I think what's getting lost in this is that the archetypes ARE the flavor.
Without them just pick whatever feats and skills you want.
Just have every single feature as a choice you can make at every level up and be done with it.
The problem isn't just unbalance, it's that there's no flavor left. It's all a grey goo with bards that act like monks, wizards that act like fighters, fighters that act like wizards...
Why bother have classes and subclasses?
Which is where my real question lies.
IF you hate these features so much, why are you so adamant on still playing a rogue?
As the above says, druidic and druidcraft are part of the druid experience.
Eldritch bolt and a patron are of a warlock, even if the patron never actually figures into play or into your mechanics.
Should we just get rid of these things from the other classes too?
thieves cant and, now that you mention it, druidic are background languages whether that's how they're awarded or not. language is a thing that takes time. it's not handed to you at orientation with your new uniform and the konomi code for backstabs on. either you were taught in the past, you take it upon yourself to learn in downtime, or else you haven't got a plausible claim on use of it. these are grandfathered in from the days adjacent to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser where thieves only came from a guild and druids only came from druid villages. next UA would be a good time to change that and see how the public responds. plenty of ideas above to make the change painlessly.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
thieves cant and, now that you mention it, druidic are background languages whether that's how they're awarded or not. language is a thing that takes time. it's not handed to you at orientation with your new uniform and the konomi code for backstabs on. either you were taught in the past, you take it upon yourself to learn in downtime, or else you haven't got a plausible claim on use of it. these are grandfathered in from the days adjacent to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser where thieves only came from a guild and druids only came from druid villages. next UA would be a good time to change that and see how the public responds. plenty of ideas above to make the change painlessly.
but you aren't starting out as a nobody.
it's not like you just pick up a knife and know how to get sneak attack damage. Your level one wizard and druid and any spellcaster really, should start off with 0 spells by the same logic.
EDIT: and by what I mean is you aren't starting out with no experience in the field or class. you're automatically assuming enough training to be a beginner and know what you are doing.
You already should have some associations and you should know how to handle yourself a bit. You're the equivalent of a college graduate in your class. You're assumed to know what others in your fireld are talking about and how to at least handle yourself among your colleagues.
but if you're saying everyone should start out as a level 0 commoner, by all means...
I think what's getting lost in this is that the archetypes ARE the flavor.
Without them just pick whatever feats and skills you want.
Just have every single feature as a choice you can make at every level up and be done with it.
The problem isn't just unbalance, it's that there's no flavor left. It's all a grey goo with bards that act like monks, wizards that act like fighters, fighters that act like wizards...
Why bother have classes and subclasses?
Which is where my real question lies.
IF you hate these features so much, why are you so adamant on still playing a rogue?
As the above says, druidic and druidcraft are part of the druid experience.
Eldritch bolt and a patron are of a warlock, even if the patron never actually figures into play or into your mechanics.
Should we just get rid of these things from the other classes too?
Why does this matter so much?
I don’t understand why you are fighting this simple change. A rogue who doesn’t know thieves cant or use lockpick sis still a rogue. They still use sneak attacks, they still are experts and skill monkeys. Technically I was on your side, but making thieves cant and tools optional doesn’t make it so players who want to choose it lose that ability. It also doesn’t encroach on other classes and step on their toes. It’s simply a player option. They don’t hate the feature they dislike the tools and languages that come with the class. It’s similar to people who complain that you can’t just force nature and survival on all rangers. Rogues aren’t thieves and that’s why they had the name change in the first place. When someone makes a good arguement that doesn’t hurt the game just go with it. Druidic and Druidcraft are part of the Druid experience, but as they argued thief and criminal is not necessarily part of the Rogue experience. Eldritch Blast and patrons are part of the Warlock experience, but they are not a tool and a language. Let’s stay on topic. No one is trying to make sneak attack optional. Also in 5e Eldritch Blast was optional. Not many classes force you to have certain tools and languages. I’m fine with any of them being swapped out for other languages and tools, except Druidic. Druidic is special because it directly ties into the class lore and flavor. You asked, “why does this matter so much?” I have to ask “why does it matter so much o you? It’s only a language and a tool proficiency.”
This also made me realize it shouldn’t be called thieves tools. It should be lockpicking tools. No locksmith would call them thieves tools.
I think what's getting lost in this is that the archetypes ARE the flavor.
Without them just pick whatever feats and skills you want.
Just have every single feature as a choice you can make at every level up and be done with it.
The problem isn't just unbalance, it's that there's no flavor left. It's all a grey goo with bards that act like monks, wizards that act like fighters, fighters that act like wizards...
Why bother have classes and subclasses?
Which is where my real question lies.
IF you hate these features so much, why are you so adamant on still playing a rogue?
As the above says, druidic and druidcraft are part of the druid experience.
Eldritch bolt and a patron are of a warlock, even if the patron never actually figures into play or into your mechanics.
Should we just get rid of these things from the other classes too?
Why does this matter so much?
I don’t understand why you are fighting this simple change. A rogue who doesn’t know thieves cant or use lockpick sis still a rogue. They still use sneak attacks, they still are experts and skill monkeys. Technically I was on your side, but making thieves cant and tools optional doesn’t make it so players who want to choose it lose that ability. It also doesn’t encroach on other classes and step on their toes. It’s simply a player option. They don’t hate the feature they dislike the tools and languages that come with the class. It’s similar to people who complain that you can’t just force nature and survival on all rangers. Rogues aren’t thieves and that’s why they had the name change in the first place. When someone makes a good arguement that doesn’t hurt the game just go with it. Druidic and Druidcraft are part of the Druid experience, but as they argued thief and criminal is not necessarily part of the Rogue experience. Eldritch Blast and patrons are part of the Warlock experience, but they are not a tool and a language. Let’s stay on topic. No one is trying to make sneak attack optional. Also in 5e Eldritch Blast was optional. Not many classes force you to have certain tools and languages. I’m fine with any of them being swapped out for other languages and tools, except Druidic. Druidic is special because it directly ties into the class lore and flavor. You asked, “why does this matter so much?” I have to ask “why does it matter so much o you? It’s only a language and a tool proficiency.”
