures. That professional jargon (navy, and submariner specifically) is one he actually could have plausibly known ... and yet he is depicted as not really being proficient in that regard. The idea that he would then know yet a completely different and further removed professional jargon (thieves cant) is more than a slight stretch.
When is he depicted deciphering anything directly, as opposed to using other resources for it?
That depends on their area of expertise and analysis. Not all analysts are language analysts.
Both movies go out of their way to contrast her with Elsa as being the non-magical sister, with no extra-normal abilities (including anything like "Bardic Inspiration"). It is comically stated in the first movie, when the Duke of Weasel-town asks if she's magical too, and both Hans and Anna establish that she is plain/normal/uninteresting in every way. It is stated more explicitly in the 2nd movie when Olaf (recapping the 1st movie for the people who have been trapped in the forrest) says Elsa has magical powers, and Anna does not. Nor does she ever do anything that is depicted as magical or paranormal, which would be an unusual choice for the way the sisters are intentionally contrasted and where magical/paranormal things in the stories are specifically called to our attention.
She's a courtier Rogue, with no criminal associations, who goes on adventures (her background pick could have been Noble or Courtier (capital c), but either way she is a courtier (lower case c) until Elsa abdicates and Anna is the one who assumes the role of being the head of that court instead of a member of that court). And there's nothing that prevents a Rogue from being Charismatic. After all, 4 of their 11 class skills (in 5e, 3/10 in OneD&D) are associated with Charisma. Contrast that with 3/10 being associated with Dexterity. Charisma is as much a part of their skill set as Dexterity.
What type of analyst doesn't matter. The CIA is a law enforcement agency which deals with crime and antigoverment entities in a way that involves covert survellance instead of brute force.
But it doesn't really matter, because I feel like you are willfully denying any evidence presented, and I feel adding to this conversation or in any way commenting after this is just adding fuel to the fire and giving this topic more than it deserves. I reiterate my stance that this isn't worthy of a rewrite, and I don't think there's enough interest in redesigning the entire class from the ground up, and if they were to do so, it would anger a lot more people than just myself. The rogue, as is, is a perennial favorite of players, and I reiterate, if you want to, I would advice homebrew with your own table and your own DM.
Thank you for your time.
The CIA doesn't do law enforcement. They're an intelligence agency. They turn law enforcement cases over to the FBI.
(and they go way past surveillance)
I'm rejecting things that I can show to be provably false if they're of a factual nature, and offering counter opinions for those things that are opinion in nature (and therefore not factual in nature).
No one has suggested that. Just a minor generalization of an existing mechanic, that is completely backward compatible to the current Rogue playtest... and the same change could also be made to the 5e Rogue and also be completely backward compatible to all 5e Rogue builds. No one is losing a single thing with this suggestion.
Yours as well.
I don't understand the desire to remove all flavor from all classes.
Welp, I'm going to duck out of this conversation since you are choosing to use ridiculously narrow definitions for things in order to justify every fictional character who isn't a moron and doesn't use magic as a rogue, and anyone who isn't a peasant as a courtier. I mean by your silly definition Jaskier / Dandelion is a rogue despite him called "bard" constantly in that series. So good bye and good luck, it's not worth my time to continue this conversation, plus it is veering off topic.
That is not what a courtier is.
def. courtier. noun. : one in attendance at a royal court.
If you are not inside a royal court you are not a courtier. A son of a butcher can be a courtier if they have the favour of the queen, and the daughter of the king is not a courtier if they leave to go adventuring.
Are all bards D&D Bards?
Is Dr Strange, a book learned spell caster, a D&D Sorcerer just because his title is Sorcerer Supreme?
Do you see where I’m going with that? Is Jaskier a D&D Bard just because in-world people call him a bard? Wouldnt that be the same as saying William Shakespeare is spell casting healer just because he’s called The Bard?
I have not once suggested that someone is a Rogue due to their in fiction title being “rogue”.
I have placed them as being a Rogue due to what their role is, and is not, and how it works it’s way back to who and what they are in D&D terms. And the objections have been counter-factual assertions like “all D&D Rogues are either criminals or cops” or “courtiers in D&D can’t be adventurers”, when the game’s own use of those terms does not match those assertions.
