Archetypes

WolfhillRPG said:

Thief/assassin/arcanetrickster. Skills such as second-story work go against the character iam trying to build. Do I just ignore that part of the archetype? The character is supposed to be a geeky lockpicker who really enjoys the problem solving of traps, not a wall scaling, pocket picking thief who just happens to be good at locks/traps.

Click to expand...

Here's an alternative suggestion - don't play a Rogue.

The character you describe could be a Fighter or a Bard or a Monk. A background (Guild Artisan, perhaps) can give you proficiency in thief's tools.

Rogues do not have to be thieves; thieves do not have to be Rogues.

WolfhillRPG said:

makes sense lads/ladies. I guess iam just coming from a time when you put % into the skills you wanted or used. never did backstab with that character. quarterstaffs were way more useful at triggering traps when they couldn't be disarmed

Click to expand...

As someone who loved his 3.5 Ranger micromanaging skills... I understand what your saying. It is a bit different having skills that are so broad. I have to remind myself that the archatype names are not what you call yourself in game but reference for meta game simplicity. What I mean is a "rogue thief" in no way shape or form has to be roguish or an evil thief. They could easily be a former City Guard Quartermaster, who knows locks and traps from years of designing and placing them legally as part of his job to protect equipment from theft instead and knows how the hide valuables to protect them which gives him a good idea where to search for them. Its actually, interesting to play the inverse of the name because usually a role has a counter role with similar skills because they need to know their enemy.

In that same vain, a Thief, a Captain of the guard, and a detective could all very easily have the same skill set. We have "rogue" in our group now that specializes in operational security (scouting and ensuring we are save as we move forward) and item recover, meaning he steals but mostly steals back from thieves returning them to proper owners. That means he makes less profit but he doesn't have to hid his activities and has no risk of going to jail being views like a private eye and supplement to busy town guards with a wider range of service.

I find my GM has more problem with that than me. I am playing a warlock and we had a number of sessions where he was trying to paint me as evil and I had to confront him asking why. He originally said, "well you made a deal with an evil being" I pointed out that only "The Fiend" patron is by nature evil. The ArchFey and Celestial Patrons could very likely be good, Hexblades are "generally" hunters of the undead from their Raven Queen Roots, and Undying is somewhat natural. I choose The Old One described as, "The Great Old One might be unaware of your existence or entirely indifferent to you, but the secrets you have learned allow you to draw your magic from it." which I described my "pact" as an accident of cult experimentation on me while I was captive. The patron doesn't necessarily know I exist nor do I know or understand my patron. So what have I done that makes me evil? It took the GM almost a year to come around to the idea that I could be an involuntary warlock who the patron doesn't know exist and not an evil PC searching for power. Made for some interesting session when my patron became aware of me and I of it. Until then, my farm boy become warlock thought he was a sorcerer per my character flaws, though other know what he was and didn't have the heart to tell him because of "evil implications".

It took me a while to adapt to this because in 3.5 you were much more what you picked than a summery of skills and abilities you take. In 3.5 I was a ranger hunter of the undead and my character know it and it was all supported in the rules. In 5e I originally felt I couldn't do anything because it wasn't spelled out, then I eventually learned I could do anything because I wasn't tied down... well … as long as I can explain it to my GM and get him on board. So their is a bit more GM acceptance requirement than 3.5 where their was no room for GM bias base interpretation. That may have always been and option in concept but my 3.5 GMs were very much "it is as the book says". So a thief was a thief. I like being able to be a city investigator by background and keeping that as a security specialist using the thief subclass.

DM Dave1 said:

What [MENTION=6801213]akr71[/MENTION] said. Plus take the Guild Artisan background as a locksmith. Pick Tinker's tools to go along with your Thieves' Tools. Maybe later, take a multiclass dip into Wizard just to learn Knock and Arcane Lock.

In the end, though, it's not up to the books to make your concept work. It's up to you to make it work. Any 5e DM should be on board - 5e is as flexible as you and your DM want it to be. Remember 5e's basic premise: have fun!

Click to expand...

Ooh! Guild Artisan crossed my mind, but I didn't think about Tinker's Tools!