This also made me realize it shouldn’t be called thieves tools. It should be lockpicking tools. No locksmith would call them thieves tools.
Honestly, "sneak attack" doesn't make any sense. There's absolutely zero sneaking about it, most of the time with the new rules, it's just a matter of giving up your bonus action every round, and with all but 2 subclasses, doesn't even fit archetype.
And why would a courtesan or a mastermind, mental characters, even HAVE a melee skill for giving obscene damage?
Druidic and druidcraft are equally unused. In fact, languages as a whole are useless as most games default to just common.
I'm not "hung up on it" except, rogue =criminal. "rogue
My reasoning is that at a certain point, the classes are just mechanics, and not even role play mechanics, but ONLY combat mechanicsso why even bother?
Why not just get rid of classes and archetypes altogether and just have spells and weapons and pick what you want to fight with?
Thieve’s cant is much like Druidic is meant to be a special language that no one would teach you unless you are part of that lifestyle.
My experience is that both Thieves' Cant and Druidic are ribbon features that are even less relevant than most languages; you might as well just drop them and replace them with nothing at all. Thieves' Tools are one of the most useful tool proficiencies but I haven't really had trouble justifying any rogue character having it.
My characters always have Thieves' Tools proficiency. What adventurer would go on the road without the skills to get out of the room his parents locked him in to keep him from going adventuring?
I'm not "hung up on it" except, rogue =criminal. "rogue
I don’t agree. None of the definitions you gave explicitly says criminal, or even reflexively implies it. Being a vagrant isn’t automatically a crime (is being a knight errant a crime? is Jack Reacher a criminal just for being a wanderer? Or Kwai Chang Kaine? Or Will Sonnet?), nor is being mischievous. And fundamentally, neither is being dishonest outside of specific circumstances.
(while there are some jurisdictions that have laws called vagrancy laws.. but they don’t usually apply to people who are actually wandering through, but to people who wander in and try to stay without doing specific things, or while doing certain other things that might be undesirable…. but if you literally just travel into one of those places and then immediately leave, especially without any kind of stay, that isn’t what vagrancy laws are about).
But M-W’s definition also leaves out some of the OED definitions, like this one:
(OED) 1 a person whose behaviour one disapproves of but who is nonetheless likeable or attractive: (Errol) Flynn's screen reputation as a charming rogue you old rogue!.
Being disapproved of isn’t itself a crime.
Rogues are those who are outside of conventional behavior (just about every definition that you gave, and the ones at OED and dictionary.com, that can be related back to people all fit that characterization). While criminals behave in ways that are outside of conventional behavior, not everyone who is unconventional is a criminal. Not everyone who is mischievous is criminally mischievous. Not everyone who wanders is criminally so. Not everyone who is dishonest is criminally dishonest. Not everyone that we disprove of is a criminal for it.
Or how about this one from dictionary.com:
”no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; renegade”
Not everyone who is disobedient is breaking laws by doing so (because it might not be the law that they are being disobedient against). Not everyone who disavows their belonging to society is breaking a law by doing so. Not everyone who is uncontrollable is choosing to break laws. Not every renegade is breaking laws. They might be social renegades who are socially uncontrollable, disobedient of social rules, unaccepted in social circles, rejecting of their own membership/belonging in those social circles, and do not hold themselves accountable to those social rules/circles. That’s still Rogue behavior, all without implications of being criminal behavior.
Rogue doesn’t mean criminal, it means someone who is outside of behavioral norms/conventions in some context…. amd that context might not have anything to do with the law. Being a criminal is a subset of that, but it is not coequal with that. And the class descriptions WOTC gave for 3e and 5e reflect that being a Rogue is not specifically being a criminal.
Honestly, "sneak attack" doesn't make any sense. There's absolutely zero sneaking about it, most of the time with the new rules, it's just a matter of giving up your bonus action every round, and with all but 2 subclasses, doesn't even fit archetype.
And why would a courtesan or a mastermind, mental characters, even HAVE a melee skill for giving obscene damage?
Druidic and druidcraft are equally unused. In fact, languages as a whole are useless as most games default to just common.
I'm not "hung up on it" except, rogue =criminal. "rogue
My reasoning is that at a certain point, the classes are just mechanics, and not even role play mechanics, but ONLY combat mechanicsso why even bother?
Why not just get rid of classes and archetypes altogether and just have spells and weapons and pick what you want to fight with?
What are their purpose? Why have them?
Sneak Attack might need a name change. The premise is you can only do it under circumstances that the target can’t properly defend themselves. Usually having advantage happens when a target can’t properly defend themselves. Now that you can just aim to get sneak attack it feels more like precise attack in those circumstances. When you hide, flank or are a swashbuckler it’s still sneaky.
Also notice some of the definitions aren’t criminals. Mischievous person isn’t necessarily a criminal, just depends on laws and how mischievous they are. A dishonest or worthless person is also not necessarily a criminal.
I think what's getting lost in this is that the archetypes ARE the flavor.
Without them just pick whatever feats and skills you want.
Just have every single feature as a choice you can make at every level up and be done with it.
The problem isn't just unbalance, it's that there's no flavor left. It's all a grey goo with bards that act like monks, wizards that act like fighters, fighters that act like wizards...
Why bother have classes and subclasses?
Which is where my real question lies.
IF you hate these features so much, why are you so adamant on still playing a rogue?
As the above says, druidic and druidcraft are part of the druid experience.
Eldritch bolt and a patron are of a warlock, even if the patron never actually figures into play or into your mechanics.
Should we just get rid of these things from the other classes too?
Why does this matter so much?
Exactly, what you describe is typical D&D, and that is what I think D&D needs as refresh. A blank templates class to be filled by the character maker filling with the corresponding feat types (combat, magical, etc.). I have been thinking much about it, but that would be for a newer edition, and for another post.
