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.
It is a gross exaggeration to call Thieves' Cant a mechanic. It's a ribbon feature at best. I have yet to see an adventure where it mattered in any way at all.
As for the tool proficiency: there's no shortage of non-thieves who know how to open locks, and it's decently useful to any character.
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.
It is a gross exaggeration to call Thieves' Cant a mechanic. It's a ribbon feature at best. I have yet to see an adventure where it mattered in any way at all.
It's a 1st level feature that grants a very specific language (one that pigeonholes the class in a way that doesn't match the class's description).
Features are mechanics. So it's not an exaggeration at all, not even a gross exaggeration.
As for the tool proficiency: there's no shortage of non-thieves who know how to open locks, and it's decently useful to any character.
Which doesn't change anything about the topic.
"there's no shortage of non-thieves who know how to [pick] locks" ... which says nothing about why all Rogues must have this specific tool proficiency instead of one more appropriate to their Rogue sub-type. And, as has been pointed out, we're seeing this exact type of intra-class customization in two other places within the new rules: Holy/Divine Order for the Cleric, and the way the Warlock Pact is being done in the new rules.
"it's decently useful to any character" -- and nothing would stop them (meaning _ANY_ character) from getting it exactly the same ways they already do. Not even a Rogue would be stopped from getting that Tool Proficiency exactly the same way that they already do (as their 1st level Rogue tool proficiency). It would just give one particular group (Rogues) the option to NOT take it, instead of being forced to take it, in lieu of a more appropriate tool for their Rogue sub-type.
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 think you're right but the phb says the following:
Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool.
And then goes on to say that if the DM asks you for a dex check for using something like woodworking tools, you add proficiency.
This kind of creates a weird situation where although you might say lockpicking is sleight of hand, you can't do double proficiency (or triple with the case of expertise).
Plus you have 2 rulings and phb is supposedly the "one true source" (the dmg being weirdly a supplement).
The dmg also doesn't give disadvantage for trying to use tools you do not know what you're doing with. That's my own addition to increase the disparity between proficient or not, and to represent knowing needle nose pliers from a hammer for example.
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 think you're right but the phb says the following:
Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool.
And then goes on to say that if the DM asks you for a dex check for using something like woodworking tools, you add proficiency.
This kind of creates a weird situation where although you might say lockpicking is sleight of hand, you can't do double proficiency (or triple with the case of expertise).
Plus you have 2 rulings and phb is supposedly the "one true source" (the dmg being weirdly a supplement).
The dmg also doesn't give disadvantage for trying to use tools you do not know what you're doing with. That's my own addition to increase the disparity between proficient or not, and to represent knowing needle nose pliers from a hammer for example.
Adding disadvantage for using tools you aren’t proficient with kind of gets rid of the reason of the proficiency bonus. If there is no reason for the bonus for being proficient if everyone who isn’t proficient has disadvantage.
The situation of redundant proficiencies (you have both the tool and the skill) was changed in XGtE by giving advantage if you have both. That rule was reprinted in playtest packet #1 so I assume it's going to be official.
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 can name many typical fighters who would not be proficient in all weapons and armor. Heck every class will have examples of things that don;t fit that class perfectly. But you know what they aren't, D&D.
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 can name many typical fighters who would not be proficient in all weapons and armor. Heck every class will have examples of things that don;t fit that class perfectly. But you know what they aren't, D&D.
That doesn't mean that we can't mirror a change in some other classes, that would be incredibly minor, and address this rough edge of the Rogue class. And wouldn't prevent anyone from having exactly what they had before.
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.
You are free to HB the rogue to scratch those features off of your character sheet. But: a "Thug" isn't a rogue, they are a fighter or barbarian, an inquisitor does need thieves tools and thieves cant to search for evidence of wrong doing or to confiscate stuff - putting a lock on your desk drawer isn't going to foil a police investigation into fraud. locksmiths aren't rogues, they are artificers. exterminators aren't rogue, they are probably druids or rangers smugglers absolutely use thieves cant and thieves tools in order to break into unused warehouses to stash their goods, or to break into ships or carriages to hide their goods for transport.
