D&D 5E What is the "Generic" Rogue?

[Psikerlord#]

The generic rogue is of course the thief. You're welcome.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] I don't think the question should be "what's the generic rogue?" or "what's the generic fighter/wizard/cleric?"

The question should be "what's the classic version of this class?" By "classic" I mean the one with the most legacy that is readily recognizable by D&D veterans and even newcomers who've learned of the game thru other gamers, Geek & Sundry, Order of the Stick, etc.

If you're going on the premise that the Basic D&D 4 classes should each have 4 iconic archetypes with broad appeal, then it should be the classics.

That's arguably what the BD&D document aims for:

The classic D&D cleric is a healer - Life domain.

The classic D&D wizard is a blows-stuff-up-type - Evoker.

The classic D&D rogue is a tricksy-stealing-scroll using-skill monkey - Thief.

The classic D&D fighter is a I-swing-my-sword-harder! type - Champion.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm like the others and think the thief fits as the generic rogue. I was looking at the thief subclass the other day and thought to myself that he was Indiana Jones but for DnD.

Perhaps the issue is that you aren't really telling us what you want, like, how generic do you want the subclass to be and how would it look in game?

The idea a something equivalent to the champion or the battlemester that the fighter has but for the rogue.

The "simple generic rogue" would get basic roguish features without boosting their skills too much.

Perhaps

Level 3: 2 bonus tool proficiencies and half proficiency bonus to imitative.
Level 9: Choose a language. Have advantage when speaking that language.
Level 13: +10 speed when using the Dash action as your Cunning Action.
Level 17: Sneak attack with any weapon that deals 1d6 or less damage.

The "complex generic rogue" would collect something like 3rd edition's skill tricks and 4th edition utility powers. These powers/skilltricks would remove limitations or expand Cunning Action.

Pick up High Vault, Cat's Feet, Escape Grasp, and Quick Stand for an acrobat, dancer, or sewer dweller.
Pick up Clear Vision, Sense Invisible, Read Lips, and Perfect Repeat for a scout or spy.
Pick up Master of Deceit, Mob Mentality, Menacing Stare, and Poker Face for a smuggler or mob boss.

The idea is that you can either have a rogue whose subclass has no flavor or one that adds only the flavor you want.

[MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] I don't think the question should be "what's the generic rogue?" or "what's the generic fighter/wizard/cleric?"

The question should be "what's the classic version of this class?" By "classic" I mean the one with the most legacy that is readily recognizable by D&D veterans and even newcomers who've learned of the game thru other gamers, Geek & Sundry, Order of the Stick, etc.

If you're going on the premise that the Basic D&D 4 classes should each have 4 iconic archetypes with broad appeal, then it should be the classics.

That's arguably what the BD&D document aims for:

The classic D&D cleric is a healer - Life domain.

The classic D&D wizard is a blows-stuff-up-type - Evoker.

The classic D&D rogue is a tricksy-stealing-scroll using-skill monkey - Thief.

The classic D&D fighter is a I-swing-my-sword-harder! type - Champion.

That's like the... opposite of what I'm asking. The total opposite.

I'm not asking for the default rogue.
I'm asking "what is the 'build you own' rogue"? Does he already exist (many say its the thief)? Or is something else the "blank slate" rogue?

 

[Mephista]

Then the generic rogue as the thief as thus has Fast Hands, Second Story Work, Use Magic Device and Thief reflexes.

It sorta works but is a less than stellar way to acrobats, archaeologists, demolitions experts, drivers, and scouts.

The thief might be the basic rogue but not the generic customizable rogue.

I think the problem here is that you are misunderstanding what a subclass is. Subclasses aren't generic customizable things; they're specializations. The whole point of the subclass is to specialize in something.

Anyways, I still say Thief for a "generic" rogue because the Thief's features all just make you better at the general class things. You're faster at being a pick pocket (general rogue thing), you're faster at climbing (acrobatics is a rogue thing), Fast Hands lets you use caltrops and smoke bombs faster, and so on. You're just like a regular rogue, but FASTER at stuff. Assassin, Swashbuckler, and Arcane Trickster all add stuff on, or new variations to the class. Thief is all about being better at the regular stuff the class offers. Therefore, its the closest thing to a "generic subclass." If you want someone who absolutely specializes in new and fancy ways to be an acrobat, then that'd be a new subclass; and they wouldn't be a generalist.