Dictionary.com:
a person who is often in attendance at the court of a king or other royal personage
OED:
a person who attends a royal court as a companion or adviser to the king or queen:
(neither says it’s only when you’re in attendance that you are a courtier)
Or how about Wikipedia:
”Monarchs very often expected the more important nobles to spend much of the year in attendance on them at court. Not all courtiers were noble, as they included clergy, soldiers, clerks, secretaries, agents and middlemen with business at court. All those who held a court appointment could be called courtiers but not all courtiers held positions at court.””
So not everyone who was a courtier had positions at court.
But here’s the most apropos definition: The D&D definition of a courtier, from the Courtier background in SCAG:
“In your earlier days, you were a personage of some significance in a noble court or a bureaucratic organization. You might or might not come from an upper-class family; your talents, rather than the circumstances of your birth, could have secured you this position.
You might have been one of the many functionaries, attendants, and other hangers-on in the Court of Silverymoon, or perhaps you traveled in Waterdeep’s baroque and sometimes cutthroat conglomeration of guilds, nobles, adventurers, and secret societies. You might have been one of the behind-the-scenes law-keepers or functionaries in Baldur’s Gate or Neverwinter, or you might have grown up in and around the castle of Daggerford.”
Again, no statement that you are only a courtier during the moments you are present at court, It references the larger notion of the bureaucracy of courtiers, as they were in the Forbidden City, where courtiers were as much a profession and social caste. Bureaucrats , functionaries, and attendants, … and their numbers can include adventurers. So, within the D&D use and definition of the term, you could be part of a bureaucratic organization of courtiers … and an adventurer. Nor any statement that you aren’t a courtier anymore just because you went off adventuring.
That’s not what’s being suggested, What’s being suggested is a small change to make the mechanics better fit the flavor given to the class for the last 23 years,
I don’t understand how this is still a debate. They asked to make thieves cant and thieves tools optional. It makes sense when I can name many typical rogues that wouldn’t have one or both.
Locksmith doesn’t need thieves cant.
Investigator doesn’t need either.
Exterminator doesn’t need either.
Smuggler doesn’t need thieves tools, probably should, but doesn’t need them.
StrRogue Thug doesn’t need thieves tools.
Inquisitor doesn’t need either.
Swashbuckler doesn’t need either.
Scout doesn’t need either.
A NORMAL locksmith doesn't need Theive's can't. A Rogue Locksmith does.
A NORMAL Investigator doesn't need either.... a Rogue Investigator does
A NORMAL Exterminator doesn't need either.... a ROGUE Exterminator does.
A average every day Smuggler may not need, a ROGUE smuggler absolutely does.
A Strength THUG... doesn't.... but a rogue.... still does.
A legal normal inquisitor doesn't need either.... but a rogue inquisitor does.
A normal swashbuckler doesn't need.... a rogue swashbuckler.....
Your average scout doesn't, but your rogue subclass scout isn't your average scout.
Rogue first... everything else second.
Why do any of them _need_ those things? Why will a Rogue Scout out in the woods _need_ Thieves Tools or Thieves Cant specifically, instead of some other tool or special language? Why doesn’t that Rogue Scout more appropriately know Sylvan or sign language (for silently signaling other scouts) instead of Thieves Cant? Why would they know how to pick locks if it’s not part of their job?
“Rogue first”…. since Rogues are, by the actual class description, not all criminals or criminal related, how is it relevant that being a Rogue first somehow dictates knowing criminal jargon and tools?
Please explain to me how you mechanically show this on a class without giving theive's cant or Theif's tools to all rogues.
Am I to presume you do not like that all paladin's in this playtest get Find Steed prepared, or that all ranger get conjure barrage, or that all clerics get medium armor proficiency? Or that all wizards have a spell book? Or that all fighters have heavy armor proficiency, or all Barbarians have Unarmed defense, Or all barbarians have medium armor proficiency, or bards all have proficiency with 3 musical instruments, all druids can wild shape. At that point why don't we throw away all the ribbon narrative features in every class or hell why have classes at all? Why not just a system where we pick proficiencies and abilities based on character concepts in a buy system.... to be fair that does exist, just not in a class based game like DnD.