What is your definition of a swashbuckler? A swashbuckler that doesn't have any association with criminality is probably a fighter not a rogue. What is your definition of a scout? A scout without criminal ties is probably a ranger not a rogue (though honestly they should get rid of the Scout rogue, scout is like by definition a ranger).
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.
You are free to HB the rogue to scratch those features off of your character sheet. But:
an inquisitor does need thieves tools and thieves cant to search for evidence of wrong doing or to confiscate stuff - putting a lock on your desk drawer isn't going to foil a police investigation into fraud.
A police investigator doesn't need Thieves Tools in order to search for evidence. Not even evidence inside of a locked drawer. Having the weight of the local authority on your side, you can just smash the lock if the owner wont open it for you. Nor do they need Thieves Cant to interrogate people.
Could they be useful things? Sure, but that has never been the actual debate here (despite most of the push back being on the level of things that are useful or convenient, they haven't been things that are necessary ... and if they're not necessary, they shouldn't be forced upon a class that is not inherently about criminal activity).
locksmiths aren't rogues, they are artificers.
Not if they aren't casters. Which puts Rangers out of the conversation.
What is your definition of a swashbuckler? A swashbuckler that doesn't have any association with criminality is probably a fighter not a rogue.
Is their fighting style rogue-like? The musketeers just about defined the Swashbuckler genre, and their fighting style, kit, etc. is much more in-line with being a non-criminal Swashbuckler Rogue than being any kind of Fighter. A Sword Bard would be a better fit than a Fighter ... but Bards are casters, and are therefore out of consideration.
What is your definition of a scout? A scout without criminal ties is probably a ranger not a rogue (though honestly they should get rid of the Scout rogue, scout is like by definition a ranger).
Not if they aren't casters. Which puts Rangers out of the conversation.
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.
You are free to HB the rogue to scratch those features off of your character sheet. But: a "Thug" isn't a rogue, they are a fighter or barbarian, an inquisitor does need thieves tools and thieves cant to search for evidence of wrong doing or to confiscate stuff - putting a lock on your desk drawer isn't going to foil a police investigation into fraud. locksmiths aren't rogues, they are artificers. exterminators aren't rogue, they are probably druids or rangers smugglers absolutely use thieves cant and thieves tools in order to break into unused warehouses to stash their goods, or to break into ships or carriages to hide their goods for transport.
What is your definition of a swashbuckler? A swashbuckler that doesn't have any association with criminality is probably a fighter not a rogue. What is your definition of a scout? A scout without criminal ties is probably a ranger not a rogue (though honestly they should get rid of the Scout rogue, scout is like by definition a ranger).
The Thug rogue is a viable build who wouldn’t pick locks. An inquisitor does not need thieves tools or thieves cant. Could they use them, sure. But it’s not a requirement of being an inquisitor. Locksmiths are named as rogues in the phb as honest living rogues. Exterminators are named right next to locksmiths in the phb as rogues. Not all smugglers use lock picks.
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.
So I am to presume that you do not like that all paladin's get find steed without needing to use a spell choice for it and don't like the new paladin smite options and all the other ribbon flavor features.
Sure you can HAVE those tools, but you would not have PROFICIENCY with those tools. You have the mirror, no proficiency with it. So you can use it, but you don't get your proficiency bonus to the roll for using it. You are still just trying to justify the idea that Theives tools are just for picking locks. They aren't. They never were. The new UA went from you just getting theives can't to getting that an additional language + theives can't because as a Rogue, capital R, the character is familiar with the slang and jargan of the streets they grew up on as well as the other languages spoken on those streets. The class description specifically calls out that they are more capable than the average cop or criminal with these sort of things. That is apparent by their class features. The Rogue CLASS is inherently linked to being streetwise.
Inquisitor, Scout, thug..... those are backgrounds, subclasses. That all has nothing to do with the class. You can be a scout Ranger, an Inquisitor Paladin. A thug barbarian. But if you are a Rogue Scout, you are a Rogue.
Just like druids, are we going to suggest that druids should be able to choose not to speak druidic?
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.
You are free to HB the rogue to scratch those features off of your character sheet. But: a "Thug" isn't a rogue, they are a fighter or barbarian, an inquisitor does need thieves tools and thieves cant to search for evidence of wrong doing or to confiscate stuff - putting a lock on your desk drawer isn't going to foil a police investigation into fraud. locksmiths aren't rogues, they are artificers. exterminators aren't rogue, they are probably druids or rangers smugglers absolutely use thieves cant and thieves tools in order to break into unused warehouses to stash their goods, or to break into ships or carriages to hide their goods for transport.
