a) By roleplaying the NPC with a Roguish personality. The players might never see anything mechanical about the character that makes them go "that was a Rogue" because not all interactions get into the game mechanics. But most interactions involve at least a little bit of roleplaying.
b) it isn't either of the first two things; the only mechanical things that makes anyone say "this is a Rogue" is: specific skill sets are a hint, Expertise* in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster, and very likely relies on skirmishing sucker-punches instead of direct fights. Which brings us back to: no, Thieves Tools and Thieves Cant are not the mechanics fingerprints of being a Rogue, and that's not how you communicate that this is a Rogue.
(* meaning they have a remarkably high demonstrated proficiency with part of that skill set)
What does Sylvan have to do with being a rogue?
It was mentioned as a possible alternative that Scouts might have. Since, you know, they're out in the wilderness a lot.
So sylvan has to do with being a scout..
What does it have to do with being a Rogue?
Because Scouts are Rogues.
So bards are rogues now, because they have expertise.
"Expertise in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster". Bards fail that requirement.
Rangers were rogues in the previous play test because they also had expertise.
Rangers also fail the "Expertise in multiples of that skill set but not-a-caster" requirement, as well as not having that sucker-punch (Sneak AttaZScoutck).
Not all Scouts are rogues. Scouts are scouts, Rogues are Rogues. Scouts can be rogues, and rogues can be scouts, but not all scouts are rogues and not all rogues are scouts.
Not all scouts are Rogues, but all Scouts are Rogues. And I specifically said Scouts.
You added the "Not-a-caster" moving goal posts. Simultaneously adding that Rangers can't be mundane, nothing says they can't. See artificer argument.
Not a shifting goal post at all. I've been saying mundane Expert all along, and as has been pointed out, that means not-a-caster. And I also said it in the thing you replied to.
the more i think about and research thieves cant, the more i can't really appreciate it as the language of an entire class. it's just not the same as being sufficiently street-wise. some people on the margins and with shady dealings might pickup (and think themselves clever for using) some slang. but some slang is just some slang. so then, is a thieves cant technical jargon, a practiced complex substitution language (like Cockney rhyming slang), or is it a fully coded language? jargon would be cracked by law enforcement too easily (offering meat to beggars, money to night ladies, applying hot irons to the feet of actual thieves, etc) or else be required to mutate constantly. too much change would mean thieves just a few miles apart might be unable to understand one another. the second, Cockney argot, required an entire subculture to value obfuscation to outside scrutiny and dedication to the task. but should not cause every granny attending the church of St Mary-le-Bow to be classified a thief just because they have opinions about the local duke, or whatnot. so that leaves complex language which would require some organization. a thieves cant for a thieves guild.
if you want to tell me a zhent or xanthar's guild member might speak thieves cant then i'm going to agree. if you want to tell me some rough entrepreneur with the dungeoneering feat, some bits of wire, and a bundle of torches knows thieves cant, i'm less agreeable but you can convince me they learned from a fence. and as such, it's kinda more background, more optional. you don't have to know thieves cant to sell a hot wand if you can just learn a little slang. one of those things deserves a whole language slot, and the other is an Int check.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: providefeedback!
the more i think about and research thieves cant, the more i can't really appreciate it as the language of an entire class. it's just not the same as being sufficiently street-wise. some people on the margins and with shady dealings might pickup (and think themselves clever for using) some slang. but some slang is just some slang. so then, is a thieves cant technical jargon, a practiced complex substitution language (like Cockney rhyming slang), or is it a fully coded language? jargon would be cracked by law enforcement too easily (offering meat to beggars, money to night ladies, applying hot irons to the feet of actual thieves, etc) or else be required to mutate constantly. too much change would mean thieves just a few miles apart might be unable to understand one another. the second, Cockney argot, required an entire subculture to value obfuscation to outside scrutiny and dedication to the task. but should not cause every granny attending the church of St Mary-le-Bow to be classified a thief just because they have opinions about the local duke, or whatnot. so that leaves complex language which would require some organization. a thieves cant for a thieves guild.
if you want to tell me a zhent or xanthar's guild member might speak thieves cant then i'm going to agree. if you want to tell me some rough entrepreneur with the dungeoneering feat, some bits of wire, and a bundle of torches knows thieves cant, i'm less agreeable but you can convince me they learned from a fence. and as such, it's kinda more background, more optional. you don't have to know thieves cant to sell a hot wand if you can just learn a little slang. one of those things deserves a whole language slot, and the other is an Int check.
Backgrounds can all get theives cant it isn't just tied to the class anymore. Cops probably do have thieves cant as a language option as part of their background. So ya it is the technical jargon + coded talk. Yes cops have probably cracked it, but not all cops would instantly recognize it unless they became fluent. Long time cops would likely be fluent, but people aren't going to be using it in front of just cops.
