Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
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
Where does it say “these are the only two possibilities, there are no others, this is an exhaustive list and not just two examples” ?
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.
Unscrupulous and dishonest do not mean criminal. Just because criminals are those things doesn’t mean everyone who is those things is a criminal. Not everyone who wanders is a criminal. Not everyone who behaves in an aberrant or unpredictable way is a criminal. Not everyone who is “independent or uncontrolled” and behaves in a “way that is not authorized, normal, or expected” is a criminal. Not everyone who is a playful mischievous scamp is a criminal.
Not even the dictionary definition limits itself to criminals (nor crime fighters).
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
That bolded part is about who you would compare a Rogue to. “these people in bold cannot match the Rogue”. This in no way is saying that Rogues are limited to criminals and crime fighters because the bolded part is about who you compare Rogues to, not about the Rogue themselves. That’s how comparisons work. If anything, the contrast says “they aren’t common criminals, and they aren’t common law enforcement officers”, while also not saying that they are limited to being exceptional criminals or exceptional law enforcement officers.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
That bolded part is about who you would compare a Rogue to. “these people in bold cannot match the Rogue”. This in no way is saying that Rogues are limited to criminals and crime fighters because the bolded part is about who you compare Rogues to, not about the Rogue themselves. That’s how comparisons work. If anything, the contrast says “they aren’t common criminals, and they aren’t common law enforcement officers”, while also not saying that they are limited to being exceptional criminals or exceptional law enforcement officers.
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."
Try again. It is specifically a comparison between the rogue and those other options in terms of STREET WISE brilliance. How does one show that mechanically?
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
Here is a fun excersize for you. It doesn't say the list is exhaustive... you know what it also doesn't say. That the list ISN'T exhaustive. You know what does say though?
"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."
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
The rules don't say you can't be a demigod as a race with the power to split the seas and fly and flick your wrist and kill a dragon, but they also don't say you can. There is a lot of things the rules don't say. Lets focus on what they do. And they Do say all Rogues have Thieves cant and Thieves tools, it is part of being a rogue.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How about.... PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
It also doesn't say it can be something other than those 2 things. Rules don't say a lot of things.
Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant, and it has for more than 10 years. It is part of being a Rogue capital R. Just like fighters have to have a fighting style. And Barbarians have to have rage. And Clerics Have to have channel divinity, and Druids have to have wild shape, and bards have to have musical instruments, and Paladins have to be able to smite, and rangers have to have favored terrain types... and so on and so forth. It is part of being a class in an RPG.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant,
And that is the objection and proposed change. Because we can propose it now, as they’re preparing a new iteration of the rules.
And Clerics Have to have channel divinity,
But they don’t have to have heavy armor proficiency. They can make a basic choice, up front, picking from one set of proficiencies vs another set of things, via their Divine Order. What is so difficult about that same thing being applied to the Rogue?
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill. Is that the thing that all rogues get for being "unscrupulous"? They all must have a disguise kit?
"Proficiency in thieves' cant allows a rogue to have an apparently innocuous conversation in Common (or any other spoken language) while employing a series of techniques in order to communicate a specific message, entirely unbeknownst to unenlightened listeners"
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards? Could they not read tells? Did they not get in any trouble with the law at all for cheating at cards, and potentially disrupting the peace? Edit( good players of cards would be accused of cheating even when they didn't)
And again I ask about the other classes, What about fighters? There is a lot of fighters why do they all have to have Heavy armor proficiency? Why can't I get a gaming set? Or The barbarian? Or the druid or cleric.... It is a class in an RPG. What role does the class play? If the rogue is not going to have thieves tools as an extra tool proficiency, why should they get an extra tool proficiency at all. If they aren't going to have theives cant as an extra language, why should they be allowed an extra language at all. What makes them better at learning languages than the paladin, or the wizard or the bard? What makes them better at learning tools than the Ranger or the wizard?
Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant,
And that is the objection and proposed change. Because we can propose it now, as they’re preparing a new iteration of the rules.
And Clerics Have to have channel divinity,
But they don’t have to have heavy armor proficiency. They can make a basic choice, up front, picking from one set of proficiencies vs another set of things, via their Divine Order. What is so difficult about that same thing being applied to the Rogue?