((As as aside - Use Magic Device is awesome for a temple raider, Indiana Jones type - you get to use whatever magic artifacts you find, whatever they are))

Default and generic isn't the same thing though.

.....

But Burglary and Assassination aren't requirements.

Steeldragon said backstabbing, not assassinating. There's a difference. Backstabbing and Sneak Attacks are just glorified dirty fighting. Which is the rogue's trademark. And, no, burglary isn't a requirement, but then, you're not required to take Pick Pocket as a skill. Isn't that what you were asking for? You've got quick hands, and you'd be fast at pickpocketing... if you knew how. But you don't know, so you don't steal. But, because pick pocketing is an iconic part of the class with lots of history? You have potential access to it. Just like you have potential access to stealth, but its not necessarily a requirement.

Or you could be a scientist or explorer how needs to go to dangerous places to practice his or her craft.

Umm... this isn't part of a generic rogue. This is an alchemist, or perhaps wizard. At the bare minimum, its a rather unique background.

Just how a fighter isn't necessarily a knight or military soldier, a rogue need not be a thief or assassin.

You're too hung up on the names. A thief doesn't even need to be a thief. Could just as easily be a spy, an acrobat, or a temple explorer. That's the default story, but its just as easy to write your own.

Is the Thief archetype generic enough to fit all those "role play" archetypes or does the Thief ssubclass features either imply too much theivery OR not provide enough meat for the other archetypes?

Yes. In fact, it can be all of them at once.

Why not?
The 3rd edition rogue nor the 4th edition rogue forced imagery past the basic rogue stuff (Stealth, Dexerity light armor, simple weapons, Sneak Attack)

That's because people wanted more baked in fluff inside the game. And, if that's your complaint? Just remove it. Thief subclass has all this "basic rogue stuff" you're listing without forcing you to actually steal anything. Its -called- the Thief, not because you have to steal anything, but the rogue actually was called the Thief in past editions and other games. Just like the original name of the Paladin is the Cavalier (and thus, the Oath of Devotion "generic paladin" is called the cavalier).

My issue is the Roguish Archetypes. I was wondering if they add too much flavor in name and/or in mechanics.

Because that person thing the current roguish archetype adds too many aspects to their PC that don't fit it while not adding enough that do.

Why would you want less mechanics or flavor? And what exactly is missing here, or not added in? I have to wonder if you have a different idea of what a rogue is compared to me and the others?

Scouts, academics, and expert at street level activities aren't rare. A setting could easily have more of them than full fledged soldiers and D&D has all kinds of reasons to shove them down a dungeon.

Rangers are actually the ones who are often called scouts - in fact, ranger variants usually get the name Scout. Wizards are the archetypical D&D academic, though with backgrounds we can have others. "Experts" come in all forms - an expert of... what, exactly, may I ask? None of these are particularly roguish.

If the thief is the generic, why is there an assassin?
Couldn't a thief just get proficiency in poisoner's kit and disguise kit and be an assassin?

Because you don't have to be an Assassin to be an assassin. Anyone can assassinate. The Assassin just specializes in it in a way no one else does. And that's why we have the subclass - for those people who want to be a specialist.

Thief is there for those who want to just specialize in the generic traits of the base class. Assassin, Arcane Trickster, and Swashbuckler adds on new traits and variations that the base class just can't replicate.

I'm asking "what is the 'build you own' rogue"? Does he already exist (many say its the thief)? Or is something else the "blank slate" rogue?

The base class without a subclass. That is the generic "build your own rogue." Thief is the class for making you better at those generic base class things.

I really think the problem here is that you have a misunderstanding of either 1) what the point of subclasses are, or 2) what a generic rogue encompasses.

 

[Minigiant]

[MENTION=6786252]Mephista[/MENTION]

My point is "Why does the fighter get 2 nearly flavorless, generic subclasses but the rogue gets none?"