The character development system is much better than the imposed and strictly hard-written archetyped one. The flavor is supplied by the player, with the skills and features it gives to the character, and how is used later. Played other games and never will understand why D&D players needs so much that "flavor" to come from default attached with glue to the character by paragraphs.
Exactly, what you describe is typical D&D, and that is what I think D&D needs as refresh. A blank templates class to be filled by the character maker filling with the corresponding feat types (combat, magical, etc.).
That's not going to happen because of its incredible unfriendliness to new players. Someone might make a HB system for that and put in on the DMsGuild but WotC would be incredibly stupid to release an edition based on it. There are plenty of other TTRPGs that use a "buy abilities with points" system rather than classes, if you want to play a game like that go and play one of those games.
I think what's getting lost in this is that the archetypes ARE the flavor.
Without them just pick whatever feats and skills you want.
Just have every single feature as a choice you can make at every level up and be done with it.
The problem isn't just unbalance, it's that there's no flavor left. It's all a grey goo with bards that act like monks, wizards that act like fighters, fighters that act like wizards...
Why bother have classes and subclasses?
Which is where my real question lies.
IF you hate these features so much, why are you so adamant on still playing a rogue?
As the above says, druidic and druidcraft are part of the druid experience.
Eldritch bolt and a patron are of a warlock, even if the patron never actually figures into play or into your mechanics.
Should we just get rid of these things from the other classes too?
Why does this matter so much?
Exactly, what you describe is typical D&D, and that is what I think D&D needs as refresh. A blank templates class to be filled by the character maker filling with the corresponding feat types (combat, magical, etc.). I have been thinking much about it, but that would be for a newer edition, and for another post.
The character development system is much better than the imposed and strictly hard-written archetyped one. The flavor is supplied by the player, with the skills and features it gives to the character, and how is used later. Played other games and never will understand why D&D players needs so much that "flavor" to come from default attached with glue to the character by paragraphs.
Then design or create your own completely new game.
D&D needs a refresh, yes, but what you are describing is leaning further into the problem we currently have, which is that the revisions and editions through the secondary books have diluted characters too much, and there's no impact on character choices. Playing a dance bard or a monk or a high dex pugilist fighter are incredibly similar.
Your species hardly matters since Tasha's, and even though I like the emphasis on background over species traits, even the background traits feel more like what Tasha's does to species.
There's just no point.
Buying "skills" is also pretty pointless hen the gameplay devolves into the standard 5th grader in the playground during recess style of role playing your favorite superheroes.
I hate crunch. I wanted nothing to do with a lot of the middle editions, so in many ways 5th was a breath of fresh air, but one of its biggest weaknesses is that they made the role play aspect too easy while they also made combat easier to understand.
The framework itself does need a rehaul, but not to lean into the grey goo/video game like situation it's currently in.
It's needs to depower casters a little bit, reign in the feature creep, make choices matter again, and make role playing about playing a specific role more. Choices need to matter. You need to feel some sort of danger or possibility of failure for the game to be fun.
So as someone who likes and enjoys the simplicity and "combat lite" of 5e, I end up siding with those that are more "death in a dungeon isn't just possible, but very likely", number crunchers, because unfortunately, things have leaned too far into the other side.
If you want more role play with your choice of abilities or where abilities don't matter, there's a thousand other games.
it's not about thieves cant or thieves tools specifically. You can all it whatever you want. Lock-picks are what they are BTW, not locksmith tools, and thieves cant IS poorly described, but it doesn't stop it from having its own real world analogies: the so called "hobo code", the idea of gang tags, color/uniform identifiers within said gangs, and slang, (and not "cool yo" slang, but the oblique references and word choices you find in many rap songs, or coded language of many hate groups, or that of anti-government factions).
A name change isn't the problem. It's screwing with the mechanics themselves when it feels like you want is to play something completely else.
Every town and city has its share of rogues. Most of them live up to the worst stereotypes of the class, making a living as burglars, assassins, cutpurses, and con artists. Often, these scoundrels are organized into thieves’ guilds or crime families. Plenty of rogues operate independently, but even they sometimes recruit apprentices to help them in their scams and heists. A few rogues make an honest living as locksmiths, investigators, or exterminators, which can be a dangerous job in a world where dire rats—and wererats—haunt the sewers.
As adventurers, rogues fall on both sides of the law. Some are hardened criminals who decide to seek their fortune in treasure hoards, while others take up a life of adventure to escape from the law. Some have learned and perfected their skills with the explicit purpose of infiltrating ancient ruins and hidden crypts in search of treasure.
Creating a Rogue
As you create your rogue character, consider the character’s relationship to the law. Do you have a criminal past—or present? Are you on the run from the law or from an angry thieves’ guild master? Or did you leave your guild in search of bigger risks and bigger rewards? Is it greed that drives you in your adventures, or some other desire or ideal?
What was the trigger that led you away from your previous life? Did a great con or heist gone terribly wrong cause you to reevaluate your career? Maybe you were lucky and a successful robbery gave you the coin you needed to escape the squalor of your life. Did wanderlust finally call you away from your home? Perhaps you suddenly found yourself cut off from your family or your mentor, and you had to find a new means of support. Or maybe you made a new friend—another member of your adventuring party—who showed you new possibilities for earning a living and employing your particular talents."
Specifically as written. If not a criminal, has a relationship with the law
During your rogue training you learned thieves’ cant, a secret mix of dialect, jargon, and code that allows you to hide messages in seemingly normal conversation. Only another creature that knows thieves’ cant understands such messages. It takes four times longer to convey such a message than it does to speak the same idea plainly.
In addition, you understand a set of secret signs and symbols used to convey short, simple messages, such as whether an area is dangerous or the territory of a thieves’ guild, whether loot is nearby, or whether the people in an area are easy marks or will provide a safe house for thieves on the run."
Precisely what I described in modern times. Was there a previous thieves cant? Sure. I just gave direct modern versions.
Vagrancy IS a criminal offense, and even the US itself has a colorful history with vagrancy charges.
