D&D 5E Legends and Lore July 28: Keeping it Classy

[Andor]

Another lack, but it doesn't require a subclass. The only reason we don't already have this is the weapon restriction on Sneak Attack. That should have been removed unless there's a compelling balance reason to keep it, and I don't see one.

I don't think there there is a compelling balance reason, but the lack of restriction on sneak attack weapons has been something that we've all mocked since 1e. "You're making a sneak attack with a seige weapon?" I'm certain removing that limit is addressed in the DMG.

Also known as the "rogue with expertise in Survival." Multiclass ranger for extra scouty goodness. You really need an entire subclass for this?

Exactly.

Also known as the "rogue with expertise in Acrobatics." If you want super-magic-acrobatics, multiclass monk. Again, I don't see why this requires a whole separate rogue subclass.

Agreed.

I agree that we should have had a "con man" rogue option. That's a definite lack.

Wouldn't that be 'rogue with expertise in Persuasion'?

I don't see why you need a sub-class to make a character whose shtick is "I'm really good at a skill" when that is already a part of the core rogue.

Likewise I don't get the complaints about wanting a thug. Make a fighter with the criminal background and the stealth skill. Or mix fighter and rogue. Or make a dwarf rogue that wears heavy armour. You can't sneak well in full plate? Duh? If you must do something absurd like trying to sneak while wearing a hardware store make a Drow Rogue, dip once into fighter for the armour, once into wizard for spells and use darkness and silence to get past the guards.

Honestly I'm not seeing a lot of places where 5e says "You can't do that."

 

[Dausuul]

Wouldn't that be 'rogue with expertise in Persuasion'?

I don't see why you need a sub-class to make a character whose shtick is "I'm really good at a skill" when that is already a part of the core rogue.

It's a question of focus in the existing subclasses. I see the Scout as unnecessary because it's already covered by the Thief: Second-Story Work and Supreme Sneak are both squarely in the "stealth and mobility" line. I see the Acrobat as unnecessary because acrobatics by itself is nowhere near big enough to build a subclass around. However, none of the Thief's abilities support the smooth-talking con man archetype, unless you want to use Fast Hands to play the shell game with monsters.

Right now, we have a rogue oriented toward the combat pillar (the Assassin) and a rogue oriented toward the exploration pillar (the Thief), but no rogue for the social pillar.

 

[jadrax]

I see the Scout as unnecessary because it's already covered by the Thief: Second-Story Work and Supreme Sneak are both squarely in the "stealth and mobility" line.

'Scout' is actually used as the name of one of the Specialties for the Soldier Background.

However, none of the Thief's abilities support the smooth-talking con man archetype, unless you want to use Fast Hands to play the shell game with monsters.

Right now, we have a rogue oriented toward the combat pillar (the Assassin) and a rogue oriented toward the exploration pillar (the Thief), but no rogue for the social pillar.

At one point it was an explicit design goal that the social pillar would be served by Backgrounds, not classes. Although admittedly due to spells and the bard class, there are clear overlaps.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Right now, we have a rogue oriented toward the combat pillar (the Assassin) and a rogue oriented toward the exploration pillar (the Thief), but no rogue for the social pillar.

That would be the bard, or any class with a persuasion skill

Seriously though, I see your overall point. And I think we need to ask ourselves at what point do we need a subclass vs being able to accomplish what we want with the rules in place. AD&D had a ton of classes that kept coming out. Every DRAGON magazine. Sure, they were "NPC" classes, but everyone knew players used them as PC classes. Bandit, archer, revised monk, ninja, duelist, death master, and even neaderthal. That's because AD&D wasn't set up to customize your PC very well for many of the archetypes. You had to multi-class and hope you got close (and had to be a demi-human), or try to create your own class with the rules in DMG which weren't very user friendly.