Rogue can choose more skills than any other class, and can choose expertise in 2 up front. They have more customize options for how to be a skill person than any other class in the game. In 5e Thieves can't ONLY provided thieves cant. The language on TOP of this is already an additional change that allows you to have your cake and eat it to. You get the language AND thieves cant rather than just thieves cant.
Edit: but Clerics can't choose not the have shield proficiency, or medium armor proficiency. Clerics have not had heavy armor by default for almost 10 years, that has always be a subclass thing for them. This is allowing for the decoupling of the armor proficiency from the subclasses, which Clerics used to get at level 1, so it is just a replacement for those subclass features as compensation for pushing their domains back 2 levels.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Mechanics aren’t the only way to answer the question.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill.
Is that what I said? no, not in any way. I’m not the one who is saying that because one Rogue is good at X, all Rogues should be good at X. It would take a pretty severe misreading of what I have said to derive that conclusion.
They all must have a disguise kit?
When did I mention a disguise kit for that character?
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards?
With Thieves Cant? Not depicted for them in any way (and I would call back to their era of TV: it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to portray them with such a specifically criminal culture skill). And not what I would pick for my character based on them, either. With some other non-verbal language? possibly, but not Thieves Cant. Just not a good fit for how the source characters were portrayed.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Mechanics aren’t the only way to answer the question.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill.
Is that what I said? no, not in any way. I’m not the one who is saying that because one Rogue is good at X, all Rogues should be good at X. It would take a pretty severe misreading of what I have said to derive that conclusion.
They all must have a disguise kit?
When did I mention a disguise kit for that character?
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards?
With Thieves Cant? Not depicted for them in any way (and I would call back to their era of TV: it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to portray them with such a specifically criminal culture skill). And not what I would pick for my character based on them, either. With some other non-verbal language? possibly, but not Thieves Cant. Just not a good fit for how the source characters were portrayed.
My question specifically, was how do you communicate being an unscrupulous individual THROUGH MECHANICS... as a CLASS. Mechanically how do you show that a class in unscrupulous? That was the question. That is why I said you did not answer that question. Here you admit. That you did not answer that question.
Thieves cant doesn't say it is verbal. it says. Proficiency in thieves' cant allows a rogue to have an apparently innocuous conversation in Common (or any other spoken language) while employing a series of techniques in order to communicate a specific message, entirely unbeknownst to unenlightened listeners.
Body language, coded talk any form of communication that appears normal to everyone around, but the rogues can get is Thieves cant by definition of the game mechanics. Non-verbal body language that allows them to communicate without others noticing is Thieves cant. So the answer was yes, they did use thieves cant in the way dnd 5e describes it.
Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant,
And that is the objection and proposed change. Because we can propose it now, as they’re preparing a new iteration of the rules.
And Clerics Have to have channel divinity,
But they don’t have to have heavy armor proficiency. They can make a basic choice, up front, picking from one set of proficiencies vs another set of things, via their Divine Order. What is so difficult about that same thing being applied to the Rogue?
The language on TOP of this is already an additional change that allows you to have your cake and eat it to. You get the language AND thieves cant rather than just thieves cant.
Where did I say “a language on top of thieves cant”, as opposed to a language instead of thieves cant?
so it is just a replacement for those […] features
Yep. Just a replacement for a hard coded set of features. Your War Cleric doesn’t have to have heavy armor now, and can pick some other benefit instead. Your Trickery Cleric CAN have martial weapons now.
Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant,
And that is the objection and proposed change. Because we can propose it now, as they’re preparing a new iteration of the rules.
And Clerics Have to have channel divinity,
But they don’t have to have heavy armor proficiency. They can make a basic choice, up front, picking from one set of proficiencies vs another set of things, via their Divine Order. What is so difficult about that same thing being applied to the Rogue?
The language on TOP of this is already an additional change that allows you to have your cake and eat it to. You get the language AND thieves cant rather than just thieves cant.