Who says a rogue scout DOESN'T need to pick locks? Or better yet, SET AND DISARM TRAPS... in the woods, where setting and disarming traps are very common. Thieves tools are more than just lock picks. Also Thieves cant isn't just spoken jargan, signs in the woods would qualify AND it gives you an ADDITIONAL language besides just thieves cant, so who says the Scout doesn't know both Thieves can't AND Sylvan.
Edit: Thieves tools
This set of tools includes a small file, a set of lock picks, a small mirror mounted on a metal handle, a set of narrow-bladed scissors, and a pair of pliers.
Scissors for cutting wires and traps, files for filing off serial numbers or what ever else you may think of, mirrors for SCOUTING and peaking around corners. It isn't just for picking locks.
First, not the only definition of a rogue. You can see a lot more of those definitions and their analysis earlier in the thread.
Second, while those adjectives are common to criminals, they are not things that inherently make you a criminal. You can be dishonest and not be breaking a law while doing it. You can be unprincipled, and not be breaking a law while doing it. Which means: that definition is not a smoking gun which says all Rogues are criminals and/or their associates.
Please show me how “some Rogues began their careers as criminals, while other Rogues used their cunning to fight crime” is an exhaustive list of all possible Rogues, especially when that same section identifies the idea of an archaeologist Rogue: “Some have learned and perfected their skills with the explicit purpose of infiltrating ancient ruins and hidden crypts in search of treasure.” … why would an Archaeologist for a museum need to know Thieves Cant and automatically know it? The question isn’t whether or not it might be useful, but why is it mandatory that all Archaeologist Rogues would have learned it? Why is it not a completely character driven choice to be a non-Thieves-Cant Archaeologist Rogue instead of having to be a Thieves Cant speaking Archaeologist Rogue?
And, this Archaeologist Rogue, suggested by that latter quote, says nothing about being a criminal nor crime fighter, which then informs this quote: “As adventurers, rogues fall on both sides of the law” — since the Archaeologist Rogue isn’t inherently a crime fighter nor criminal, that mean’s this quote is not limiting rogues to robbers vs cops. It is saying that Rogues can be either law breaking or law abiding, while still being Rogues.
So, how can I have the class state your quote and then not force all Rogues to have Thieves Cant and a Thieves Tools? Easy, because the entirety of the class description makes it clear that you can have a law abiding Rogue, and therefore a law abiding archaeologist or scout, who has no need for Thieves Cant. Or a law abiding swashbuckler who doesn’t bother with picking locks. Or a mastermind of a non-criminal organization who doesn’t deal with either those who speak Thieves Cant nor those who pick locks.
Neither of those proficiencies is key to the actual full class description. Not all Rogues need to speak secretly with criminals. Not all Rogues need to use Thieves Tools.
Is that the only way for a scout to get a mirror? I had a survival mirror… it didn’t come with lock picks. And hey, it’s right there in the Adventurers Gear in the PHB.
or a file, scissors, and pliers? You’d think any basic tools (like tinkers tools) would include a file, scissors/snips, and pliers. They’re kind of basic tools for a basic tool set. The pliers are even directly pictured in the Xanthar’s Guide picture for them.
I think the Thieves' Tools are the corresponding to pick locks + disarm traps skills. They decided to join into a single and it was a tool, instead a skill. Then the tools themselves (the mirror, file, scissors) is only an excuse as you need "something" to work.
What I don't understand then is why to restrict it so much closely to the Rogue only. With the new Thief option to use its Sleight of Hand, so can get Expertise on that skill and use for everything related, the base tool proficiency should be more accesible by anyone than specific backgrounds. Then you simply decide if want to use one of your proficiencies on it or another thing. Well the Rogue gets it for free.