You got me on the cortier vs. cortesan, except neither would be adventurers, rather they would simply be members of the royal household, and outside of political intrigue within the castle itself, you're not going to get to much adventuring, and honestly, neither are assassins, unless they're ALSO assassins, which is a class already covered and one of the two that would qualify for sneak attack as a sneaking attack.
Finally, scout should be a ranger class, and this has been my position for quite some time.
Every town and city has its share of rogues. Most of them live up to the worst stereotypes of the class, making a living as burglars, assassins, cutpurses, and con artists. Often, these scoundrels are organized into thieves’ guilds or crime families. Plenty of rogues operate independently, but even they sometimes recruit apprentices to help them in their scams and heists. A few rogues make an honest living as locksmiths, investigators, or exterminators, which can be a dangerous job in a world where dire rats—and wererats—haunt the sewers.
As adventurers, rogues fall on both sides of the law. Some are hardened criminals who decide to seek their fortune in treasure hoards, while others take up a life of adventure to escape from the law. Some have learned and perfected their skills with the explicit purpose of infiltrating ancient ruins and hidden crypts in search of treasure.
Creating a Rogue
As you create your rogue character, consider the character’s relationship to the law. Do you have a criminal past—or present? Are you on the run from the law or from an angry thieves’ guild master? Or did you leave your guild in search of bigger risks and bigger rewards? Is it greed that drives you in your adventures, or some other desire or ideal?
What was the trigger that led you away from your previous life? Did a great con or heist gone terribly wrong cause you to reevaluate your career? Maybe you were lucky and a successful robbery gave you the coin you needed to escape the squalor of your life. Did wanderlust finally call you away from your home? Perhaps you suddenly found yourself cut off from your family or your mentor, and you had to find a new means of support. Or maybe you made a new friend—another member of your adventuring party—who showed you new possibilities for earning a living and employing your particular talents."
Specifically as written. If not a criminal, has a relationship with the law
During your rogue training you learned thieves’ cant, a secret mix of dialect, jargon, and code that allows you to hide messages in seemingly normal conversation. Only another creature that knows thieves’ cant understands such messages. It takes four times longer to convey such a message than it does to speak the same idea plainly.
In addition, you understand a set of secret signs and symbols used to convey short, simple messages, such as whether an area is dangerous or the territory of a thieves’ guild, whether loot is nearby, or whether the people in an area are easy marks or will provide a safe house for thieves on the run."
Precisely what I described in modern times. Was there a previous thieves cant? Sure. I just gave direct modern versions.
Vagrancy IS a criminal offense, and even the US itself has a colorful history with vagrancy charges.
You got me on the cortier vs. cortesan, except neither would be adventurers, rather they would simply be members of the royal household, and outside of political intrigue within the castle itself, you're not going to get to much adventuring, and honestly, neither are assassins, unless they're ALSO assassins, which is a class already covered and one of the two that would qualify for sneak attack as a sneaking attack.
Finally, scout should be a ranger class, and this has been my position for quite some time.
Scout was suppose to be a fighter subclass, all rangers were are already scouts naturally in 5e,.
Again the argument was to make thieves tools and thieves cant optional. I don’t understand why there is any push back against that (even though I originally pushed back against it too). If you are an investigator or exterminator their is no reason you have to know how to pick locks or speak a secret language.
As adventurers, rogues fall on both sides of the law.
(bold emphasis from me) — you provided the quote that undoes your own argument. Both sides of the law. Which means they’re not all criminals, they can also be law abiding citizens.
Creating a Rogue
As you create your rogue character, consider the character’s relationship to the law. Do you have a criminal past—or present? Are you on the run from the law or from an angry thieves’ guild master? Or did you leave your guild in search of bigger risks and bigger rewards? Is it greed that drives you in your adventures, or some other desire or ideal?
What was the trigger that led you away from your previous life? Did a great con or heist gone terribly wrong cause you to reevaluate your career? Maybe you were lucky and a successful robbery gave you the coin you needed to escape the squalor of your life. Did wanderlust finally call you away from your home? Perhaps you suddenly found yourself cut off from your family or your mentor, and you had to find a new means of support. Or maybe you made a new friend—another member of your adventuring party—who showed you new possibilities for earning a living and employing your particular talents."
Specifically as written. If not a criminal, has a relationship with the law
”Consider your relationship with the law” means figure out which side of the law you’re on. It doesn’t mean you have an extra special relationship with the law… because literally every person on the planet who doesn’t live in an actual failed state (like Sudan) has a relationship with the law. The best most law abiding person you know has a relationship with the law: they obey it. And the rules, as you quoted above, specifically say that Rogues can be on either side: criminals, or law abiding citizens. That’s what that statement is saying: figure which of those two things you are, because it’s an important differentiator in what flavor of Rogue you might be.
Vagrancy IS a criminal offense, and even the US itself has a colorful history with vagrancy charges.
I covered what vagrancy laws actually are and aren’t. They US law section of the wikipedia page you referenced even says the same thing I was saying: the laws aren’t about you being a vagrant (meaning wanderer), they’re about you associating with actual criminals, and other unwelcome behaviors:
“the criminal statutes of law in Louisiana specifically criminalized vagrancy as associating with prostitutes, being a professional gambler, being a habitual drunk, or living on the social welfare benefits or pensions of others”
Contrast that with the actual definition of being a vagrant (which relates to the dictionary definition of a rogue):
- a person who wanders about idly and has no permanent home or employment; vagabond; tramp. - a person who wanders from place to place; wanderer; rover. - wandering idly without a permanent home or employment; living in vagabondage:vagrant beggars. - of, relating to, or characteristic of a vagrant: the vagrant life.
In other words, exactly as I said, vagrancy laws aren’t about being a vagrant (a wanderer): they’re about people who stayed around and did unwanted things (prostitution, public drunkenness, gambling, etc.). So, no, being an _actual_ vagrant isn’t illegal nor criminal in nature. Vagrancy laws aren’t actually about being a vagrant, which feeds back to the Rogue: if being a vagrant (wanderer) isn’t actually illegal (it’s not), then that element of the definition of a rogue doesn’t support calling them all criminals.