Where did I say “a language on top of thieves cant”, as opposed to a language instead of thieves cant?
so it is just a replacement for those […] features
Yep. Just a replacement for a hard coded set of features. Your War Cleric doesn’t have to have heavy armor now, and can pick some other benefit instead. Your Trickery Cleric CAN have martial weapons now.
See how that works?
Because you can't pick trickery or War at level 1 anymore.
So the idea is take away a language from rogues in that case
Why should a rogue get an extra language at all then? Why should they have an extra tool proficiency at all?
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Mechanics aren’t the only way to answer the question.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill.
Is that what I said? no, not in any way. I’m not the one who is saying that because one Rogue is good at X, all Rogues should be good at X. It would take a pretty severe misreading of what I have said to derive that conclusion.
They all must have a disguise kit?
When did I mention a disguise kit for that character?
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards?
With Thieves Cant? Not depicted for them in any way (and I would call back to their era of TV: it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to portray them with such a specifically criminal culture skill). And not what I would pick for my character based on them, either. With some other non-verbal language? possibly, but not Thieves Cant. Just not a good fit for how the source characters were portrayed.
My question specifically, was how do you communicate being an unscrupulous individual THROUGH MECHANICS... as a CLASS. Mechanically how do you show that a class in unscrupulous? That was the question. That is why I said you did not answer that question. Here you admit. That you did not answer that question.
You asked how I would
“How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class?”
I answered THAT by mentioning the character idea as a Rogue. Then I described their personality … because the state of being unscrupulous is a personality feature. Nor do the mechanics we are discussing establish being unscrupulous, so it’s neither here nor there. Knowing Thieves Cant establishes knowledge of, and immersion in, criminal cultures, but that alone doesn’t establish that the speaker is unscrupulous. Knowing Thieves Cant doesn’t in any way mechanically show someone to be unscrupulous.
Edit: the class description in its entirety for your pleasure. Not one line suggests that a Rogue isn't connected to criminality in some way.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Read it again. Until you understand. How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class? Is it by giving them connections to "criminal type" things... I think it is.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Mechanics aren’t the only way to answer the question.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill.
Is that what I said? no, not in any way. I’m not the one who is saying that because one Rogue is good at X, all Rogues should be good at X. It would take a pretty severe misreading of what I have said to derive that conclusion.
They all must have a disguise kit?
When did I mention a disguise kit for that character?
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards?
With Thieves Cant? Not depicted for them in any way (and I would call back to their era of TV: it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to portray them with such a specifically criminal culture skill). And not what I would pick for my character based on them, either. With some other non-verbal language? possibly, but not Thieves Cant. Just not a good fit for how the source characters were portrayed.
My question specifically, was how do you communicate being an unscrupulous individual THROUGH MECHANICS... as a CLASS. Mechanically how do you show that a class in unscrupulous? That was the question. That is why I said you did not answer that question. Here you admit. That you did not answer that question.
You asked how I would
“How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class?”
I answered THAT by mentioning the character idea as a Rogue. Then I described their personality … because the state of being unscrupulous is a personality feature. Nor do the mechanics we are discussing establish being unscrupulous, so it’s neither here nor there. Knowing Thieves Cant establishes knowledge of, and immersion in, criminal cultures, but that alone doesn’t establish that the speaker is unscrupulous. Knowing Thieves Cant doesn’t in any way mechanically show someone to be unscrupulous.
Thieves cant doesn't say it is verbal. it says.
I didn’t say it is,
Right IN AN RPG AS A CLASS... that is mechanical...
Thieves tool proficiency sure shows someone to be unscrupulous. Thieves cant allows for discreet communication, which is itself unscrupulous. So yes, they do mechanically show this, and absolutely has to do with what we are talking about. Now as an RPG class how do you communicate that the CLASS, not the character, the class, is unscrupulous.
But you said the characters didn't use it even though they communicated discreetly using body language that others wouldn't understand... which is how thieves cant is described in 5e. "They do but it isn't thieves cant" then what the heck is it? because it isn't telepathy.
Lets focus on what it DOES say and not what it DOESN'T say.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant,
And that is the objection and proposed change. Because we can propose it now, as they’re preparing a new iteration of the rules.