People always say the bueaty of the fighter subclasses is that practically any nonmagical warrior can be a champion or a battle master from legionnaires, knights, cavaliers, pikemen, pirate captains, warlords, and fencers. My response is why not rogue. Why isn't there a Class-Rogue, Subclass-Sneaky Guy that fits all nonwarrioe sneaky guys?

Many say its the thief and I mostly agree. My gripes is the focus on thieves tools for Cunning Action and UMD. Those feel too defining for Joe Everyrogue. Its also purely D&D gimmicks.

Personally I don't think a generic is really needed. Adding a swashbuckler, acrobat, and alchemist to the rogue subclasses would fill out 99.9% of rogues in fantasy.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

My point is "Why does the fighter get 2 nearly flavorless, generic subclasses but the rogue gets none?"

Mike Mearls said making the Champion and Battlemaster just be generic simple/complex fighters whose names don't tell you anything about what they are in the world is one of the biggest mistakes they/he made in 5e. All of the other classes have subclasses that evoke actual archetypes, while they were so focused on providing options for both a simple and complex fighter that they ended up forgetting the goal of evocative subclasses for the fighter, and were kicking themselves afterwards.

So what you are saying is a good thing is what the lead designer says was bad. (Personally, I like the Champion and Battlemaster and am concerned that going too far on the evocative would limit options, but I see where he's coming from.)

Adding a swashbuckler, acrobat, and alchemist to the rogue subclasses would fill out 99.9% of rogues in fantasy.

The good news is we already have the playtest version of the Swashbuckler from the website a few months back, and the final version comes out in the Sword Coast campaign guide in November. Alchemist is probably going to be a subclass of its own class (another subclass is likely to be artificer), while acrobat, IMO, is covered by the thief's abilities.

 

[Minigiant]

Mike Mearls said making the Champion and Battlemaster just be generic simple/complex fighters whose names don't tell you anything about what they are in the world is one of the biggest mistakes they/he made in 5e. All of the other classes have subclasses that evoke actual archetypes, while they were so focused on providing options for both a simple and complex fighter that they ended up forgetting the goal of evocative subclasses for the fighter, and were kicking themselves afterwards.

So what you are saying is a good thing is what the lead designer says was bad. (Personally, I like the Champion and Battlemaster and am concerned that going too far on the evocative would limit options, but I see where he's coming from.)

Not really. I'm asking the question if it was a good thing or not. I say no.

But you just like you said:

"Personally, I like the Champion and Battlemaster and am concerned that going too far on the evocative would limit options..."

Someone else could say:
"Personally, I like the "GENERIC SIMPLE ROGUISH ARCHETYPE" and "GENERIC COMPLEX ROGUISH ARCHETYPE" and am concerned that going too far on the evocative would limit options..."

Why is GENERIC FIGHTER SUBCLASS good but GENERIC ROGUE ( as well as GENERIC WIZARD & GENERIC CLERIC) bad?

Some have said GENERIC ROGUE SUBCLASS is the Thief. I counter with the thieving tool focus and the Use Magic Device being both too much D&D tropes of thieves to be generic.

Personally I want the Thief to be the generic rogue. But the 5th edition Thief might have a wee too much baggage.

The good news is we already have the playtest version of the Swashbuckler from the website a few months back, and the final version comes out in the Sword Coast campaign guide in November. Alchemist is probably going to be a subclass of its own class (another subclass is likely to be artificer), while acrobat, IMO, is covered by the thief's abilities.

And I love the idea of the Swashbuckler.
And for the Alchemist, I was thinking the low to no magic Alchemist. I fear an Artificer alchemist would be too magicky first and not have enough planting bombs on structures and coating blades with oil (attack the face into blade flurry )

As for the thief being an acrobat... Pet Peeve time

• Athletics (Strength)
  • Break Bonds
  • Climb
  • Jump
  • Swim
• Acrobatics (Dexterity)
  • Balance
  • Tumble
  • Escape form Bonds

The rogue-thief is an athlete... the rogue-thief is not an acrobat.

 

[Mephista]

My point is "Why does the fighter get 2 nearly flavorless, generic subclasses but the rogue gets none?"

A bug, not a feature. The Fighter is the exception, not the rule.