You got me on the cortier vs. cortesan, except neither would be adventurers,
Courtier is an actual 5e background, that even hints about how you might continue being a courtier as you are adventuring.
”You might undertake missions with your new companions that further the interest of the organization that gave you your start in life.”
You didn’t necessarily leave the organization behind, you might just be serving them in the field.
rather they would simply be members of the royal household, and outside of political intrigue within the castle itself,
I assume you’re aware that there are D&D groups who actually play the game exactly in that kind of setting, right? Court political and social intrigue in the castle.
you're not going to get to much adventuring,
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.
Finally, scout should be a ranger class, and this has been my position for quite some time.
From the PHB:
”Many rogues focus on stealth and deception, while others refine the skills that help them in a dungeon environment, such as climbing, finding and disarming traps, and opening locks.
When it comes to combat, rogues prioritize cunning over brute strength. A rogue would rather make one precise strike, placing it exactly where the attack will hurt the target most, than wear an opponent down with a barrage of attacks. Rogues have an almost supernatural knack for avoiding danger, and a few learn magical tricks to supplement their other abilities.”
In other words: everything scouts are. Stealthy skirmishers, not front line grunts, heavy cavalry, etc.
Rangers are spell casting scouts. The reason the Scout subclass isn’t a Ranger is that the Scout subclass is the mundane version of that archetype. And the reason they aren’t a Fighter subclass is: stealth, deception, and precision, not brute force and barrages. The Scout subclass is exactly where it belongs.
Rogues aren't all thieves, but they're the ones that surround the criminal element, and thus should be familiar with the tools of the trade and the secret lingo.
the criminal mastermind, the swashbuckling pirate, the investigator, the scout, the assassin, the thief.... all associated with criminals, which are the very definition of "rogue".
I mean what do you thing a "rogues gallery" is? A collection of criminals!
I think there's nothing to change about the rogue, but if you wanted to, you could have the feat for others, though, honestly, you have both the criminal and urchin backgrounds which can get you things through that.
I can't believe I have to quote myself. In bold for emphasis.
Even when rogues are, like the investigator, not criminals, they are associated with the criminal element.
What I am objecting to is on the first page you list preacher, which is clearly the very waling definition of a cleric as a "rogue subclass".
Or the courtier.
You "rogues" are so far removed from the concept of a rogue that it doesn't even make sense. You're basically wanting the combat mechanics without anything else, and want to destroy the very concept of the class to fit whatever you want into it.
So my point is, rather than doing all this linguistic stretching to the point of doublespeak, why are you hung up on doing this to the rogue rather than playing a character that is more closely aligned to the class you want, taking a different background, or playing a different game that has less care about who does what?
Other Rogue changes/additions (separate from my initial statement):
Rogue Subclass: Soulknife
3rd-Level: Change: Psychic Blades
Psychic Blades always appear when you need to use them, not just at the start of an Attack action or Bonus Action attack.So they can be used with any feature or ability that needs or uses a weapon.
Psychic Blades no longer get their inherent Bonus Action attack, but they do add the Light property (picking up the bonus attack from that property).If the Rogue manages to get the Mastery property, the damage die for that attack is NOT reduced.
Their Mastery property is Nick.
Rogue Subclass: Eremite Vagabond
You are a traveler of the world, usually on the outskirts of any society as you travel.Being an outsider causes some to call you a vagrant or nomad, others to describe you as a migrant or feral wild mystic.You have a wanderlust that keeps you from putting down permanent settlement roots, but this type of living also keeps you on the move.
3rd Level:
Spellcasting:As with Arcane Trickster, but you use the Primal spell list, and Wisdom is your spell casting attribute.You may use a Druidic Focus as a spell casting focus.Instead of Mage Hand and spell school restrictions, you have the following:
Two of your three cantrips are Friends and Spare the Dying, and you must always keep these cantrips prepared.
One of your 1st Level Spells is, and must remain, Find Familiar.
Naturalist: You gain proficiency with the Nature and Survival skills if you don't already have them. If you already have one or both of those proficiencies, you may instead replace this with Herbalism Kit, Healer's Kit, Woodcarver's Tools, Leather Worker's Tools, or a Rogue skill.You also gain Expertise with the Nature and Survival skills.
9th Level:
Nature's Friend: When you cast Friends on a Beast or Plant of Intelligence 4 or less, they do not automatically become hostile toward you when the spell ends.You may cast "Spare the Dying" on a Beast or Plant to repair cosmetic damage, scars, and minor injuries not reflected by hp loss, etc.(these minor injuries must not rise to the level of requiring a Lesser Restoration nor Greater Restoration spell).
Natural Sneak: You may prepare the "Invisibility" and/or "Misty Step" spells.They DO count against your number of spells prepared.
Bonus Cantrip: You learn an extra (4th) cantrip from the Primal spell list.
13th Level:
Land's Stride: the same as the 5e Ranger 8th level class feature.
Nurturing Aura: You always have the "Aura of Vitality" spell prepared, and it doesn't count against your number of spells prepared.
Living off the Land: Once per short rest, you may cast the Goodberry spell without having it prepared nor using a spell slot.
17th Level:
Once you have 4th level spell slots, you have the "Greater Invisibility" and "Aura of Purity" spells prepared.These spells do not count against your number of spells prepared.
You always have the "Commune with Nature" and "Greater Restoration" spells prepared, and they don't count against your number of spells prepared.You may cast one or the other them once per Long Rest without using a spell slot.
example tropes:
hobomancer: Hermit or Pilgrim or Traveler, Religion, Survival
solitary healer: Hermit or Farmer, pick two from: Herbalism Kit, Healer's Kit, Nature, Survival
Rogue Subclass: Preacher
Whether you're are a traveling missionary, a tentpole revivalist, or a priest of a local parish, or maybe even a swindling false prophet, you are the semi-miraculous practitioner of a religious or spiritual tradition.Your skills are more about swaying the masses than grand miracles.
