D&D 5E The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues

[Xeviat]

I can't say I agree that SA dice on a shove into an obstacle would be overpowered. It doesn't seem any more damaging than assassin's opening round, or using Booming Blade combined with SA. You sacrifice weapon damage to gain reliability in a situation of moderate frequency (solid obstacles within 10'). Considering you're already sacrificing by using Strength as a primary over Dex, a little offensive boost seems deserved. If anything, I'd like to see that ability a little easier, because knocking dudes out by shoving them into a wall is a pretty great thematic for a thug.

Sneak attack damage on a push, shove, or grapple would be really thematic. But this subclass already has a way of doing those as a bonus action, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GreenTengu]

I find this post needlessly aggressive, and not constructive.

The point of the proposal s to improve the viability of a non-DEX rogue. At the moment, there is no good way to build a non-dex rogue, and this proposal makes for a better one than any of the existing subclasses.

You spend your time arguing that a character with 20 in their prime stat is more effective than one with 16. *eyeroll*. At least have the courtesy of making an honest comparison. Take away two feats, and a +1 in the prime stat, and there's still 2 points difference; and that's assuming other things are the same, which they wouldn't be.

Dexterity is too powerful in the game, and a dex-based class is weakened when you build something else. There's another thread on the first page where that point has been made, but that's irrelevant here.

Some people are tired of dexterity's dominance, and are willing to play something different. For them (and I'm one of them), that's fun. This build supports that, and (commendably) doesn't do so in a way that is overpowered.

My point is that a character who MUST invest in multiple stats and have them all be high in order to function at the same level is always going to be worse than a character whose abilities are all triggered off of a single attribute that they can invest all of their character build points into.

While a cap of 20 mitigates this to some degree, it does not mitigate it entirely. Moreover, because Dexterity is rooted into so many key aspects of the Rogue class, expecting a character to disinvest from Dexterity in order to invest in a dump stat will result in a much poorer character than one who only has to invest in the single attribute that everything important gets triggered off of.

The whole "make it up with feats" is a trash argument that no one would make if they bothered to think about it for two damn minutes.

Try to follow me on this one. These attribute increases, feats if we were-- BOTH the character who is trying to play catch-up because they got stuck having to try to invest in multiple attributes and the character whose scores across the board are already better because they got to focus on only one attribute are going to get access to it.

Basically what I am saying is that this class is trying to argue that 4=6. And I pointed out that 4 and 6 are not equal and do not come close to being equal. The solution you are arguing that makes it okay is that once every few levels one would have the opportunity to add 1 to each side. Your argument is that 4+1=6+1. However 5 is still not equal to 7.

Capping the attribute scores at 20 does help to some degree as being able to give oneself a +2 to the attribute that enhances all of their rolls in fact better than what feats one can buy when one is capped out at an attribute which might only enhance about a quarter of those rolls. But even if we are generous and say we are talking about 4+1=6+0.25, it still does not make them equal. Even if you do it twice so it is 4+1+1=6+0.25+0.25, they still aren't equal and at that point both characters are going to be adding the effective 0.25 with any additional purchases.

So while the attribute cap does allow the characters to presumably get closer under the most generous of possible scenarios, they never do become equal.

But, really, that whole scenario is more applicable to two characters dependent on a single attribute with maybe one starting higher in that attribute thanks to a racial bonus or something. When talking about a MAD character, you are never going to be adding a "1" to their main attribute because they don't have a main attribute but instead they are forced to raise to attributes. So for the simplified math, you are really going to be adding more like a half. So 4+0.5+0.5=6+0.25+0.25... so they are never going to come even closer to "catching up" regardless of how many times you have them forgo feats enhancing their character in order to try to invest in attributes to play catch up.


Lay out the math yourself compare side-by-side both the combat and noncombat abilities of a standard Rogue who got to leave their Strength at a 10 and a Rogue trying to play this class straight and thus must raise their Dexterity to 14 and then tries to invest in Strength as well as keeping all their other attributes equivalent to the one who only invested in Dexterity.... and demonstrate to me that it is remotely possible to get them to be equivalent or even a trade-off that anyone should ever make at any given level.

 

[Kobold Stew]

My point is that a character who MUST invest in multiple stats and have them all be high in order to function at the same level is always going to be worse than a character whose abilities are all triggered off of a single attribute that they can invest all of their character build points into.

While a cap of 20 mitigates this to some degree, it does not mitigate it entirely. Moreover, because Dexterity is rooted into so many key aspects of the Rogue class, expecting a character to disinvest from Dexterity in order to invest in a dump stat will result in a much poorer character than one who only has to invest in the single attribute that everything important gets triggered off of.

The whole "make it up with feats" is a trash argument that no one would make if they bothered to think about it for two damn minutes.