People always say the bueaty of the fighter subclasses is that practically any nonmagical warrior can be a champion or a battle master from legionnaires, knights, cavaliers, pikemen, pirate captains, warlords, and fencers. My response is why not rogue. Why isn't there a Class-Rogue, Subclass-Sneaky Guy that fits all nonwarrioe sneaky guys?

Because that's always been the "problem" with the Fighter, and there are people like it. There are also people that complain bitterly about how there's not more flavor or "things to do other than fight." The Fighter is defined by fighting. The rogue has always had a theif-y, temple raider flavor to it.

Many say its the thief and I mostly agree. My gripes is the focus on thieves tools for Cunning Action and UMD. Those feel too defining for Joe Everyrogue. Its also purely D&D gimmicks.

Cunning Action just lets you do some things faster. You can use it for a wide variety of rogue-stuff. Dont' like the pick-pocketing, then don't use it. Thief tools are useful for temple exploring, and that's a huge part of the rogue class in any edition, but you're not forced to use it. You can't be a generic rogue without offering their use.

Personally I don't think a generic is really needed. Adding a swashbuckler, acrobat, and alchemist to the rogue subclasses would fill out 99.9% of rogues in fantasy.

Why the obsession with alchemist? That's not a traditional rogue thing. And, no, an actual thief is the iconic rogue in at least half of fantasy. You can't ignore it, because its so iconic.

 

[MarkB]

What are you looking to get from a generic Rogue subclass? Depending upon what you want, you're probably better off just taking the first couple of levels of Rogue, then multiclassing to Fighter (Champion) or another class that supports your chosen archetype, and using feats to bolster your skillset.

 

[Minigiant]

A bug, not a feature. The Fighter is the exception, not the rule.

Because that's always been the "problem" with the Fighter, and there are people like it. There are also people that complain bitterly about how there's not more flavor or "things to do other than fight." The Fighter is defined by fighting. The rogue has always had a theif-y, temple raider flavor to it.

Cunning Action just lets you do some things faster. You can use it for a wide variety of rogue-stuff. Dont' like the pick-pocketing, then don't use it. Thief tools are useful for temple exploring, and that's a huge part of the rogue class in any edition, but you're not forced to use it. You can't be a generic rogue without offering their use.

I agree. The fighter's situation is a bug not a feature. But almost half the D&D fanbase disagrees.

I don't really think a generic rogue subclass works in 5th and thus creation is unneeded as it is most likely doomed to failure by being unbalanced. There's little wiggle room to make a generic rogue due to its design. You'd have to be a master designer, not care about balance, or design a new class from scratch.

Personally, I see the thief as the iconic rogue. I would accept the thief as the generic rogue if it were not so tied to certain aspects of thievery and the D&D tropes of thieves. Not using the subclass features is not an option as those features are tied to the class' power. It is like telling the guy who wants to be an artificer to play a wizard and not cast offensive spells. Offensive spellcasting is part of the wizard's power.

Why the obsession with alchemist? That's not a traditional rogue thing. And, no, an actual thief is the iconic rogue in at least half of fantasy. You can't ignore it, because its so iconic.

Traditional. Smaditional.
Rogues who blow stuff up, chuck bombs, coat their weapons with special oils and toxins, and guzzle their own special brews are all over fantasy in modern media. Are we stripping out the elemental and shodow monk, the GOO warlock, dragon sorcerer, tempest cleric too?

What are you looking to get from a generic Rogue subclass? Depending upon what you want, you're probably better off just taking the first couple of levels of Rogue, then multiclassing to Fighter (Champion) or another class that supports your chosen archetype, and using feats to bolster your skillset.

I don't actual want a generic rogue.

I'm just asking if one needs to be made to fill in the many missing popular holes in the rogue subclasses that feats and subclasses don't fill. Especially if prior editions did them.

No roguish archetype features, feats, multiclass options, or variants for tumbling, balancing, escape artistry, potion brewing, oil mixing, minor alchemy, poison concentration, bomb making, sly flourishes, tightrope walking, pole vaulting, appraisal, trap making, script deciphering, rope use, information gathering, local knowledge, or reading of faces