And Clerics Have to have channel divinity,
But they don’t have to have heavy armor proficiency. They can make a basic choice, up front, picking from one set of proficiencies vs another set of things, via their Divine Order. What is so difficult about that same thing being applied to the Rogue?
The language on TOP of this is already an additional change that allows you to have your cake and eat it to. You get the language AND thieves cant rather than just thieves cant.
Where did I say “a language on top of thieves cant”, as opposed to a language instead of thieves cant?
so it is just a replacement for those […] features
Yep. Just a replacement for a hard coded set of features. Your War Cleric doesn’t have to have heavy armor now, and can pick some other benefit instead. Your Trickery Cleric CAN have martial weapons now.
See how that works?
Because you can't pick trickery or War at level 1 anymore.
Right, at first level you pick a set of options that used to be hard coded. You can prepare your character in the same way as the old set up, or a different way. And you can end up with a Trickery Cleric who has martial weapons… or a War Cleric who does not.
So the idea is take away a language from rogues in that case
No. It is to give them a choice about their language. And they can still pick the same language as before… or a different one.
Why should a rogue get an extra language at all then? Why should they have an extra tool proficiency at all?
That’s not the proposal. The proposal is a substitution for the two proficiencies, not a net subtraction, nor a net addition. And the substitution also allows you to maintain status quo (again, with no net subtraction nor net addition).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It doesn’t say, at any point, directly nor indirectly, that those are the only two options (criminal and crime fighter). Not once.
"Whatever a Rogue’s relation to the law, no common criminal or officer of the law can match the subtle brilliance of the greatest Rogues."
Directly says it right here. Also Here.
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
keep reading it until it sinks in. If you still think it doesn't say it, read it again. Keep doing that until you understand, that yes, yes it does.
Edited for BETTER emphasis. The second part is the more important part and there seems to be a focus on the first. It doesn't matter if they are criminal or crime fighter. NO COMMON CRIMINAL OR OFFICER OF THE LAW CAN MATCH THE SUBTLE BRILLIANCE OF A ROGUE. It doesn't matter, they are more street savvy than the common criminal or officer. That is ALL Rogues. Thieves tools are apart of all rogues. Thieves cant is part of all rogues. It is ALL ROGUES.
Where does it say “these are the only two possibilities, there are no others, this is an exhaustive list and not just two examples” ?
Unscrupulous and dishonest do not mean criminal. Just because criminals are those things doesn’t mean everyone who is those things is a criminal. Not everyone who wanders is a criminal. Not everyone who behaves in an aberrant or unpredictable way is a criminal. Not everyone who is “independent or uncontrolled” and behaves in a “way that is not authorized, normal, or expected” is a criminal. Not everyone who is a playful mischievous scamp is a criminal.
Not even the dictionary definition limits itself to criminals (nor crime fighters).
That bolded part is about who you would compare a Rogue to. “these people in bold cannot match the Rogue”. This in no way is saying that Rogues are limited to criminals and crime fighters because the bolded part is about who you compare Rogues to, not about the Rogue themselves. That’s how comparisons work. If anything, the contrast says “they aren’t common criminals, and they aren’t common law enforcement officers”, while also not saying that they are limited to being exceptional criminals or exceptional law enforcement officers.
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."
Try again. It is specifically a comparison between the rogue and those other options in terms of STREET WISE brilliance. How does one show that mechanically?
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And Here
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
Here is a fun excersize for you. It doesn't say the list is exhaustive... you know what it also doesn't say. That the list ISN'T exhaustive. You know what does say though?
"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."
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
The rules don't say you can't be a demigod as a race with the power to split the seas and fly and flick your wrist and kill a dragon, but they also don't say you can. There is a lot of things the rules don't say. Lets focus on what they do. And they Do say all Rogues have Thieves cant and Thieves tools, it is part of being a rogue.
Re-reading it doesn’t change that it doesn’t say what you are presenting it to say (that it only gives Rogues two possible types: criminals and crime fighters). It certainly says that Rogues can be those two things, but it never says they can only be those two things.
Also, the fact that I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I don’t understand you nor the text. Re-reading it won’t change that I already understand it.
