Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XII: Rogues)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8818391" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Usually is for the last two things. I'm pretty sure only Bard has had an absolutely runaway, slam-dunk victory.</p><p></p><p>It'd be kind of cool for <em>one</em> of these threads to prop up something I actually liked from the start though. That'd be a refreshing change from the "ensure none of the top three things Ezekiel likes even make it to the final four" pattern that's held sway since after Cleric. Which was the first of these I joined. (Perhaps this better explains why I have such a dim view of certain maneuvers and have been something of a grouch in these threads.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I can only truly speak for myself. But I suspect it's primarily for the reason most people mentioned in the thread: "I don't want a <em>spellcaster rogue</em> to be the winner." (Or "...the representative in the final round.") The underlying <em>idea</em> of the Arcane Trickster is great, and a worthy inclusion in D&D. But having it be "the" Rogue is a bridge too far for me, and it would seem to be so for others as well. I know most of my downvotes went elsewhere because I knew the real threat was always Thief, which threatens to win purely by not actually <em>doing</em> anything at all, the Caspar Milquetoast option.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Because...it shouldn't. I honestly can't tell if you're being actually facetious, "double ironic," or sincere.</p><p></p><p>But just in case you <em>are</em> being sincere (or "double ironic"), the problem of shoehorning things together in this way is that at least one of the things involved is gonna get watered down as a result, at least assuming you ignore the slippery-slope problem that this sort of thing all too often engenders.* That is, make Bard a Rogue subclass, and now you have to fit in extra music proficiencies, spellcasting, Inspiration, <em>and</em> the small bits like Song of Rest, all without overstepping the extremely limited space of a subclass. Or, you have to find a way to have "I'm a spellcaster" Bard cover "I'm actually not a spellcaster at all" Rogue in a way that won't alienate the Rogue fans who choose it specifically because it <em>doesn't</em> cast spells. Either way, when you're faced with a problem like that, the temptation is, and always will be, "eh, it's fine, just cut some features or make a looser fit." AKA, watering down the archetype.</p><p></p><p>Now, of course, there is a risk of going the other direction here, and making a profusion of pointlessly over-narrow classes, but at least in the current design climate that's not really a risk worth considering. WotC has added exactly one new class to the game, and only tested two, in nearly a decade. That's a pretty good indication that new classes aren't getting added to D&D anytime soon. Instead, I find the bigger risk is in adding subclasses that suck, in part <em>because of</em> the antipathy for new classes and thus the belief that all concepts, no matter how weighty, <em>must</em> be expressed through the subclass lens. The failure of the proposed multiple-class subclasses, for example, was a pretty major disappointment to me, because it closed off one of the only other avenues for addressing the issues enforced by a "never, ever add any (more) new classes" rule. It's looking like the new 5e playtest is moving toward a more standardized setup for subclasses in part to permit such "generic" subclasses, though, so that's a spot of hope for me.</p><p></p><p>*E.g. when you've folded Bard and Ranger and Monk in, then say, "<em>welllll</em>, Rogue and Fighter are <em>pretty</em> close...let's make Rogue a Fighter subclass!" But that is a massive and <em>difficult</em> undertaking when you have four different <em>full classes</em> all bundled together, unless you abandon them entirely....which is what most folks who propose this end up doing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8818391, member: 6790260"] Usually is for the last two things. I'm pretty sure only Bard has had an absolutely runaway, slam-dunk victory. It'd be kind of cool for [I]one[/I] of these threads to prop up something I actually liked from the start though. That'd be a refreshing change from the "ensure none of the top three things Ezekiel likes even make it to the final four" pattern that's held sway since after Cleric. Which was the first of these I joined. (Perhaps this better explains why I have such a dim view of certain maneuvers and have been something of a grouch in these threads.) Well, I can only truly speak for myself. But I suspect it's primarily for the reason most people mentioned in the thread: "I don't want a [I]spellcaster rogue[/I] to be the winner." (Or "...the representative in the final round.") The underlying [I]idea[/I] of the Arcane Trickster is great, and a worthy inclusion in D&D. But having it be "the" Rogue is a bridge too far for me, and it would seem to be so for others as well. I know most of my downvotes went elsewhere because I knew the real threat was always Thief, which threatens to win purely by not actually [I]doing[/I] anything at all, the Caspar Milquetoast option. Because...it shouldn't. I honestly can't tell if you're being actually facetious, "double ironic," or sincere. But just in case you [I]are[/I] being sincere (or "double ironic"), the problem of shoehorning things together in this way is that at least one of the things involved is gonna get watered down as a result, at least assuming you ignore the slippery-slope problem that this sort of thing all too often engenders.* That is, make Bard a Rogue subclass, and now you have to fit in extra music proficiencies, spellcasting, Inspiration, [I]and[/I] the small bits like Song of Rest, all without overstepping the extremely limited space of a subclass. Or, you have to find a way to have "I'm a spellcaster" Bard cover "I'm actually not a spellcaster at all" Rogue in a way that won't alienate the Rogue fans who choose it specifically because it [I]doesn't[/I] cast spells. Either way, when you're faced with a problem like that, the temptation is, and always will be, "eh, it's fine, just cut some features or make a looser fit." AKA, watering down the archetype. Now, of course, there is a risk of going the other direction here, and making a profusion of pointlessly over-narrow classes, but at least in the current design climate that's not really a risk worth considering. WotC has added exactly one new class to the game, and only tested two, in nearly a decade. That's a pretty good indication that new classes aren't getting added to D&D anytime soon. Instead, I find the bigger risk is in adding subclasses that suck, in part [I]because of[/I] the antipathy for new classes and thus the belief that all concepts, no matter how weighty, [I]must[/I] be expressed through the subclass lens. The failure of the proposed multiple-class subclasses, for example, was a pretty major disappointment to me, because it closed off one of the only other avenues for addressing the issues enforced by a "never, ever add any (more) new classes" rule. It's looking like the new 5e playtest is moving toward a more standardized setup for subclasses in part to permit such "generic" subclasses, though, so that's a spot of hope for me. *E.g. when you've folded Bard and Ranger and Monk in, then say, "[I]welllll[/I], Rogue and Fighter are [I]pretty[/I] close...let's make Rogue a Fighter subclass!" But that is a massive and [I]difficult[/I] undertaking when you have four different [I]full classes[/I] all bundled together, unless you abandon them entirely....which is what most folks who propose this end up doing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Companion thread to 5E Survivor - Subclasses (Part XII: Rogues)
Top