What is your definition of a swashbuckler? A swashbuckler that doesn't have any association with criminality is probably a fighter not a rogue. What is your definition of a scout? A scout without criminal ties is probably a ranger not a rogue (though honestly they should get rid of the Scout rogue, scout is like by definition a ranger).
The Thug rogue is a viable build who wouldn’t pick locks. An inquisitor does not need thieves tools or thieves cant. Could they use them, sure. But it’s not a requirement of being an inquisitor. Locksmiths are named as rogues in the phb as honest living rogues. Exterminators are named right next to locksmiths in the phb as rogues. Not all smugglers use lock picks.
And those are all backgrounds, not classes. A Thug, doesn't need to be a rogue, he can be a barbarian. An inquisitor can be a Paladin, a fighter, a cleric.... so on and so forth. A locksmith can be a wizard, a monk, a fighter, a ranger, an artificer An exterminator could be a warlock, a sorcerer, a monk....... A smuggler could be a bard, a ranger, so on and so forth.
Those are backgrounds not classes.
This is about the Rogue the class, not backgrounds.
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.
.
Sure you can HAVE those tools, but you would not have PROFICIENCY with those tools.
I will have proficiency with the tool set that fits my character’s Rogue subtype. And that tool set isn’t automatically Thieves Tools. Just like I will have the language that fits my Rogue subtype … and that language isn’t automatically Thieves Cant.
You are still just trying to justify the idea that Theives tools are just for picking locks. They aren't. They never were.
Except that isn't my point at all. As has been said multiple times. the point is: they aren’t relevant or necessary to every type of Rogue. It doesn’t matter if they’re useful in general. It doesn’t matter if they are useful for X, Y, and Z tasks. What matters is that they aren’t universally mandatory to every character idea that has been suggested for the Non-caster Expert class, not even all of the ones suggested by the game itself.
What matters is: are they the most appropriate tool for my Rogue sub-type? And if not, why does the class force me to take them? When other classes, in the new rules, are giving the flexibility to embrace multiple subtypes, such as protector clerics vs thaumaturgy clerics (and doing so in the official rules so you aren’t subject to someone else’s whims) … why not do the same for the Rogue, and finally do the thing the class has been saying for 23 years? Break with the vestigial tail of when it was the Thief class and not the Rogue class.
You can still cling to your Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant. Nothing that has been proposed says otherwise. What is being proposed is that the class’s mechanics be as flexible as the class’s description. You can keep your Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant, and I can build something that is still a Rogue (the non-caster Expert), but not a Rogue like that.
But if you are a Rogue Scout, you are a Rogue.
No one has said otherwise. What has been said is not all Rogue types are going to have the same core language and tools. Rogues are many things, not all one thing, apart from being the game’s non-caster skill-monkey. That’s what being a Rogue means: you’re the non-caster skill monkey Expert, and not all of those characters are going to have picked up Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant. And some people can’t get past that idea, no matter how many times it is explained and backed up.
This is about the Rogue the class, not backgrounds.
It IS about the Rogue class. And not about the Thief class, which hasn’t existed for 23 years. It’s ok to let go of the past. You can even keep the same proficiency picks. The proposal doesn’t stop you from doing that.
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.
.
Sure you can HAVE those tools, but you would not have PROFICIENCY with those tools.
I will have proficiency with the tool set that fits my character’s Rogue subtype. And that tool set isn’t automatically Thieves Tools. Just like I will have the language that fits my Rogue subtype … and that language isn’t automatically Thieves Cant.
You are still just trying to justify the idea that Theives tools are just for picking locks. They aren't. They never were.
Except that isn't my point at all. As has been said multiple times. the point is: they aren’t relevant or necessary to every type of Rogue. It doesn’t matter if they’re useful in general. It doesn’t matter if they are useful for X, Y, and Z tasks. What matters is that they aren’t universally mandatory to every character idea that has been suggested for the Non-caster Expert class, not even all of the ones suggested by the game itself.