You aren't a Scout, at level 1. You are a Rogue. What does Sylvan have to do with being a Rogue?
In the same way that a Cleric might know they're going to end up as a War Domain Cleric due to their deity, a Rogue might know from level 1 that they will be pursuing the Scout subclass, and be tailoring their choices starting at 1st level. Such as, if the proposal was adopted by WOTC, picking Sylvan instead of Thieves Cant would make sense for a Rogue who intends to be a Scout.
Also. Rangers can be mundane, and so can artificers.
Artificers cannot be mundane, because they have spellcasting at 1st level. While artificers might be mundane, that's not within the scope of the discussion because Artificers are being brought up as a class, and not as random artisans, and Artificers are contrasted against the Rogue, where the Rogue is the only Expert class that is a mundane class.
The Ranger Class is not a mundane class at any point, because the class has the Spellcasting feature. And I made that distinction in comment #127: a mundane class is one that isn't build around spellcasting. The Ranger class is built around Spellcasting, and is therefore a caster class and not a mundane class.
You aren't a Scout, at level 1. You are a Rogue. What does Sylvan have to do with being a Rogue?
In the same way that a Cleric might know they're going to end up as a War Domain Cleric due to their deity, a Rogue might know from level 1 that they will be pursuing the Scout subclass, and be tailoring their choices starting at 1st level. Such as, if the proposal was adopted by WOTC, picking Sylvan instead of Thieves Cant would make sense for a Rogue who intends to be a Scout.
Also. Rangers can be mundane, and so can artificers.
Artificers cannot be mundane, because they have spellcasting at 1st level. While artificers might be mundane, that's not within the scope of the discussion because Artificers are being brought up as a class, and not as random artisans, and Artificers are contrasted against the Rogue, where the Rogue is the only Expert class that is a mundane class.
The Ranger Class is not a mundane class at any point, because the class has the Spellcasting feature. And I made that distinction in comment #127: a mundane class is one that isn't build around spellcasting. The Ranger class is built around Spellcasting, and is therefore a caster class and not a mundane class.
Then under your logic, the Rogue MUST be a criminal base on the same rules as the Ranger and Artificer are magical. That is the line. Either Rangers and Artificers can be mundane, or Rogues must be connected to criminality just as those classes must be magical. Because they have thieves cant and thieves tools at level 1.
You aren't a Scout, at level 1. You are a Rogue. What does Sylvan have to do with being a Rogue?
In the same way that a Cleric might know they're going to end up as a War Domain Cleric due to their deity, a Rogue might know from level 1 that they will be pursuing the Scout subclass, and be tailoring their choices starting at 1st level. Such as, if the proposal was adopted by WOTC, picking Sylvan instead of Thieves Cant would make sense for a Rogue who intends to be a Scout.
Also. Rangers can be mundane, and so can artificers.
Artificers cannot be mundane, because they have spellcasting at 1st level. While artificers might be mundane, that's not within the scope of the discussion because Artificers are being brought up as a class, and not as random artisans, and Artificers are contrasted against the Rogue, where the Rogue is the only Expert class that is a mundane class.
The Ranger Class is not a mundane class at any point, because the class has the Spellcasting feature. And I made that distinction in comment #127: a mundane class is one that isn't build around spellcasting. The Ranger class is built around Spellcasting, and is therefore a caster class and not a mundane class.
Then under your logic, the Rogue MUST be a criminal base
Except the rules say otherwise.
And if you're saying it on the basis of Thieves Cant and Thieves Tools, we've already gotten past that as something only criminals could have (because according to some, non-criminals courtiers, cops, etc. might have it). You just recently even said anyone could have it via their Background.
That is the line.
A Dashed line that is full of holes for the Rogue as criminals, yet perfectly solid for the Ranger and Artificer as not being mundane.
You aren't a Scout, at level 1. You are a Rogue. What does Sylvan have to do with being a Rogue?
In the same way that a Cleric might know they're going to end up as a War Domain Cleric due to their deity, a Rogue might know from level 1 that they will be pursuing the Scout subclass, and be tailoring their choices starting at 1st level. Such as, if the proposal was adopted by WOTC, picking Sylvan instead of Thieves Cant would make sense for a Rogue who intends to be a Scout.
Also. Rangers can be mundane, and so can artificers.
Artificers cannot be mundane, because they have spellcasting at 1st level. While artificers might be mundane, that's not within the scope of the discussion because Artificers are being brought up as a class, and not as random artisans, and Artificers are contrasted against the Rogue, where the Rogue is the only Expert class that is a mundane class.