What other dishonest and unscrupulous people could you fit to an RPG class? A lothario. Which is not an inherently criminal nor crime fighting role, but is roguish. Same with a moderately price gouging merchant: it’s not illegal, it’s just unscrupulous, and roguish. And both of those can be adventurers.
And how would you show a lothario as a class? and would you even want to? How do you mechanically show that someone is an unscrupulous rogue?
How about....
PROFICIENCIES Tools: Thieves’ Tools
And
1ST LEVEL: THIEVES’ CANT You picked up various languages in the communities where you plied your roguish talents. You know Thieves’ Cant and one other language of your choice, which you choose from the Standard Languages and Rare Languages tables.
It also doesn't say it can be something other than those 2 things. Rules don't say a lot of things.
The rules are in both what is explicitly allowed and also what is not prohibited. The rules do not prohibit being a Rogue who is neither criminal nor crime fighter.
Cool, it does prohibit a rogue from not knowing thieves tools and thieves cant, and it has for more than 10 years. It is part of being a Rogue capital R. Just like fighters have to have a fighting style. And Barbarians have to have rage. And Clerics Have to have channel divinity, and Druids have to have wild shape, and bards have to have musical instruments, and Paladins have to be able to smite, and rangers have to have favored terrain types... and so on and so forth. It is part of being a class in an RPG.
How would I show a character to be an unscrupulous rogue, but not a criminal nor a crime fighter?
I think a good start would be a professional gambler somewhat based on someone like the Maverick brothers. They are (in their TV era) depicted as somewhat womanizing. They clearly have to be some degree of deceptive/dishonest in order to be good bluffing poker players… but true to the tv code of that era, also not criminals. They aren’t cheats. They aren’t there to fight crime, either. They are specifically roguish, not dedicated to fighting skills nor a fighting life… but like a Rogue, able to fight when they have to.
Push that a little further: willing to bend the rules _of_the_game_, but not break the law. Possibly a card counter (which isn’t always against the law… nor always against the rules, especially in a pre-modern society). A lothario in the sense of seducing but not sticking around, amd always well dressed for both the table and the seduction. Always moving to a new town as soon as the well spring of money from legal gambling has dried up in the place they’re at (which is also roguish in being a wanderer). Never gambling where it’s against the law… but probably not staying in those places for long either, Could defend himself if he has to, but would not prefer a direct toe to toe confrontation.
Roguish in many ways (dictionary and D&D), but neither criminal nor crime fighter. Not a caster of any type (not because casters can’t be gamblers, but because the character inspiration isn’t, and I would stick with that). Not a Fighter. Not a Barbarian.
And that is the objection and proposed change. Because we can propose it now, as they’re preparing a new iteration of the rules.
But they don’t have to have heavy armor proficiency. They can make a basic choice, up front, picking from one set of proficiencies vs another set of things, via their Divine Order. What is so difficult about that same thing being applied to the Rogue?
I am going to say this didn't answer my question. That is all descriptive, but you gave no mechanics.
Good at cards.... does that mean you think that all rogues should automatically have Deception and not have a choice as to that part of the skill. Is that the thing that all rogues get for being "unscrupulous"? They all must have a disguise kit?
"Proficiency in thieves' cant allows a rogue to have an apparently innocuous conversation in Common (or any other spoken language) while employing a series of techniques in order to communicate a specific message, entirely unbeknownst to unenlightened listeners"
Would the brothers not communicate to better play cards? Could they not read tells? Did they not get in any trouble with the law at all for cheating at cards, and potentially disrupting the peace? Edit( good players of cards would be accused of cheating even when they didn't)
And again I ask about the other classes, What about fighters? There is a lot of fighters why do they all have to have Heavy armor proficiency? Why can't I get a gaming set? Or The barbarian? Or the druid or cleric.... It is a class in an RPG. What role does the class play? If the rogue is not going to have thieves tools as an extra tool proficiency, why should they get an extra tool proficiency at all. If they aren't going to have theives cant as an extra language, why should they be allowed an extra language at all. What makes them better at learning languages than the paladin, or the wizard or the bard? What makes them better at learning tools than the Ranger or the wizard?