3rd Level:
Spellcasting:As with Arcane Trickster, but you use the Divine spell list, and Charisma is your spell casting attribute.You may use a Holy Symbol (including a prayer book) as a spell casting focus.Instead of Mage Hand and spell school restrictions, you have the following:
Two of your three cantrips are Friends and Thaumaturgy, and you must always keep these cantrips prepared.
One of your 1st Level Spells is, and must remain, Charm Person.
Evangelist: You gain proficiency with the Performance and Religion skills if you don't already have them. If you already have one or both of those proficiencies, you may instead replace this with a Musical Instrument (esp. a pitch pipe) or a Rogue skill.You also gain Expertise with the Performance and Religion skills.
9th Level:
Divine Word: When you cast Friends on a Humanoid, they do not automatically become hostile toward you when the spell ends (but they might wonder why they were swayed by you, and become wary of you).You may cast "Spare the Dying" on a Humanoid to repair cosmetic damage, scars, and minor injuries not reflected by hp loss, etc.(these minor injuries must not rise to the level of requiring a Lesser Restoration nor Greater Restoration spell).
Silver Tongue: You may prepare the "Detect Thoughts" and/or "Suggestion" spells.They DO count against your number of spells prepared.
Bonus Cantrip: You learn an extra (4th) cantrip from the Primal spell list.
13th Level:
Divine Resistance: You always have the "Protection from Energy" spell prepared, and it doesn't count against your number of spells prepared.
Divine Protection: Once per short rest, you may cast the Shield of Faith spell without having it prepared, nor using a spell slot, nor using your concentration.
17th Level:
Once you have 4th level spell slots, you have the "Arcane Eye" and "Compulsion" spells prepared.These spells do not count against your number of spells prepared.
You always have the "Commune" and "Greater Restoration" spells prepared, and they don't count against your number of spells prepared.You may cast one or the other them once per Long Rest without using a spell slot.
example tropes:
faith healer: Acolyte or Pilgrim, Religion, Healer's Kit
errant missionary: Acolyte or Pilgrim or Traveler, Religion, Persuasion
reformed: Criminal or Charlatan or Soldier or Urchin, a Martial Weapon, Sleight of Hand
false prophet: Charlatan or Entertainer, Religion, pick one from Deception or Performance
These are what bother me.
In fact, generally, the rogue gets used for multiclass more often than not for its expertise and the big "awe shucks" about the class is that sneak attack dice mean you need t stay in rogue rather than swap into these other classes, which is why I'm suspicious that you don't really want to play a rogue at all, you just want to make your own class and give it the damage dice of the rogue in addition to all the features.
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? and Padme who doesn't do anything but follow around the actual adventurers? Courtiers and politicians are escort targets in fiction, they generally aren't adventurers because they have no combat skills. 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.
I think what's getting lost in this is that the archetypes ARE the flavor.
Without them just pick whatever feats and skills you want.
Just have every single feature as a choice you can make at every level up and be done with it.
The problem isn't just unbalance, it's that there's no flavor left. It's all a grey goo with bards that act like monks, wizards that act like fighters, fighters that act like wizards...
Why bother have classes and subclasses?
Which is where my real question lies.
IF you hate these features so much, why are you so adamant on still playing a rogue?
As the above says, druidic and druidcraft are part of the druid experience.
Eldritch bolt and a patron are of a warlock, even if the patron never actually figures into play or into your mechanics.
Should we just get rid of these things from the other classes too?
Why does this matter so much?
thieves cant and, now that you mention it, druidic are background languages whether that's how they're awarded or not. language is a thing that takes time. it's not handed to you at orientation with your new uniform and the konomi code for backstabs on. either you were taught in the past, you take it upon yourself to learn in downtime, or else you haven't got a plausible claim on use of it. these are grandfathered in from the days adjacent to Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser where thieves only came from a guild and druids only came from druid villages. next UA would be a good time to change that and see how the public responds. plenty of ideas above to make the change painlessly.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
but you aren't starting out as a nobody.
it's not like you just pick up a knife and know how to get sneak attack damage. Your level one wizard and druid and any spellcaster really, should start off with 0 spells by the same logic.
EDIT: and by what I mean is you aren't starting out with no experience in the field or class. you're automatically assuming enough training to be a beginner and know what you are doing.
You already should have some associations and you should know how to handle yourself a bit. You're the equivalent of a college graduate in your class. You're assumed to know what others in your fireld are talking about and how to at least handle yourself among your colleagues.
but if you're saying everyone should start out as a level 0 commoner, by all means...
I don’t understand why you are fighting this simple change. A rogue who doesn’t know thieves cant or use lockpick sis still a rogue. They still use sneak attacks, they still are experts and skill monkeys. Technically I was on your side, but making thieves cant and tools optional doesn’t make it so players who want to choose it lose that ability. It also doesn’t encroach on other classes and step on their toes. It’s simply a player option. They don’t hate the feature they dislike the tools and languages that come with the class. It’s similar to people who complain that you can’t just force nature and survival on all rangers. Rogues aren’t thieves and that’s why they had the name change in the first place. When someone makes a good arguement that doesn’t hurt the game just go with it.
Druidic and Druidcraft are part of the Druid experience, but as they argued thief and criminal is not necessarily part of the Rogue experience.
Eldritch Blast and patrons are part of the Warlock experience, but they are not a tool and a language. Let’s stay on topic. No one is trying to make sneak attack optional. Also in 5e Eldritch Blast was optional.
Not many classes force you to have certain tools and languages. I’m fine with any of them being swapped out for other languages and tools, except Druidic. Druidic is special because it directly ties into the class lore and flavor.
You asked, “why does this matter so much?” I have to ask “why does it matter so much o you? It’s only a language and a tool proficiency.”
This also made me realize it shouldn’t be called thieves tools. It should be lockpicking tools. No locksmith would call them thieves tools.
Honestly, "sneak attack" doesn't make any sense. There's absolutely zero sneaking about it, most of the time with the new rules, it's just a matter of giving up your bonus action every round, and with all but 2 subclasses, doesn't even fit archetype.