The Ranger Class is not a mundane class at any point, because the class has the Spellcasting feature. And I made that distinction in comment #127: a mundane class is one that isn't build around spellcasting. The Ranger class is built around Spellcasting, and is therefore a caster class and not a mundane class.
Then under your logic, the Rogue MUST be a criminal base
Except the rules say otherwise.
And if you're saying it on the basis of Thieves Cant and Thieves Tools, we've already gotten past that as something only criminals could have (because according to some, non-criminals courtiers, cops, etc. might have it). You just recently even said anyone could have it via their Background.
That is the line.
A Dashed line that is full of holes for the Rogue as criminals, yet perfectly solid for the Ranger and Artificer as not being mundane.
Ok, reached agree to disagree, any further conversation would be require violating site rules. Have a nice day. Your wrong.
(And it is related to crime not criminal, yes others would have it too. Including all Rogues).
Not all scouts are Rogues, but all Scouts are Rogues. And I specifically said Scouts.
Not a shifting goal post at all. I've been saying mundane Expert all along, and as has been pointed out, that means not-a-caster. And I also said it in the thing you replied to.
You aren't a Scout, at level 1. You are a Rogue. What does Sylvan have to do with being a Rogue?
Also. Rangers can be mundane, and so can artificers.
the more i think about and research thieves cant, the more i can't really appreciate it as the language of an entire class. it's just not the same as being sufficiently street-wise. some people on the margins and with shady dealings might pickup (and think themselves clever for using) some slang. but some slang is just some slang. so then, is a thieves cant technical jargon, a practiced complex substitution language (like Cockney rhyming slang), or is it a fully coded language? jargon would be cracked by law enforcement too easily (offering meat to beggars, money to night ladies, applying hot irons to the feet of actual thieves, etc) or else be required to mutate constantly. too much change would mean thieves just a few miles apart might be unable to understand one another. the second, Cockney argot, required an entire subculture to value obfuscation to outside scrutiny and dedication to the task. but should not cause every granny attending the church of St Mary-le-Bow to be classified a thief just because they have opinions about the local duke, or whatnot. so that leaves complex language which would require some organization. a thieves cant for a thieves guild.
if you want to tell me a zhent or xanthar's guild member might speak thieves cant then i'm going to agree. if you want to tell me some rough entrepreneur with the dungeoneering feat, some bits of wire, and a bundle of torches knows thieves cant, i'm less agreeable but you can convince me they learned from a fence. and as such, it's kinda more background, more optional. you don't have to know thieves cant to sell a hot wand if you can just learn a little slang. one of those things deserves a whole language slot, and the other is an Int check.
unhappy at the way in which we lost individual purchases for one-off subclasses, magic items, and monsters?
tell them you don't like features disappeared quietly in the night: provide feedback!
Backgrounds can all get theives cant it isn't just tied to the class anymore. Cops probably do have thieves cant as a language option as part of their background. So ya it is the technical jargon + coded talk. Yes cops have probably cracked it, but not all cops would instantly recognize it unless they became fluent. Long time cops would likely be fluent, but people aren't going to be using it in front of just cops.
In the same way that a Cleric might know they're going to end up as a War Domain Cleric due to their deity, a Rogue might know from level 1 that they will be pursuing the Scout subclass, and be tailoring their choices starting at 1st level. Such as, if the proposal was adopted by WOTC, picking Sylvan instead of Thieves Cant would make sense for a Rogue who intends to be a Scout.
Artificers cannot be mundane, because they have spellcasting at 1st level. While artificers might be mundane, that's not within the scope of the discussion because Artificers are being brought up as a class, and not as random artisans, and Artificers are contrasted against the Rogue, where the Rogue is the only Expert class that is a mundane class.
The Ranger Class is not a mundane class at any point, because the class has the Spellcasting feature. And I made that distinction in comment #127: a mundane class is one that isn't build around spellcasting. The Ranger class is built around Spellcasting, and is therefore a caster class and not a mundane class.
Then under your logic, the Rogue MUST be a criminal base on the same rules as the Ranger and Artificer are magical. That is the line. Either Rangers and Artificers can be mundane, or Rogues must be connected to criminality just as those classes must be magical. Because they have thieves cant and thieves tools at level 1.
Except the rules say otherwise.
And if you're saying it on the basis of Thieves Cant and Thieves Tools, we've already gotten past that as something only criminals could have (because according to some, non-criminals courtiers, cops, etc. might have it). You just recently even said anyone could have it via their Background.
A Dashed line that is full of holes for the Rogue as criminals, yet perfectly solid for the Ranger and Artificer as not being mundane.
Ok, reached agree to disagree, any further conversation would be require violating site rules. Have a nice day. Your wrong.
(And it is related to crime not criminal, yes others would have it too. Including all Rogues).