Rogue can choose more skills than any other class, and can choose expertise in 2 up front. They have more customize options for how to be a skill person than any other class in the game. In 5e Thieves can't ONLY provided thieves cant. The language on TOP of this is already an additional change that allows you to have your cake and eat it to. You get the language AND thieves cant rather than just thieves cant.
Edit: but Clerics can't choose not the have shield proficiency, or medium armor proficiency. Clerics have not had heavy armor by default for almost 10 years, that has always be a subclass thing for them. This is allowing for the decoupling of the armor proficiency from the subclasses, which Clerics used to get at level 1, so it is just a replacement for those subclass features as compensation for pushing their domains back 2 levels.
Mechanics aren’t the only way to answer the question.
Is that what I said? no, not in any way. I’m not the one who is saying that because one Rogue is good at X, all Rogues should be good at X. It would take a pretty severe misreading of what I have said to derive that conclusion.
When did I mention a disguise kit for that character?
With Thieves Cant? Not depicted for them in any way (and I would call back to their era of TV: it is unlikely that they would have been allowed to portray them with such a specifically criminal culture skill). And not what I would pick for my character based on them, either. With some other non-verbal language? possibly, but not Thieves Cant. Just not a good fit for how the source characters were portrayed.
My question specifically, was how do you communicate being an unscrupulous individual THROUGH MECHANICS... as a CLASS. Mechanically how do you show that a class in unscrupulous? That was the question. That is why I said you did not answer that question. Here you admit. That you did not answer that question.
Thieves cant doesn't say it is verbal. it says.
Proficiency in thieves' cant allows a rogue to have an apparently innocuous conversation in Common (or any other spoken language) while employing a series of techniques in order to communicate a specific message, entirely unbeknownst to unenlightened listeners.
Body language, coded talk any form of communication that appears normal to everyone around, but the rogues can get is Thieves cant by definition of the game mechanics. Non-verbal body language that allows them to communicate without others noticing is Thieves cant. So the answer was yes, they did use thieves cant in the way dnd 5e describes it.
Where did I say “a language on top of thieves cant”, as opposed to a language instead of thieves cant?
Yep. Just a replacement for a hard coded set of features. Your War Cleric doesn’t have to have heavy armor now, and can pick some other benefit instead. Your Trickery Cleric CAN have martial weapons now.
See how that works?
Because you can't pick trickery or War at level 1 anymore.
So the idea is take away a language from rogues in that case
Why should a rogue get an extra language at all then? Why should they have an extra tool proficiency at all?
You asked how I would
“How do you show an unscrupulous individual in an RPG as a class?”
I answered THAT by mentioning the character idea as a Rogue. Then I described their personality … because the state of being unscrupulous is a personality feature. Nor do the mechanics we are discussing establish being unscrupulous, so it’s neither here nor there. Knowing Thieves Cant establishes knowledge of, and immersion in, criminal cultures, but that alone doesn’t establish that the speaker is unscrupulous. Knowing Thieves Cant doesn’t in any way mechanically show someone to be unscrupulous.
I didn’t say it is,
Right IN AN RPG AS A CLASS... that is mechanical...
Thieves tool proficiency sure shows someone to be unscrupulous. Thieves cant allows for discreet communication, which is itself unscrupulous. So yes, they do mechanically show this, and absolutely has to do with what we are talking about. Now as an RPG class how do you communicate that the CLASS, not the character, the class, is unscrupulous.
But you said the characters didn't use it even though they communicated discreetly using body language that others wouldn't understand... which is how thieves cant is described in 5e. "They do but it isn't thieves cant" then what the heck is it? because it isn't telepathy.
Right, at first level you pick a set of options that used to be hard coded. You can prepare your character in the same way as the old set up, or a different way. And you can end up with a Trickery Cleric who has martial weapons… or a War Cleric who does not.
No. It is to give them a choice about their language. And they can still pick the same language as before… or a different one.
That’s not the proposal. The proposal is a substitution for the two proficiencies, not a net subtraction, nor a net addition. And the substitution also allows you to maintain status quo (again, with no net subtraction nor net addition).