Try to follow me on this one. These attribute increases, feats if we were-- BOTH the character who is trying to play catch-up because they got stuck having to try to invest in multiple attributes and the character whose scores across the board are already better because they got to focus on only one attribute are going to get access to it.

Basically what I am saying is that this class is trying to argue that 4=6. And I pointed out that 4 and 6 are not equal and do not come close to being equal. The solution you are arguing that makes it okay is that once every few levels one would have the opportunity to add 1 to each side. Your argument is that 4+1=6+1. However 5 is still not equal to 7.

Capping the attribute scores at 20 does help to some degree as being able to give oneself a +2 to the attribute that enhances all of their rolls in fact better than what feats one can buy when one is capped out at an attribute which might only enhance about a quarter of those rolls. But even if we are generous and say we are talking about 4+1=6+0.25, it still does not make them equal. Even if you do it twice so it is 4+1+1=6+0.25+0.25, they still aren't equal and at that point both characters are going to be adding the effective 0.25 with any additional purchases.

So while the attribute cap does allow the characters to presumably get closer under the most generous of possible scenarios, they never do become equal.

But, really, that whole scenario is more applicable to two characters dependent on a single attribute with maybe one starting higher in that attribute thanks to a racial bonus or something. When talking about a MAD character, you are never going to be adding a "1" to their main attribute because they don't have a main attribute but instead they are forced to raise to attributes. So for the simplified math, you are really going to be adding more like a half. So 4+0.5+0.5=6+0.25+0.25... so they are never going to come even closer to "catching up" regardless of how many times you have them forgo feats enhancing their character in order to try to invest in attributes to play catch up.


Lay out the math yourself compare side-by-side both the combat and noncombat abilities of a standard Rogue who got to leave their Strength at a 10 and a Rogue trying to play this class straight and thus must raise their Dexterity to 14 and then tries to invest in Strength as well as keeping all their other attributes equivalent to the one who only invested in Dexterity.... and demonstrate to me that it is remotely possible to get them to be equivalent or even a trade-off that anyone should ever make at any given level.

Apart from the correct observation that I used the word "feat" when I should have said "ASI" (which you don't say explicitly, but I do realize from what you say), absolutely none of this relates to my post, which you quote.

You are still arguing about characters who have two ASIs, making assumptions that not everyone shares, and and missing the point of the OP's proposal. We all agree with you that 4 does not equal 6, but that's not the point of the home-brewed archetype (not "class", as you state). You're also not bothering to read what you are responding to.

No one is denying that a Rogue based solely on Dex will be better at Dex-based things than a character who is drawing on two or more ability scores. I would say that the necessary focus on a single attribute, and one that has so many uses, is a problem with the Rogue, not with this proposal.

And if you are going to condescend and say "Try to follow me on this one", I strongly suggest you offer a grammatical sentence in what follows.

 

[clutchbone]

My point is that a character who MUST invest in multiple stats and have them all be high in order to function at the same level is always going to be worse than a character whose abilities are all triggered off of a single attribute that they can invest all of their character build points into.

While a cap of 20 mitigates this to some degree, it does not mitigate it entirely. Moreover, because Dexterity is rooted into so many key aspects of the Rogue class, expecting a character to disinvest from Dexterity in order to invest in a dump stat will result in a much poorer character than one who only has to invest in the single attribute that everything important gets triggered off of.

The whole "make it up with feats" is a trash argument that no one would make if they bothered to think about it for two damn minutes.

Try to follow me on this one. These attribute increases, feats if we were-- BOTH the character who is trying to play catch-up because they got stuck having to try to invest in multiple attributes and the character whose scores across the board are already better because they got to focus on only one attribute are going to get access to it.

<snipped for brevity>

Lay out the math yourself compare side-by-side both the combat and noncombat abilities of a standard Rogue who got to leave their Strength at a 10 and a Rogue trying to play this class straight and thus must raise their Dexterity to 14 and then tries to invest in Strength as well as keeping all their other attributes equivalent to the one who only invested in Dexterity.... and demonstrate to me that it is remotely possible to get them to be equivalent or even a trade-off that anyone should ever make at any given level.

I feel there are some things that you're failing to understand.

-I'm trying to make a subclass that is good at different things than other rogues.

-There is only one "key aspect of the Rogue class" (Evasion) that absolutely requires Dexterity.

-Expertise & Reliable Talent are very potent; a rogue with these features does not require a maxed out ability score to still be better at a skill than any other class.

-Grappling is extremely powerful; I'm actually struggling to feature this combat option without making it game-breaking.


