D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Rogue Scout

[Mistwell]

Subclasses don't start at first level. You're a rogue at first level, not a rogue scout. You know thieves cant. If you want your PC to be a mountain man at level 1, this is not the class for you, or you need to house rule some stuff.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Unfortunately all of these answers ignore the fact that in order to make an expert in a given field (a character with expertise), the character either deal with thieves and learn thieves cant or become a lunatic battle-musician and cast music-based spells.

Having another option of attaining expertise would greatly improve the number of character concepts the game can represent.

 

[Mistwell]

Unfortunately all of these answers ignore the fact that in order to make an expert in a given field (a character with expertise), the character either deal with thieves and learn thieves cant or become a lunatic battle-musician and cast music-based spells.

Having another option of attaining expertise would greatly improve the number of character concepts the game can represent.

I genuinely have no idea why you care about thieves cant. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, will care if you ignore it being on your character sheet. It's almost entirely fluff in nature. Just ignore it. It's not even a house rule.

 

[Greg K]

I genuinely have no idea why you care about thieves cant. Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, will care if you ignore it being on your character sheet. It's almost entirely fluff in nature. Just ignore it. It's not even a house rule.

Well, you are wrong. You may not have encountered them, but there are players that that would get pissy if a situation arose and another player ignored a minor class ability that be would be useful. I, personally, have had the unfortunate experience to have played with a couple of those players over the years (which is one of the reasons that, as a DM, I screen prospective players and, for those that pass, place them on a probationary period).

 

[Mistwell]

Well, you are wrong. You may not have encountered them, but there are players that that would get pissy if a situation arose and another player ignored a minor class ability that be would be useful.

What's on your character sheet is none of their business. You play your PC, not other people's PCs. If another player did that, for anything at all, I would tell them to go pound sand. That's not a Scout issue.

 

[Greg K]

What's on your character sheet is none of their business. You play your PC, not other people's PCs. If another player did that, for anything at all, I would tell them to go pound sand. That's not a Scout issue.

You are right, it should be none of their business. However, that still doesn't change that a) those players exist despite your prior claim; and b) it is annoying when they bring the game as arguments ensue.

 

[Mistwell]

You are right, it should be none of their business. However, that still doesn't change that a) those players exist despite your prior claim; and b) it is annoying when they bring the game as arguments ensue.

And?

 

[cbwjm]

For some of these subclasses, scout especially, I think it should be stated you are going to be a scout at level 1 and replace thieves cant with something else like a language or tool.

I think mainly this is just my standard gripe at having subclasses chosen after level 1 for the majority of classes when many of them should be defining your class from the start.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Unfortunately all of these answers ignore the fact that in order to make an expert in a given field (a character with expertise), the character either deal with thieves and learn thieves cant or become a lunatic battle-musician and cast music-based spells.

Having another option of attaining expertise would greatly improve the number of character concepts the game can represent.

Well, we ignored Expertise because no one had brought it into the debate yet, we've also been ignoring Druids and Totem Barbarians in the same vein.


However, if Expertise is the root of your issue, I have good news. WoTC provided a solution to that problem. The Skill Feat UA allows a person with proficiency to get Expertise. Giving, to use your phrase, "another option of attaining expertise"


Now, it may not be a good option, or even an option you like, but it is an option that is available to obtain expertise.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Well, you are wrong. You may not have encountered them, but there are players that that would get pissy if a situation arose and another player ignored a minor class ability that be would be useful. I, personally, have had the unfortunate experience to have played with a couple of those players over the years (which is one of the reasons that, as a DM, I screen prospective players and, for those that pass, place them on a probationary period).

You are right, it should be none of their business. However, that still doesn't change that a) those players exist despite your prior claim; and b) it is annoying when they bring the game as arguments ensue.

Is your position that the game should be "jerk-proofed" against disruptive/annoying players? If not, please explain how the above arguments apply to the case of Thieves' Cant.

Unfortunately all of these answers ignore the fact that in order to make an expert in a given field (a character with expertise), the character either deal with thieves and learn thieves cant or become a lunatic battle-musician and cast music-based spells.

Having another option of attaining expertise would greatly improve the number of character concepts the game can represent.

Well, yeah, and I'd love to be able to get Fighting Style without getting all the other stuff that comes with Fighter, and Lay on Hands without all the other stuff that comes with Paladin, and...while I'm at it...Devil's Sight and Pact of the Blade without all the other stuff that comes with Warlock.

But this is Dungeons and Dragons, and Dungeons and Dragons is not an a la carte RPG. If that's what you want it to be you will be forever disappointed. Which gets us back to our original postulate: you are disappointed with their decision. It's not the decision you wanted. And that's totally valid and I feel for you. WotC hasn't given me everything I've asked for, either.* But that doesn't (by itself) make it bad design.

If you keep hoping you'll get to pick and choose your special abilities from across classes and never have to make a trade-off you're never going to enjoy D&D.

*Note to Mike Mearls: I'm still waiting for my pony.