And why would a courtesan or a mastermind, mental characters, even HAVE a melee skill for giving obscene damage?
Druidic and druidcraft are equally unused. In fact, languages as a whole are useless as most games default to just common.
I'm not "hung up on it" except, rogue =criminal.
"rogue
rogue
2 of 3Why not just get rid of classes and archetypes altogether and just have spells and weapons and pick what you want to fight with?
What are their purpose? Why have them?
courtier, not courtesan. Not the same thing.
My experience is that both Thieves' Cant and Druidic are ribbon features that are even less relevant than most languages; you might as well just drop them and replace them with nothing at all. Thieves' Tools are one of the most useful tool proficiencies but I haven't really had trouble justifying any rogue character having it.
My characters always have Thieves' Tools proficiency. What adventurer would go on the road without the skills to get out of the room his parents locked him in to keep him from going adventuring?
I don’t agree. None of the definitions you gave explicitly says criminal, or even reflexively implies it. Being a vagrant isn’t automatically a crime (is being a knight errant a crime? is Jack Reacher a criminal just for being a wanderer? Or Kwai Chang Kaine? Or Will Sonnet?), nor is being mischievous. And fundamentally, neither is being dishonest outside of specific circumstances.
(while there are some jurisdictions that have laws called vagrancy laws.. but they don’t usually apply to people who are actually wandering through, but to people who wander in and try to stay without doing specific things, or while doing certain other things that might be undesirable…. but if you literally just travel into one of those places and then immediately leave, especially without any kind of stay, that isn’t what vagrancy laws are about).
But M-W’s definition also leaves out some of the OED definitions, like this one:
(OED)
1 a person whose behaviour one disapproves of but who is nonetheless likeable or attractive:
(Errol) Flynn's screen reputation as a charming rogue
you old rogue!.
Being disapproved of isn’t itself a crime.
Rogues are those who are outside of conventional behavior (just about every definition that you gave, and the ones at OED and dictionary.com, that can be related back to people all fit that characterization). While criminals behave in ways that are outside of conventional behavior, not everyone who is unconventional is a criminal. Not everyone who is mischievous is criminally mischievous. Not everyone who wanders is criminally so. Not everyone who is dishonest is criminally dishonest. Not everyone that we disprove of is a criminal for it.
Or how about this one from dictionary.com:
”no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence not controllable or answerable; renegade”
Not everyone who is disobedient is breaking laws by doing so (because it might not be the law that they are being disobedient against). Not everyone who disavows their belonging to society is breaking a law by doing so. Not everyone who is uncontrollable is choosing to break laws. Not every renegade is breaking laws. They might be social renegades who are socially uncontrollable, disobedient of social rules, unaccepted in social circles, rejecting of their own membership/belonging in those social circles, and do not hold themselves accountable to those social rules/circles. That’s still Rogue behavior, all without implications of being criminal behavior.
Rogue doesn’t mean criminal, it means someone who is outside of behavioral norms/conventions in some context…. amd that context might not have anything to do with the law. Being a criminal is a subset of that, but it is not coequal with that. And the class descriptions WOTC gave for 3e and 5e reflect that being a Rogue is not specifically being a criminal.
Sneak Attack might need a name change. The premise is you can only do it under circumstances that the target can’t properly defend themselves. Usually having advantage happens when a target can’t properly defend themselves. Now that you can just aim to get sneak attack it feels more like precise attack in those circumstances. When you hide, flank or are a swashbuckler it’s still sneaky.
Also notice some of the definitions aren’t criminals. Mischievous person isn’t necessarily a criminal, just depends on laws and how mischievous they are. A dishonest or worthless person is also not necessarily a criminal.
Exactly, what you describe is typical D&D, and that is what I think D&D needs as refresh. A blank templates class to be filled by the character maker filling with the corresponding feat types (combat, magical, etc.). I have been thinking much about it, but that would be for a newer edition, and for another post.
The character development system is much better than the imposed and strictly hard-written archetyped one. The flavor is supplied by the player, with the skills and features it gives to the character, and how is used later. Played other games and never will understand why D&D players needs so much that "flavor" to come from default attached with glue to the character by paragraphs.
That's not going to happen because of its incredible unfriendliness to new players. Someone might make a HB system for that and put in on the DMsGuild but WotC would be incredibly stupid to release an edition based on it. There are plenty of other TTRPGs that use a "buy abilities with points" system rather than classes, if you want to play a game like that go and play one of those games.
Then design or create your own completely new game.
D&D needs a refresh, yes, but what you are describing is leaning further into the problem we currently have, which is that the revisions and editions through the secondary books have diluted characters too much, and there's no impact on character choices. Playing a dance bard or a monk or a high dex pugilist fighter are incredibly similar.
Your species hardly matters since Tasha's, and even though I like the emphasis on background over species traits, even the background traits feel more like what Tasha's does to species.
There's just no point.
Buying "skills" is also pretty pointless hen the gameplay devolves into the standard 5th grader in the playground during recess style of role playing your favorite superheroes.
I hate crunch. I wanted nothing to do with a lot of the middle editions, so in many ways 5th was a breath of fresh air, but one of its biggest weaknesses is that they made the role play aspect too easy while they also made combat easier to understand.
The framework itself does need a rehaul, but not to lean into the grey goo/video game like situation it's currently in.
It's needs to depower casters a little bit, reign in the feature creep, make choices matter again, and make role playing about playing a specific role more. Choices need to matter. You need to feel some sort of danger or possibility of failure for the game to be fun.
So as someone who likes and enjoys the simplicity and "combat lite" of 5e, I end up siding with those that are more "death in a dungeon isn't just possible, but very likely", number crunchers, because unfortunately, things have leaned too far into the other side.
