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

[tsadkiel]

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


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

Urchin implies "nice kid from the wrong side of the streets" to me - Dickensian orphans, Aladdin, and (the example we're actually given) Tika Waylan. We know the background gives Sleight of Hand and Stealth, as well as proficiency with thieves' tools. Doesn't sound especially thuggish.

 

[Remathilis]

Urchin implies "nice kid from the wrong side of the streets" to me - Dickensian orphans, Aladdin, and (the example we're actually given) Tika Waylan. We know the background gives Sleight of Hand and Stealth, as well as proficiency with thieves' tools. Doesn't sound especially thuggish.

Maybe more "good guy with low smarts from the wrong side of the tracks" than the hardened criminal type, but I'm kinda running off speculation here.

 

[jadrax]

Somewhat mixed bag here:

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

Probably. 'Communicate with a creature without using words' is just an Int check, its pretty close so I think most GMs would use the same system to communicate at a basic level in a language simmer to one you know.

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

Hard to say, but 'feint' is probably a Battle Master Ability, so I doubt it is going to turn up in a Rogue sub class. Basically it is a mechanical concept that needs Multi-classing to achieve.

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

Seems plausible, yes. Its definitely possible to get advantage by using your skills.

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

If you are a burglar, kind of. Pole vaulting is a running jump, Second Story work adds you number of feet equal to your Dexterity modifier. Cant see you getting better than that by moving into a different Rogue sub-class.

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

Bounded Accuracy has pretty much removed the concept of not making skill checks. But if you put Expertise in Acrobatics your going to be pretty good at it. But again, I suspect as written that this is not an ability you are going to ever see in a sub-class.

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

No. And again, I suspect you will never see this because of how it would interact would interact with the Great Weapon Fighting ability if your multi-classed and using the Longsword in both hands.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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?

If what you want is a specific process, yeah, 5e might not meet that without some heavy house rules and/or DM interpretation.

If what you want is a specific result, there's lots of possible processes that yield that result.

It might be useful to figure out what result those mechanical processes are achieving and then figure out how 5e might have you achieve those results natively, rather than in mimicking another game's processes. It might just be as simple as "be a rogue with that skill trained and you have Expertise, which means you are the best at it, no little extra bonuses required, because 5e doesn't feel the need to tell you precisely how many feet you can pole vault."

 

[Li Shenron]

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.

They are nice examples, but why then having e.g. the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster subclasses when they can be created by multiclassing, or with feats? Maybe because not everybody wants to use multiclassing and/or feats in their game, so they wanted a simpler alternative (simpler because you pick the subclass and you're done).

• 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

Nice summary. Indeed with 9 races, 12 classes and (presumably) ~12 backgrounds, the PHB allows 1296 combinations out of the box, without counting subraces, subclasses, customized backgrounds, feats, spells and equipment

 

[Joe Liker]

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.

I'm not sure we all agree on any of those points except the last (which is not a matter of opinion).

I personally feel like too many player choices can be a Very Bad Thing. You don't need every possible character concept codified in the rules. You only need a decent framework within which you do what you can to build the character you envision.

That's exactly what's coming to light in this acrobat/con artist/thug discussion. Some think that because the rules don't explicitly provide a build for such a character, that character cannot exist.

What others are pointing out is that such characters can easily exist because the framework of the game is already extremely robust.

 

[Minigiant]

My issue is that both 3e and 4e had some kind of mechanical process for many of these aspects of the various iconic versions of rogues in the PHB.

So 5e should have followed the example of past editions in the 5e way. Unless the 5e way is "ask the DM for a house rule and refluff".

I just find the fact one of the most variable classes of the last two editions has only 3 subclasses and one is "cast wizard spells". Can't even feint or sly flourish without DM adjudication anymore whereas we get green knights and trickery clerics.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'm not sure we all agree on any of those points except the last (which is not a matter of opinion).

I personally feel like too many player choices can be a Very Bad Thing. You don't need every possible character concept codified in the rules. You only need a decent framework within which you do what you can to build the character you envision.

That's exactly what's coming to light in this acrobat/con artist/thug discussion. Some think that because the rules don't explicitly provide a build for such a character, that character cannot exist.

What others are pointing out is that such characters can easily exist because the framework of the game is already extremely robust.

Exactly.

 

[jadrax]

Re looking at the rules.

If your a Thief, when you get Fast Hands can use your cunning action to make any Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check. Which you can almost certainly use to get Advantage on a Melee attack. So a Feint by any other name...

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not sure we all agree on any of those points except the last (which is not a matter of opinion).

I personally feel like too many player choices can be a Very Bad Thing. You don't need every possible character concept codified in the rules. You only need a decent framework within which you do what you can to build the character you envision.

That's exactly what's coming to light in this acrobat/con artist/thug discussion. Some think that because the rules don't explicitly provide a build for such a character, that character cannot exist.

What others are pointing out is that such characters can easily exist because the framework of the game is already extremely robust.

Using that logic you only need 5 classes as you can do every with feats, backgrounds, and the fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric, and warlock classes.

My point is just that every iconic character type supported with unique or targeted mechanics in previous editions should be supported in 5e as long as they do not disrupt the core ideas of the game.

So if the nature cleric was iconic and had unique or targeted features in 3e then the nature cleric should be in 5e and have unique or targeted mechanics.