What matters is: are they the most appropriate tool for my Rogue sub-type? And if not, why does the class force me to take them? When other classes, in the new rules, are giving the flexibility to embrace multiple subtypes, such as protector clerics vs thaumaturgy clerics (and doing so in the official rules so you aren’t subject to someone else’s whims) … why not do the same for the Rogue, and finally do the thing the class has been saying for 23 years? Break with the vestigial tail of when it was the Thief class and not the Rogue class.
You can still cling to your Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant. Nothing that has been proposed says otherwise. What is being proposed is that the class’s mechanics be as flexible as the class’s description. You can keep your Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant, and I can build something that is still a Rogue (the non-caster Expert), but not a Rogue like that.
But if you are a Rogue Scout, you are a Rogue.
No one has said otherwise. What has been said is not all Rogue types are going to have the same core language and tools. Rogues are many things, not all one thing, apart from being the game’s non-caster skill-monkey. That’s what being a Rogue means: you’re the non-caster skill monkey Expert, and not all of those characters are going to have picked up Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant. And some people can’t get past that idea, no matter how many times it is explained and backed up.
They are relevant and necessary to every type of rogue, just not every type of background. This is a rogue class. Not a background. Rogue means they have some form of connection to criminality by the description of the rogue class itself and the definition of the word Rogue when applied to a person. If it wasn't than they would have ALREADY given you what you wanted. Thieves can't wouldn't be a thing at all as a feature, you would just get the same languages everyone else does. Because you can already choose multiple languages. Tool proficiency wouldn't be a thing on rogue at all. You would just have the tool proficiency from your background. You already get languages that fit your background, you already get tools that fit your background. You are a rogue, rogues are craftier than the average criminal and more savvy than the average police in terms of criminal capabilities by definition of 5e Rogue. And by definition of the word rogue they are unscrupulous individuals. Thieves tools are for more than just thieving. Thieves can't is for more than just thieves talking. These things are for rogues, not thieves.
Rogue first. Scout Second. Ignore the subclass. Throw that out when talking about the base class. Talk base class. What is a Rogue? it isn't just "non-magical expert" That isn't what it is. If so it would be called the Expert, not the rogue. What is a Rogue?
If rogues don't speak thieves cant druids shouldnt have to speak druidic. Rangers shouldnt have to get have a favored terrain and get advantage on nature and survival checks. Paladin's should have to choose their smites and not get all smites. Warlocks shouldn't all get EB. Clerics Shouldn't all get medium armor. Bards shouldn't all have instruments, Barbarians shouldn't all have unarmed defense or medium armor they should have to choose, rage should be optional for barbarian. Monks shouldn't all get unarmed strike damage, flurry of blows shouldn't force monks to use unarmed strikes. Sorcerers shouldn't all get any of their new spells from playtest 5, spells should all be chosen. Wizards shouldn't all have a spell books. This is what I am hearing you say right now.
This is about the Rogue the class, not backgrounds.
It IS about the Rogue class. And not about the Thief class, which hasn’t existed for 23 years. It’s ok to let go of the past. You can even keep the same proficiency picks. The proposal doesn’t stop you from doing that.
If a rogue isn't getting thieves tools they aren't getting any tools outside their background, because none make sense for a ROGUE... not the subclass... The ROGUE.. subclasses only exist at level 3. If the rogue isn't getting Thieves can't they shouldn't be getting ANY extra languages. The only reason the druid gets an extra language is because that language is druidic.
This isn't about the thief it is about the Rogue. Thieves tools aren't just for thieves, neither is thieves can't. Thieves tools are for than just picking locks. The ROGUE has had these things for over 20 years. They aren't changing it, get over it.
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.”
Rogue means they have some form of connection to criminality by the description of the rogue class itself
The description of the Rogue class says no such thing. While it gives some examples that fit that assertion, it also says things that don’t fit that assertion. That have already been included in this discussion (I even preserved one iteration of that discussion in the quotation above). The class description makes it clear that not all Rogues have a “connection to criminality.”
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.”
Rogue means they have some form of connection to criminality by the description of the rogue class itself
The description of the Rogue class says no such thing. While it gives some examples that fit that assertion, it also says things that don’t fit that assertion. That have already been included in this discussion (I even preserved one iteration of that discussion in the quotation above). The class description makes it clear that not all Rogues have a “connection to criminality.”