Disarm traps, if they've removable (ie on a chest or something), tinker with them, learn how they work and build and modify them.

WolfhillRPG said:

makes sense lads/ladies. I guess iam just coming from a time when you put % into the skills you wanted or used. never did backstab with that character. quarterstaffs were way more useful at triggering traps when they couldn't be disarmed

Click to expand...

Think of it this way: the character mechanics you want to support your old AD&D2e character concept are all present in a 5e Rogue (Thief) with certain skill/tool proficiency selection and perhaps background choice.

In 5e, you just get some extra things on top of that to keep your rogue contributing/surviving in combat.

In fact IIRC, back in AD&D2e, your rogue character couldn't even be of Lawful Good alignment! So there's one thing you can be grateful for having changed.

Satyrn said:

But regardless of that, 5e provides many ways for you to play a locksmith/trapsmith. You can pick absolutely any class you want, fighter, ranger, wizard, whatever. Then grab whatever background looks like the best fit, flavor-wise, and swap out the skills for whatever you want and take Thieves' tools and tinker's tools instead of whatever languages/tools the background gives.

The backgrounds presented are simply examples and the Players Handbook tells you to customize them as you want.

Click to expand...

This.

WolfhillRPG said:

I think you are taking my confusion as complaining. Like the title of the thread says, I am referring to the 3rd level archetypes provided to the class. Thief/assassin/arcanetrickster. Skills such as second-story work go against the character iam trying to build. Do I just ignore that part of the archetype? The character is supposed to be a geeky lockpicker who really enjoys the problem solving of traps, not a wall scaling, pocket picking thief who just happens to be good at locks/traps. A lot of great insight here.

Click to expand...

I would consider The New Wayfinder's Guide to Eberron Mark of warding dwarf race which is House Kundarak with smith tools proficiency + "Master of Locks" ability (When you make an Intelligence (History), Intelligence (Investigation), or Thieves’ Tools check involving lock and trap mechanisms, you can roll one Intuition die, a d4, and add the number rolled to the ability check.) and possibly double down on that with the background House Agent (Kundarak) -> thieves tools and tinker’s tools. Then House Kundarak is just what ever guild you and your GM agree it is.

This frees up your actual class to be what ever makes since to you and not need to be a "rogue" unless you so chose. With a primary Archetype of dwarf locksmith you could easily be Forge Domain Cleric, Champion Fighter as dwarf being a dwarf and having the locksmith part covered, Rogue Inquisitive rooting out secret and traps keeping eye out both for safety but also out of prelesional curiosity (if you want to keep the "rogue" style play), a Drunken Master Monk (because as much as dwarfs drink you could have just learned to fight in bars in your natural state, and this means your an unarmored fighter instead of a locksmith in armor with combat skill for some reason. This is my favorite based on your first description the race and background cover your locksmith goals and essentially your class is your usually drunk and better fighter than people expect. lol it also has access to many rogue abilities, some identical, for a similar type of play trading martial arts attack die and multiple attacks instead of backstab.)

WolfhillRPG said:

You cant play this character because at level 3 you are forced to pick either a Thief/assassin/arcane trickster archetype. None of which are conducive to the character I described

Click to expand...

Thief is a vanilla rogue (2nd edition) / thief (1st edition). Your statement is factually incorrect.

5e is better than those editions if you want to create a less standard character. You might perhaps look at the Scout and Investigative archetypes in Xanthar's Guide if you want a rogue who isn't into climbing.

To the OP:
In 5e it is even better: the class doesn't even matter.
Your dwarven locksmith does not need to be a rogue, but can be any class!

And with a feat from Xanathar's / Unearthed Arcana / Homebrew, you can get as good as the rogue with expertise in thieves' tools.

It seems like I need to adjust my understanding of the 5e rules. I didn't realize the level of diversity the backgrounds offered. It seems like the background defines the character more than the class now. thanks for the input.

WolfhillRPG said:

It seems like I need to adjust my understanding of the 5e rules. I didn't realize the level of diversity the backgrounds offered. It seems like the background defines the character more than the class now. thanks for the input.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say more. Backgrounds are just that—they define who the character was/is prior to their current adventures. Classes still define what you're capable of and your main abilities.