In fact a change to the classes getting tools proficiencies could be allowing to get the one wanted instead from a list, giving more versatility. Notice that in the case of the Thief, your tool proficiency is a waste if getting Sleight of Hand, so giving the option to not having Thieves' tool proficiency at level 1 and 2 and getting another one could be good. Another good option could be allow the Thief subclass to change its Thieves' tools proficiency by another tool now that it uses Sleight of Hand skill for it, because someone looking to be a Thief not having Thieves' tools usage at all at level 1 and 2 doesn't sound very nice.
Ungh... I said I was done with this topic, but I'll bite.
Generally lock picking/disarming traps, and stealing/sleight of hand are the domain of the rogue which has been pretty much the universal dex based class. (disregard the monk for now).
When you have only 3-4 classes the roles become more apparent and defined within a game.
I feel like monk and bard (definitely) and maybe even ranger are more or less offshoots of the rogue that became their own classes, like the sorcerer and warlock are natural offshoots of the wizard, (which, btw, could be an answer to this whole debacle, by proposing a new class altogether based on the rogue, rather than removing the rogue's flavor, though you'd need your own battle mechanic rather than doing the rogue-ish thing and steal it).
I think generally you're right, it is a weird design flaw, and tools in general just need some more mechanical work. The only thing with less usage and flavor are the 7 million instruments and the fact that your bard gets 3 of the useless things when 1 would suffice (and even then, that's purely flavortown).
The problem with 5e is that ANYONE has a halfway decent chance of picking a lock or pocketing something, especially if you have any kind of dex modifier.(10 generally beats, a dex mod of 3 would mean a roll of 7 beats, meaning only 30% chance of failure because of if it meets it beats), which the In older editions which used percentages, and where you had to put points into those skills, most other classes without proficiency or the equivalent of expertise would suck, and most of the time traps would spring.
The tools also were REQUIRED to pick the locks and such. You're not expected to just "pick" a lock with brute force and a stone picked up off the ground (I mean how are you really going to pick a lock without picks? how are you going to get your fingers in the lock to lift the pins?) and on enough failures, they would break, meaning back to town to get another set, and you didn't have the ability to pick or disarm with a broken set.
This is why I say that the biggest fault to 5e is the loss of detail in favor or simplicity of play.
EDIT the loss of detail and such is also why classes blur, which is also part of my gripe about the bard, and why the ranger sucks.
EDIT EDIT: An elegant and simple fix to tools in general is that you need them for specific tasks, and instead of proficiency bonus for being proficient in them, you gain advantage (or if you aren't you get disadvantage), this way, proficiency bonuses can still apply to the skill check for thing you are trying to do, toll proficiency gives advantage to the skill check,and you need the tools to actually attempt it. No expertise to tools, only proficiency.
I.e. you can't pick a lock without lockpicks. No ifs ands or buts...
If you have lock picks but aren't proficient in them, you roll with disadvantage for sleight of hand.
If you are proficient in lockpicks, you can do a sleight of hand skill check with advantage.
If you are proficient in sleight of hand (or expertise), AND you have the tool proficiency, you'd basically get prof bonus, dex bonus, and roll with advantage, which, flavor wise also reflects that you really, really know your picks. (And took two proficiencies to get it). Virtually no lock is beyond your ability to pick.
Just saying normal doesn’t mean anything. The rogue archetype is not beholden to thieves tools and thieves cant other than by unnecessary rules mechanics. That is literally what they are requesting to be changed. You can’t even think of an argument against it, yet you are fighting it for no reason. It’s weird.
Those checks getting advantage with tools are in the DMG. But in the case of UA for locks/traps is a Thief subclass feature which would not be different with any Rogue with expertise on sleight of hand and thieves’ tools proficiency.
You can simply...ignore thieves' cant. What they asked for was to make it so those abilities could be exchanged for something they wanted more.
And with the change suggested, you could just take Thieves Cant, and pretend everything was how it used to be.
Meanwhile, people doing what the rules suggest you can do (build a non-Criminal non-Cop Rogue) could actually do so in a meaningful way without losing two of their first level mechanics, and do it without being subjected to their DM’s whim.
Not merely “wanted more”, but more appropriate to the specific type of Rogue. Since, as has been established and re-established: not all Rogues are criminals nor criminal adjacent.