From the UA description of the class: "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."
So yes, the description of the rogue class does say that, right there in black and white as part of the description of what a rogue is. The mechanics fit this description. There is not a single line in the Class description or that of its subclasses that says not all rogues have a connection to criminality. Not one.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
Rogues rely on cunning, stealth, and their foes’ vulnerabilities to get the upper hand in any situation. They have a knack for finding the solution to just about any problem, demonstrating a versatility that is the cornerstone of any successful adventuring party. Rogues devote as much effort to mastering the use of a variety of skills as they do to perfecting their combat abilities, giving them broad capabilities that few other characters can match. Many Rogues focus on stealth and deception, while others refine 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 subtle strikes over brute strength. A Rogue would rather make one precise strike than wear an opponent down with a barrage of blows. Rogues have an almost supernatural knack for avoiding danger, and a few learn magical tricks to supplement their other abilities. 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.
The section you pointed to doesn't even exist here. It isn't in the UA document, because it was exhaustive. Sure they learned these criminality things and are now using them for adventuring and being an archeologist, but as a Rogue, they still learned the criminality things. It is, and has always been, a part of being a rogue. That is why you get thieves cant and thieves tools. That is why you get ANY additional languages and ANY tool proficiency outside your background at all.
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.”
Rogue means they have some form of connection to criminality by the description of the rogue class itself
The description of the Rogue class says no such thing. While it gives some examples that fit that assertion, it also says things that don’t fit that assertion. That have already been included in this discussion (I even preserved one iteration of that discussion in the quotation above). The class description makes it clear that not all Rogues have a “connection to criminality.”
From the UA description of the class: "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."
So yes, the description of the rogue class does say that, right there in black and white as part of the description of what a rogue is. The mechanics fit this description.
Already responded to that exact part, just a few limes up into the quotes of this very message. At no point is it established that that is an exhaustive list of how Rogues began their careers, and in the same rule section of the PHB that that quote originally comes from, the rules also give other options. So, no, the rules never state that those are the _only_ two origins/types for the class.
You even highlighted “some” (meaning not all). And “while others” specifically does not say “all others”. Nothing there says “these two ways a Rogue began their careers are all of the ways a Rogue can begin their career”, not explicitly, and not implicitly. Not in the PHB, and not in the OneD&D playtests. And in the PHB, it specifically says things that fall outside of those two possibilities.
Rogues are not limited (explicitly nor implicitly) to being criminals and crime fighters. That is not what the quote you gave says.
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.”
Rogue means they have some form of connection to criminality by the description of the rogue class itself
The description of the Rogue class says no such thing. While it gives some examples that fit that assertion, it also says things that don’t fit that assertion. That have already been included in this discussion (I even preserved one iteration of that discussion in the quotation above). The class description makes it clear that not all Rogues have a “connection to criminality.”
From the UA description of the class: "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."
So yes, the description of the rogue class does say that, right there in black and white as part of the description of what a rogue is. The mechanics fit this description.
Already responded to that exact part, just a few limes up into the quotes of this very message. At no point is it established that that is an exhaustive list of how Rogues began their careers, and in the same rule section of the PHB that that quote originally comes from, the rules also give other options. So, no, the rules never state that those are the _only_ two origins/types for the class.
You even highlighted “some” (meaning not all). And “while others” specifically does not say “all others”. Nothing there says “these two ways a Rogue began their careers are all of the ways a Rogue can begin their career”, not explicitly, and not implicitly. Not in the PHB, and not in the OneD&D playtests. And in the PHB, it specifically says things that fall outside of those two possibilities.
Rogues are not limited (explicitly nor implicitly) to being criminals and crime fighters. That is not what the quote you gave says.
In the UA yes it is. Read the edit. That is exactly what it says. There is not a single line in the class description anywhere or in the meaning of the word Rogue. That does not suggest it has a connection to criminality in some way or isn't unscrupulous in some way.
It is a gross exaggeration to call Thieves' Cant a mechanic. It's a ribbon feature at best. I have yet to see an adventure where it mattered in any way at all.
