D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Rogue Scout

TwoSix · Oct 16, 2017

Satyrn said:
There are no female ~~dogs~~ dwarves. Just as there are no male ~~cats~~ elves.

And that's where gnomes come from, children.

Chaosmancer · Oct 17, 2017

WayOfTheFourElements said:
No this isn't the only thing that bothers me. I have similar issues with dragon sorcerers (if you don't want to randomly explode and create magical butterflies on mistake, you instead get a face full of scales!) and storm sorcerers (cast comprehend languages -> fly 10 ft.). I'd also like a pre-made table of possible terms and conditions for creating warlock pacts, but so far my players have done a fine job coming up with their own.

Maybe the reason this one bothers me so much is that wilderness rogue = non-spellcasting ranger && ranger = loner or outsider. Banding with a gang of local thieves (because otherwise the ability is useless) == not a loner/outsider. The non-spellcaster loner ranger, who is an expert in woodcraft, is an iconic archetype and should be easily created without optional rules (such as feats).

First off the bolded? That just makes me shudder, no no no, do not want. If they make it, fine I'll live, but making pacts is easy enough that I don't want them setting expectations for that

On to your second paragraph

"Wilderness Rogue = non-spellcasting ranger" Sure, if you want to go with that you can, I have no problems but for me that statement is a bit of a paradox. I like my Rangers magical.

"Ranger = Loner or Outsider" Kind of? Not Really? This doesn't mesh with me. There's a few reasons it bothers me.

1) I'm absolutely sick of Loner/Outsider characters. My current group nearly dissolved into an in-fighting friend-ruining mess because I had 5 people playing "the loner with a dark past" in the same group. I have, completely independently with no conversation or group decision, three people who constantly wear a mask to hide their face, and one who is a changeling who pretty much never takes his true form. I'm done with loners, they are a great narrative device, but I'm sick of them in my games for right now.

That is all my own issue, but it feels good to vent.

2) Most Rangers in fiction are like the Texas Rangers or the US Marshalls of the Wild West era. They are "Loners" in that they typically are working alone on the actual job, but they are part of a larger organization and will gather up a posse of locals to work with towards a larger goal. The closest I can get to a wilderness character who truly is a "loner" is the Mountain Man/Hermit of the Woods type character. But those are more the archetype for the reluctant guide the party meets once and then leaves behind, not the guy who is the parties woodland expert.

And, like I said in a previous post, working on the fringes of society makes them more likely to pick up Thieves Cant. Because to move on

"Banding with a gang of local thieves (because otherwise the ability is useless)" is a statement I find completely false. Working with the Theives isn't the only reason you learn their signs and symbols (which is a part of Thieves Cant). You learn it to work against them, does your Wilderness Scout hunt down the BAndits who live in the mountains, learning how they mark their territory is incredibly useful in that regard. Perhaps working against smugglers. Perhaps dealing with poachers on the king's land, or those who hunt rare creatures like Faerie Dragons or Unicorns.

OR maybe they pick it up to avoid trouble. People who live in the Ghettos learn gang signs because those things spell danger and trouble and you need to learn to stay out of the way. Learning the signs of the local thieves guilds is useful when you're the lone guy living in the woods who doesn't want trouble. Because you don't have the benefit of people close to you if the guild decided to send people after you. So you learn how to recognize the guild's stuff and the guild's people so you can stay out of their way.

Yes, none of this flows naturally like Paladins wearing heavy armor and knowing the name of every god of every religion...

Or a Druid knowing how to speak with the spirits of the forest and recognizing rare Desert Herbs on sight....

Or a Pirate's Bad Reputation from twenty years ago following them to every single corner of the globe no matter how far from the ocean....

But sometimes we've just got to adapt to the limitations of the rules as written

Guest 6801328 · Oct 17, 2017

Honestly I didn't have a dog in this race; I didn't really care where the Scout ended up. But the weakness of arguments for why it was a bad decision convinces me, conversely, that it was probably the right decision.

WayOfTheFourElements · Oct 17, 2017

Chaosmancer said:
Yes, none of this flows naturally like Paladins wearing heavy armor and knowing the name of every god of every religion...

Or a Druid knowing how to speak with the spirits of the forest and recognizing rare Desert Herbs on sight....

Or a Pirate's Bad Reputation from twenty years ago following them to every single corner of the globe no matter how far from the ocean....

But sometimes we've just got to adapt to the limitations of the rules as written

As I have said, there is always a way to explain Thieves' Cant, but that it requires an explanation is annoying. Nothing you've mentioned above requires any additional explanation.

What I will probably end up doing is add a line to my house rule doc that rogues can swap out Thieves' Cant for any other language of their choice, with the option of choosing a secret or hidden language, such as Druidic.

Still, it's annoying that I need more house rules for something so mind-dumbingly simple.

Mistwell · Oct 17, 2017

[video=youtube;RFZrzg62Zj0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0[/video]

Guest 6801328 · Oct 17, 2017

Is WayOfTheFourElements a new, alternate userID for [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]? His posting..."style"...is frighteningly similar.

Maxperson · Oct 17, 2017

Elfcrusher said:
Is WayOfTheFourElements a new, alternate userID for [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]? His posting..."style"...is frighteningly similar.

Not me. I don't do the alternate account thing. If I have something to say, I will say it.

Chaosmancer · Oct 17, 2017

WayOfTheFourElements said:
As I have said, there is always a way to explain Thieves' Cant, but that it requires an explanation is annoying. Nothing you've mentioned above requires any additional explanation.

What I will probably end up doing is add a line to my house rule doc that rogues can swap out Thieves' Cant for any other language of their choice, with the option of choosing a secret or hidden language, such as Druidic.

Still, it's annoying that I need more house rules for something so mind-dumbingly simple.

... Nothing else requires additional explanation...

Wow, I know you read those examples, but I just can't fathom how "why does my lone woodsman know criminal sign language" is somehow a level of magnitude greater than "yes, the barkeep in this village tavern 10,000 miles away from any ocean knows of your fearsome pirate reputation" or "yes, in fanatically studying the workings of Helm you also studied the teachings of Laogzed, God of the Troglodytes"

I find myself boggled. What more is there to say.