5e, by contrast, is very easy to customize your PC into nearly every archetype you want with the implementation of backgrounds and feats. I for one don't want to have huge page bloat or splat bloat for subclasses for everything if you can essentially recreate the same thing using a bit of creativity with the tools already given. Do we need an assassin fighter class, or can that be done with taking a criminal background to get the stealth skills and feats to complement it?

 

[the Jester]

Well then either the playtesters or designers have no sense of history.

The Dex/Cha rogue has been a thing for 2 editions.

And the acrobat is even older.

Neither one of these requires a special subclass, just wise choice of skills and expertise.

The con man rogue, I can see as a subclass- you can easily differentiate the subclass abilities it grants from those of the existing subclass. But when a thief can already climb walls, balance on tightropes and use his reaction to take half damage, what exactly does an acrobat need?

 

[FadedC]

Actually, at least in alpha, the assassin appears to be the con man rogue. He has abilities that let him mimic speech, forge documents and assume the identity of either a specific person or a type of person. Nobody says you have to use those abilities to murder people .

The issue seems to be that every class is designed to have combat abilities and non combat abilities. So your not going to have a subclass that only has noncombat social abilities because that would be a very niche class. So instead the con man becomes the assassin, who has both combat and deception skills and the acrobat becomes the thief who has both combat and acrobatic skills.

Right now, we have a rogue oriented toward the combat pillar (the Assassin) and a rogue oriented toward the exploration pillar (the Thief), but no rogue for the social pillar.

 

[Mistwell]

Oh, that's smart, I like it!



Thank you, Mistwell. It'll be interesting to know the results but at this point, don't we know the options, and that they're Burglar (or whatever it's called), Assassin and Arcane Trickster. Still as [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] and [MENTION=7635]Remathilis[/MENTION] pointed out, you can just use a Finesse weapon with STR! Still leaves Hand Axes in the cold (unfortunately), but that's an easy House Rule.

His reply:

Mike Mearls ‏@mikemearls 20h
[MENTION=13310]Yeti[/MENTION]Moose kind of - I actually rolled up a str-based dwarf rogue. Finesse weapons can use strength

 

[Remathilis]

People are STILL looking at the PHB through a glass darkly. A lot of these options will be covered in Backgrounds and Feats I wager.

A Con-Man? Rogue with the Charlatan* Background, Actor feat.

A Swashbuckler? Rogue with Noble Background, Lucky and Defensive Duelist feats

A Wilderness Scout? Rogue with Outlander Background and Mobile and Alert Feats

A Treasure Hunter? Rogue with Sage Background, Dungeon Delver, and Keen Mind Feats

A Thug? Rogue with Urchin* or Criminal Background, Moderately Armored, and either Charger, Savage Attacker, or Martial Adept

An Acrobat? Rogue with Entertainer* Background, Mobile and Athlete Feats

* Background revealed in previews, but no details yet. Likewise, no true feat ideas. Running on hunches.

 

[Gradine]

I think we all should be able to agree on certain points;

• More PC choices are great
• The 5e PHB is going to be lacking in some obvious and some non-obvious PC choices
• The 5e PHB, objectively, has more PC choices and more customizability than any other edition's core PHB ruleset

The big question is how to get the 5e PHB to produce the type of characters we want to play. We're already hearing some pretty creative solutions to that.

 

[Minigiant]

Can a rogue with proficiency in persuasion roll Charisma to speak Giant because he know Dwarven and Giant and Dwarven are similar?

Can a rogue with proficiency in Deception to feint an attack for advantage with his Cunning action?

Can a rogue with proficiency in intimidation demoralize a foe with a vicious glare to get advantage on future Charisma checks?

Can a rogue with proficiency in acrobatics add his dexterity score to is pole vaulting distance?

Can a rogue with proficiency in Balance run on a tightrope without making checks?

Can any rogue sneak attack with a longsword? I mean why even give proficiency?



The rogue subclasses shown display horizontal application of skills. Unlocking new ways to use skills or removing restrictions. But only stealth, sleight of hand, and disguise touched.