As for the tool proficiency: there's no shortage of non-thieves who know how to open locks, and it's decently useful to any character.
It's a 1st level feature that grants a very specific language (one that pigeonholes the class in a way that doesn't match the class's description).
Features are mechanics. So it's not an exaggeration at all, not even a gross exaggeration.
Which doesn't change anything about the topic.
"there's no shortage of non-thieves who know how to [pick] locks" ... which says nothing about why all Rogues must have this specific tool proficiency instead of one more appropriate to their Rogue sub-type. And, as has been pointed out, we're seeing this exact type of intra-class customization in two other places within the new rules: Holy/Divine Order for the Cleric, and the way the Warlock Pact is being done in the new rules.
"it's decently useful to any character" -- and nothing would stop them (meaning _ANY_ character) from getting it exactly the same ways they already do. Not even a Rogue would be stopped from getting that Tool Proficiency exactly the same way that they already do (as their 1st level Rogue tool proficiency). It would just give one particular group (Rogues) the option to NOT take it, instead of being forced to take it, in lieu of a more appropriate tool for their Rogue sub-type.
I think you're right but the phb says the following:
Proficiency with a tool allows you to add your proficiency bonus to any ability check you make using that tool.
And then goes on to say that if the DM asks you for a dex check for using something like woodworking tools, you add proficiency.
This kind of creates a weird situation where although you might say lockpicking is sleight of hand, you can't do double proficiency (or triple with the case of expertise).
Plus you have 2 rulings and phb is supposedly the "one true source" (the dmg being weirdly a supplement).
The dmg also doesn't give disadvantage for trying to use tools you do not know what you're doing with. That's my own addition to increase the disparity between proficient or not, and to represent knowing needle nose pliers from a hammer for example.
Adding disadvantage for using tools you aren’t proficient with kind of gets rid of the reason of the proficiency bonus. If there is no reason for the bonus for being proficient if everyone who isn’t proficient has disadvantage.
The situation of redundant proficiencies (you have both the tool and the skill) was changed in XGtE by giving advantage if you have both. That rule was reprinted in playtest packet #1 so I assume it's going to be official.
I can name many typical fighters who would not be proficient in all weapons and armor. Heck every class will have examples of things that don;t fit that class perfectly. But you know what they aren't, D&D.
That doesn't mean that we can't mirror a change in some other classes, that would be incredibly minor, and address this rough edge of the Rogue class. And wouldn't prevent anyone from having exactly what they had before.
You are free to HB the rogue to scratch those features off of your character sheet. But:
a "Thug" isn't a rogue, they are a fighter or barbarian,
an inquisitor does need thieves tools and thieves cant to search for evidence of wrong doing or to confiscate stuff - putting a lock on your desk drawer isn't going to foil a police investigation into fraud.
locksmiths aren't rogues, they are artificers.
exterminators aren't rogue, they are probably druids or rangers
smugglers absolutely use thieves cant and thieves tools in order to break into unused warehouses to stash their goods, or to break into ships or carriages to hide their goods for transport.
What is your definition of a swashbuckler? A swashbuckler that doesn't have any association with criminality is probably a fighter not a rogue.
What is your definition of a scout? A scout without criminal ties is probably a ranger not a rogue (though honestly they should get rid of the Scout rogue, scout is like by definition a ranger).
A police investigator doesn't need Thieves Tools in order to search for evidence. Not even evidence inside of a locked drawer. Having the weight of the local authority on your side, you can just smash the lock if the owner wont open it for you. Nor do they need Thieves Cant to interrogate people.
Could they be useful things? Sure, but that has never been the actual debate here (despite most of the push back being on the level of things that are useful or convenient, they haven't been things that are necessary ... and if they're not necessary, they shouldn't be forced upon a class that is not inherently about criminal activity).
Not if they aren't casters. Which puts Rangers out of the conversation.
Is their fighting style rogue-like? The musketeers just about defined the Swashbuckler genre, and their fighting style, kit, etc. is much more in-line with being a non-criminal Swashbuckler Rogue than being any kind of Fighter. A Sword Bard would be a better fit than a Fighter ... but Bards are casters, and are therefore out of consideration.
Not if they aren't casters. Which puts Rangers out of the conversation.
The Thug rogue is a viable build who wouldn’t pick locks.