No feats, No items, baseline human, strength Thug vs dex Assassin, you can see that their stats aren't that different. There is no "catching up" to be done, as both are very effective at what they do.
[sblock]
Thug, level 20
Ability Scores
20 14 16 9 10 20

Saves
5 8* 3 5 6 5 (*situational +2 on dex saves from using grappled creature as half cover)

Combat
+11 attack, +5 damage, 163 hp, AC 16-17*, Init 2 (*situational +2 AC from using grappled creature as half cover)

Skills
Athletics 17
Sleight of Hand 8
Stealth 14
intimidation 17
deception 11
Persuasion 11
Thieves tools 14


Assassin, level 20
Ability Scores
10 20 16 9 14 20

Saves
0 11 3 5 8 5

Combat
+11 attack, +5 damage, 163 hp, AC 17, Init 5

Skills
Acrobatics 17
Stealth 17
Perception 8
deception 17
intimidation 11
Persuasion 11
Thieves tools 17
[/sblock]

 

[Alexander Julian1]

Really awesome! Really great to get a proper grappling subclass and the thematicness of a strength rogue is awesome as well. Abilities look cool and really well balanced. I might add cant really yell or scream for help or anything into manhandle so you could get the theme of some dude grabbing you in and ally hand over mouth. Stealthy strength rogue kinda deal. The dirty work surprise thing is kind of bad specially given this rogue doesn't really stealth. Maybe have it the first round of combat? Or if you would have advantage on attack roll you get advantage grappling

 

[ClaytonCross]

I like it overall, but would change the Wisdom (insight) check to resist the lvl 9 ability to a Charisma save. Possibly set the DC as 8+Str mod+proficiency, so that it's essentially a strength based Intimidation check, but doesn't rely on you having Intimidation proficiency.

It just struck me as odd to use insight as the resistance, as if the character's intimidation was a bluff the target might see through.

I would prefer a wisdom save to resist the fear as wisdom is generally the willpower stat. Charisma is usually a creative manipulation skill/save. But I very much like the idea of an "As written" strength intimidation check on a strength based check using static DC.

So, any thoughts? Does it look good, dumb, redundant, boring? Is there a better way of wording anything? Would you ever play as a Thug?

Any and all feedback would be much appreciated.

Overall I like it too its well balanced but … and please understand I mean this with zero condescension, why not make this as fighter? I get the idea is strength rogue, I do. I just want to for consideration to consider that being a "Roguish Archetype" and playing the "Rogue class" are not actually joined at the hip. If I wanted to be a thief for example, I could play charlatan or urchin background with any class from barbarian to warlock and still be a thief regardless of if I am a Rogue Thief.

Why not? Well I would point out that since the Rogue Class is not the only way to play a roguish character and rogue thief is not the only way to play a character that is a thief those are not actually what define Rogue in D&D 5e. It is instead a Dex and Intellect based Melee fighter that wears light armor and does not heavily use magic like a ranger Architype. If you are looking at building a Strength Melee Archtype character what your really doing is adding the strength/constitution armor wearing melee Fighter Class archetype to the Rogue Archetype which is evident by the need to add additional amour proficiency. Sure you can make a dex fighter but you will tend to medium and heavy armor. I just don't want to get stuck on this idea that a "Thuggish thief" is a rogue because rogue = thief.


My suggestion: Thig as Thief fighter


Thug
Bandits, gangsters, enforcers, and other criminals typically follow this archetype but that don't focus on stealth and subtly but brute strength and intimidation to coerce targets to their will.

Bonus Proficiency
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency with Intimidation. If you have or gain the proficiency with Intimidation from another source you can expertise in Intimidation instead.
(I mean that's really the heart of the Thug right?)

Dirty Work
Starting at 3rd level, you have advantage on Strength (Athletics) checks made to grapple or shove creatures that are surprised.
In addition, you can use your reaction to make an attack, grapple, or dash if some other than you makes the first attack starting combat.
(This changes away from a sneak attack since your not even try to sneak, to openly surround someone and if they attempt to resist you get an attack out of initiative order to immediately put them back in place because this is what you do and you half expect some one to fight back and run)

Coercive Presence
At 9th level, you can use your menacing demeanor to browbeat others into submission. As an action, you can make an ultimatum. Each character of your choice within 30ft must make a wisdom save or become afraid for 1 minute. The DC is 10 + your proficiency bonus + your strength modifier. Anyone effected by this ability may make a save at the end of their turn. On successful save the target is immune to the effect from the character for 1 hour.

Manhandler
By 13th level, you have become adept at leveraging your strength against your enemies. When you successfully grapple a creature using two free hands, you can drag or carry the grappled creature at full speed rather than half, and the grappled is silenced making them unable to speak or cast spells that include a verbal components.
In addition, when you successfully shove a creature, you can knock the target prone and push it up to 10 feet away from you.
-Unchanged short some text adjustment. I like it. devastating to casters but it requires melee range to grapple and it seems like something that very much fits the subclass for dealing with casters. Arguments that a grapple can normally silence are not based on RAW since nothing about the grappled condition says it can silence only that their speed is reduced to 0. Many GMs will rule that you don't silence them or perhaps make you roll with disadvantage to cause this extra effect, so having it here makes it explicit as part of the feature.