If you want more role play with your choice of abilities or where abilities don't matter, there's a thousand other games.
it's not about thieves cant or thieves tools specifically. You can all it whatever you want. Lock-picks are what they are BTW, not locksmith tools, and thieves cant IS poorly described, but it doesn't stop it from having its own real world analogies: the so called "hobo code", the idea of gang tags, color/uniform identifiers within said gangs, and slang, (and not "cool yo" slang, but the oblique references and word choices you find in many rap songs, or coded language of many hate groups, or that of anti-government factions).
A name change isn't the problem. It's screwing with the mechanics themselves when it feels like you want is to play something completely else.
Thieves Cant is its own real world analogy. It’s an actual thing. And it’s distinct from the other things you mention.
Specifically as written. If not a criminal, has a relationship with the law
Precisely what I described in modern times. Was there a previous thieves cant? Sure. I just gave direct modern versions.
Vagrancy IS a criminal offense, and even the US itself has a colorful history with vagrancy charges.
criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/crime-penalties/what-a-vagrancy-charge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagrancy
You got me on the cortier vs. cortesan, except neither would be adventurers, rather they would simply be members of the royal household, and outside of political intrigue within the castle itself, you're not going to get to much adventuring, and honestly, neither are assassins, unless they're ALSO assassins, which is a class already covered and one of the two that would qualify for sneak attack as a sneaking attack.
Finally, scout should be a ranger class, and this has been my position for quite some time.
Scout was suppose to be a fighter subclass, all rangers were are already scouts naturally in 5e,.
Again the argument was to make thieves tools and thieves cant optional. I don’t understand why there is any push back against that (even though I originally pushed back against it too). If you are an investigator or exterminator their is no reason you have to know how to pick locks or speak a secret language.
(bold emphasis from me) — you provided the quote that undoes your own argument. Both sides of the law. Which means they’re not all criminals, they can also be law abiding citizens.
”Consider your relationship with the law” means figure out which side of the law you’re on. It doesn’t mean you have an extra special relationship with the law… because literally every person on the planet who doesn’t live in an actual failed state (like Sudan) has a relationship with the law. The best most law abiding person you know has a relationship with the law: they obey it. And the rules, as you quoted above, specifically say that Rogues can be on either side: criminals, or law abiding citizens. That’s what that statement is saying: figure which of those two things you are, because it’s an important differentiator in what flavor of Rogue you might be.
I covered what vagrancy laws actually are and aren’t. They US law section of the wikipedia page you referenced even says the same thing I was saying: the laws aren’t about you being a vagrant (meaning wanderer), they’re about you associating with actual criminals, and other unwelcome behaviors:
”a pretext to take one into custody for such things as loitering, prostitution, drunkenness, or criminal association.”
“the criminal statutes of law in Louisiana specifically criminalized vagrancy as associating with prostitutes, being a professional gambler, being a habitual drunk, or living on the social welfare benefits or pensions of others”
Contrast that with the actual definition of being a vagrant (which relates to the dictionary definition of a rogue):
- a person who wanders about idly and has no permanent home or employment; vagabond; tramp.
- a person who wanders from place to place; wanderer; rover.
- wandering idly without a permanent home or employment; living in vagabondage:vagrant beggars.
- of, relating to, or characteristic of a vagrant: the vagrant life.
In other words, exactly as I said, vagrancy laws aren’t about being a vagrant (a wanderer): they’re about people who stayed around and did unwanted things (prostitution, public drunkenness, gambling, etc.). So, no, being an _actual_ vagrant isn’t illegal nor criminal in nature. Vagrancy laws aren’t actually about being a vagrant, which feeds back to the Rogue: if being a vagrant (wanderer) isn’t actually illegal (it’s not), then that element of the definition of a rogue doesn’t support calling them all criminals.
Courtier is an actual 5e background, that even hints about how you might continue being a courtier as you are adventuring.
”You might undertake missions with your new companions that further the interest of the organization that gave you your start in life.”
You didn’t necessarily leave the organization behind, you might just be serving them in the field.
I assume you’re aware that there are D&D groups who actually play the game exactly in that kind of setting, right? Court political and social intrigue in the castle.
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.
From the PHB:
”Many rogues focus on stealth and deception, while others refine the skills that help them in a dungeon environment, such as climbing, finding and disarming traps, and opening locks.
When it comes to combat, rogues prioritize cunning over brute strength. A rogue would rather make one precise strike, placing it exactly where the attack will hurt the target most, than wear an opponent down with a barrage of attacks. Rogues have an almost supernatural knack for avoiding danger, and a few learn magical tricks to supplement their other abilities.”
In other words: everything scouts are. Stealthy skirmishers, not front line grunts, heavy cavalry, etc.
Rangers are spell casting scouts. The reason the Scout subclass isn’t a Ranger is that the Scout subclass is the mundane version of that archetype. And the reason they aren’t a Fighter subclass is: stealth, deception, and precision, not brute force and barrages. The Scout subclass is exactly where it belongs.
I can't believe I have to quote myself. In bold for emphasis.
Even when rogues are, like the investigator, not criminals, they are associated with the criminal element.
What I am objecting to is on the first page you list preacher, which is clearly the very waling definition of a cleric as a "rogue subclass".
Or the courtier.
You "rogues" are so far removed from the concept of a rogue that it doesn't even make sense. You're basically wanting the combat mechanics without anything else, and want to destroy the very concept of the class to fit whatever you want into it.
So my point is, rather than doing all this linguistic stretching to the point of doublespeak, why are you hung up on doing this to the rogue rather than playing a character that is more closely aligned to the class you want, taking a different background, or playing a different game that has less care about who does what?
These are what bother me.
In fact, generally, the rogue gets used for multiclass more often than not for its expertise and the big "awe shucks" about the class is that sneak attack dice mean you need t stay in rogue rather than swap into these other classes, which is why I'm suspicious that you don't really want to play a rogue at all, you just want to make your own class and give it the damage dice of the rogue in addition to all the features.
[REDACTED]
You mean Princess Leia who belongs to a criminal organization (rebels) and is rather familiar with smugglers? and Padme who doesn't do anything but follow around the actual adventurers? Courtiers and politicians are escort targets in fiction, they generally aren't adventurers because they have no combat skills. 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.