An inquisitor does not need thieves tools or thieves cant. Could they use them, sure. But it’s not a requirement of being an inquisitor.
Locksmiths are named as rogues in the phb as honest living rogues.
Exterminators are named right next to locksmiths in the phb as rogues.
Not all smugglers use lock picks.
So I am to presume that you do not like that all paladin's get find steed without needing to use a spell choice for it and don't like the new paladin smite options and all the other ribbon flavor features.
Sure you can HAVE those tools, but you would not have PROFICIENCY with those tools. You have the mirror, no proficiency with it. So you can use it, but you don't get your proficiency bonus to the roll for using it. You are still just trying to justify the idea that Theives tools are just for picking locks. They aren't. They never were. The new UA went from you just getting theives can't to getting that an additional language + theives can't because as a Rogue, capital R, the character is familiar with the slang and jargan of the streets they grew up on as well as the other languages spoken on those streets. The class description specifically calls out that they are more capable than the average cop or criminal with these sort of things. That is apparent by their class features. The Rogue CLASS is inherently linked to being streetwise.
Inquisitor, Scout, thug..... those are backgrounds, subclasses. That all has nothing to do with the class. You can be a scout Ranger, an Inquisitor Paladin. A thug barbarian. But if you are a Rogue Scout, you are a Rogue.
Just like druids, are we going to suggest that druids should be able to choose not to speak druidic?
And those are all backgrounds, not classes. A Thug, doesn't need to be a rogue, he can be a barbarian.
An inquisitor can be a Paladin, a fighter, a cleric.... so on and so forth.
A locksmith can be a wizard, a monk, a fighter, a ranger, an artificer
An exterminator could be a warlock, a sorcerer, a monk.......
A smuggler could be a bard, a ranger, so on and so forth.
Those are backgrounds not classes.
This is about the Rogue the class, not backgrounds.
I will have proficiency with the tool set that fits my character’s Rogue subtype. And that tool set isn’t automatically Thieves Tools. Just like I will have the language that fits my Rogue subtype … and that language isn’t automatically Thieves Cant.
Except that isn't my point at all. As has been said multiple times. the point is: they aren’t relevant or necessary to every type of Rogue. It doesn’t matter if they’re useful in general. It doesn’t matter if they are useful for X, Y, and Z tasks. What matters is that they aren’t universally mandatory to every character idea that has been suggested for the Non-caster Expert class, not even all of the ones suggested by the game itself.
What matters is: are they the most appropriate tool for my Rogue sub-type? And if not, why does the class force me to take them? When other classes, in the new rules, are giving the flexibility to embrace multiple subtypes, such as protector clerics vs thaumaturgy clerics (and doing so in the official rules so you aren’t subject to someone else’s whims) … why not do the same for the Rogue, and finally do the thing the class has been saying for 23 years? Break with the vestigial tail of when it was the Thief class and not the Rogue class.
You can still cling to your Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant. Nothing that has been proposed says otherwise. What is being proposed is that the class’s mechanics be as flexible as the class’s description. You can keep your Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant, and I can build something that is still a Rogue (the non-caster Expert), but not a Rogue like that.
No one has said otherwise. What has been said is not all Rogue types are going to have the same core language and tools. Rogues are many things, not all one thing, apart from being the game’s non-caster skill-monkey. That’s what being a Rogue means: you’re the non-caster skill monkey Expert, and not all of those characters are going to have picked up Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant. And some people can’t get past that idea, no matter how many times it is explained and backed up.
It IS about the Rogue class. And not about the Thief class, which hasn’t existed for 23 years. It’s ok to let go of the past. You can even keep the same proficiency picks. The proposal doesn’t stop you from doing that.
They are relevant and necessary to every type of rogue, just not every type of background. This is a rogue class. Not a background. Rogue means they have some form of connection to criminality by the description of the rogue class itself and the definition of the word Rogue when applied to a person. If it wasn't than they would have ALREADY given you what you wanted. Thieves can't wouldn't be a thing at all as a feature, you would just get the same languages everyone else does. Because you can already choose multiple languages. Tool proficiency wouldn't be a thing on rogue at all. You would just have the tool proficiency from your background. You already get languages that fit your background, you already get tools that fit your background. You are a rogue, rogues are craftier than the average criminal and more savvy than the average police in terms of criminal capabilities by definition of 5e Rogue. And by definition of the word rogue they are unscrupulous individuals. Thieves tools are for more than just thieving. Thieves can't is for more than just thieves talking.