Cheap Shot
When you reach 17th level, you've honed your ability to strike when the opportunity presents itself. When you use your action to grapple or shove a creature, you can use your bonus action to make a weapon attack against that creature.
-Unchanged. It also fits very well under a fighter as well.

So I very much like your idea of a "Roguish Thug" but I actually like it much better using the Fighter Class template for the same "Roguish Thug" design. The class features like saves, proficiency options, expertise,

 

[ClaytonCross]

I feel there are some things that you're failing to understand.

-I'm trying to make a subclass that is good at different things than other rogues.

-There is only one "key aspect of the Rogue class" (Evasion) that absolutely requires Dexterity.

-Expertise & Reliable Talent are very potent; a rogue with these features does not require a maxed out ability score to still be better at a skill than any other class.

-Grappling is extremely powerful; I'm actually struggling to feature this combat option without making it game-breaking.


No feats, No items, baseline human, strength Thug vs dex Assassin, you can see that their stats aren't that different. There is no "catching up" to be done, as both are very effective at what they do.

-snip-

Sure but what of that is inherently thuggish? Thugs tend to be unskill brutes. I REALLY like the subclass abilities but I don't think the rogue class abilities fit it well. A Fighters fighting style, second wind, action surge, martial archetypes, extra attack, and Indomitable, armor proficiencies, weapon proficiencies, skill proficiency options, save proficiencies, and higher d10 HP rolls do fit perfectly. Reliable Talent and double expertise seem just as out of place on a thug as evasion but also having stealth as a class skill is in opposition to the in your face coercion typically associated with Thuggery. Sure a Thug cold be considered roguish thief even without the class. Build the character with a criminal or urchin back ground and your there. I mean a crow bar might technically be "thieves tools" but its more just a strength test to bash the door in.

 

[clutchbone]

My whole impetus was the goal of making a strength-based rogue. All the features came afterwards. You could make a fighter for sure, nothing wrong with that, it just wasn't my intended purpose. I didn't want two-handed weapons or plate mail as options, and I actually liked the idea that they were less tough than true warriors. More like bullies, y'know? Can dish it more than take it.

 

[ClaytonCross]

My whole impetus was the goal of making a strength-based rogue. All the features came afterwards. You could make a fighter for sure, nothing wrong with that, it just wasn't my intended purpose. I didn't want two-handed weapons or plate mail as options, and I actually liked the idea that they were less tough than true warriors. More like bullies, y'know? Can dish it more than take it.

I get what your saying, I just feel like your leaning on the name of the class to define your character. My point is that a "rogue" in the D&D world and the meta selection of the rogue class abilities is not a mandatory link. As with your statement I put in bold, the goal of making a Strength based Rogue arc type is about roleplay if separated from the class features. All any class is in the meta since, is collection of features. The second you defined features as coming second, then the necessity of being a rogue in roleplay by taking tine meta class features is counter to your goal. So I am suggesting you ignore the names of the classes. Just consider them as features group 1-12 (13 if your counting the artificer). #9 Feature group does not align with your stated goals of creating a "Strength based Rogue/Thug" feature set. It does not align with the in your face strength bully. If you don't want the fighter proficiency or armor, you could makin it feature group #1 which is strength based and doesn't use armor. Typically, feature group #1 can't read so you add that proficiency if you have a problem with it, then your 90% of stated goals.
- Bonus proficiency changing from medium armor to reading
- Athletics is already at advantage with rage, so Dirty work becomes its own thing something like backstab but unique. "When using a bludgeoning melee weapon against a target that is within 5ft that has more of your allies in 5ft of it than it has allies in within 10ft or when making opportunity attack, gain 1d6 damage for every 2 levels you have in this class.
- The rest of your features would stay as they are.

If your goal is to take the #9 feature group Wizards of the cost named "rogue" for ease of discussion and to put a theme to the skills, largely being a sneaky, skilled, dex fighter/assassin... your doing so in indirect opposition to the intent of the feature group and your stated goal of the strength based rogue/thug because you like what they named the feature group. I understand the desire, but really the only thing mechanical that suites your stated goal is that you want backstab but you intend to do to their face (against the premise of what it represents). So my recommendation above would just take that but switch it to a bully design of over whelming with number and catching people who are running away... which fits your thug type a lot more.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Typically, feature group #1 can't read so you add that proficiency if you have a problem with it, then your 90% of stated goals.
- Bonus proficiency changing from medium armor to reading

There is nothing at all that says Feature Group #1 typically can't read. Not in any 5e book. They can speak, read, and write in any languages they have proficiency in just like any other Feature group.

You weaken your argument with falsehoods.