These things are for rogues, not thieves.
Rogue first. Scout Second. Ignore the subclass. Throw that out when talking about the base class. Talk base class. What is a Rogue? it isn't just "non-magical expert" That isn't what it is. If so it would be called the Expert, not the rogue. What is a Rogue?
If rogues don't speak thieves cant druids shouldnt have to speak druidic. Rangers shouldnt have to get have a favored terrain and get advantage on nature and survival checks. Paladin's should have to choose their smites and not get all smites. Warlocks shouldn't all get EB. Clerics Shouldn't all get medium armor. Bards shouldn't all have instruments, Barbarians shouldn't all have unarmed defense or medium armor they should have to choose, rage should be optional for barbarian. Monks shouldn't all get unarmed strike damage, flurry of blows shouldn't force monks to use unarmed strikes. Sorcerers shouldn't all get any of their new spells from playtest 5, spells should all be chosen. Wizards shouldn't all have a spell books. This is what I am hearing you say right now.
If a rogue isn't getting thieves tools they aren't getting any tools outside their background, because none make sense for a ROGUE... not the subclass... The ROGUE.. subclasses only exist at level 3. If the rogue isn't getting Thieves can't they shouldn't be getting ANY extra languages. The only reason the druid gets an extra language is because that language is druidic.
This isn't about the thief it is about the Rogue. Thieves tools aren't just for thieves, neither is thieves can't. Thieves tools are for than just picking locks. The ROGUE has had these things for over 20 years. They aren't changing it, get over it.
The description of the Rogue class says no such thing. While it gives some examples that fit that assertion, it also says things that don’t fit that assertion. That have already been included in this discussion (I even preserved one iteration of that discussion in the quotation above). The class description makes it clear that not all Rogues have a “connection to criminality.”
From the UA description of the class:
"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."
So yes, the description of the rogue class does say that, right there in black and white as part of the description of what a rogue is. The mechanics fit this description. There is not a single line in the Class description or that of its subclasses that says not all rogues have a connection to criminality. Not one.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
Rogues rely on cunning, stealth, and their foes’ vulnerabilities to get the upper hand in any situation. They have a knack for finding the solution to just about any problem, demonstrating a versatility that is the cornerstone of any successful adventuring party. Rogues devote as much effort to mastering the use of a variety of skills as they do to perfecting their combat abilities, giving them broad capabilities that few other characters can match. Many Rogues focus on stealth and deception, while others refine 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 subtle strikes over brute strength. A Rogue would rather make one precise strike than wear an opponent down with a barrage of blows. Rogues have an almost supernatural knack for avoiding danger, and a few learn magical tricks to supplement their other abilities. 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.
The section you pointed to doesn't even exist here. It isn't in the UA document, because it was exhaustive. Sure they learned these criminality things and are now using them for adventuring and being an archeologist, but as a Rogue, they still learned the criminality things. It is, and has always been, a part of being a rogue. That is why you get thieves cant and thieves tools. That is why you get ANY additional languages and ANY tool proficiency outside your background at all.
Already responded to that exact part, just a few limes up into the quotes of this very message. At no point is it established that that is an exhaustive list of how Rogues began their careers, and in the same rule section of the PHB that that quote originally comes from, the rules also give other options. So, no, the rules never state that those are the _only_ two origins/types for the class.
You even highlighted “some” (meaning not all). And “while others” specifically does not say “all others”. Nothing there says “these two ways a Rogue began their careers are all of the ways a Rogue can begin their career”, not explicitly, and not implicitly. Not in the PHB, and not in the OneD&D playtests. And in the PHB, it specifically says things that fall outside of those two possibilities.
Rogues are not limited (explicitly nor implicitly) to being criminals and crime fighters. That is not what the quote you gave says.
In the UA yes it is. Read the edit. That is exactly what it says. There is not a single line in the class description anywhere or in the meaning of the word Rogue. That does not suggest it has a connection to criminality in some way or isn't unscrupulous in some way.