D&D 5E Rogue, Bard, Assassin, Tinker, (Tailer, Spy)

[Krachek]

Make the bard a rogue subclass!

 

[Stormonu]

I like that, though I think to be really effective with those effects they’d need to have more attacks, and leave the single big attack shtick to the assassin.

Well, consider that a Battlemaster fighter is going to get around 4 such tricks during an entire fight at most, and the monk has to spread their Ki use out throughout the day. Most rogues I know go for the sneak attack every round, and restricting it to once per round lessens any headache for the DM and keeps them from outshining the monk or Battlemaster.

Besides, you could let the rogue spend multiple dice in one hit - if they had a 4d6 sneak, they might decide to blind, trip and still deal 2d6 damage. Or, could chose to spend all four dice to reduce the target’s speed by 20 ft., making it much more likely to get away if they use canny action to disengage.

 

[TwoSix]

I like that, though I think to be really effective with those effects they’d need to have more attacks, and leave the single big attack shtick to the assassin.

The sidekick Expert class in TCoE might be a decent starting point for a non-SA rogue-type; just kick it up a few notches and add subclasses.

Adding some reaction trigger abilities (like Uncanny Dodge but broader in scope than just damage reduction) might be good for "think on their feet" fiction.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, consider that a Battlemaster fighter is going to get around 4 such tricks during an entire fight at most, and the monk has to spread their Ki use out throughout the day. Most rogues I know go for the sneak attack every round, and restricting it to once per round lessens any headache for the DM and keeps them from outshining the monk or Battlemaster.

Besides, you could let the rogue spend multiple dice in one hit - if they had a 4d6 sneak, they might decide to blind, trip and still deal 2d6 damage. Or, could chose to spend all four dice to reduce the target’s speed by 20 ft., making it much more likely to get away if they use canny action to disengage.

I was running with the earlier notion brought up by @Charlaquin of the Jack not having a big damage buff. So, small attacks that put the enemy at a disadvantage, with only subclasses like the swashbuckler getting any kind of real damage buff.

The sidekick Expert class in TCoE might be a decent starting point for a non-SA rogue-type; just kick it up a few notches and add subclasses.

I’ll give it a look. Thanks!

Adding some reaction trigger abilities (like Uncanny Dodge but broader in scope than just damage reduction) might be good for "think on their feet" fiction.

Oh, what if when they pass a saving throw or when they use uncanny dodge, they can move 10ft or something without OA?

 

[Stormonu]

I was running with the earlier notion brought up by @Charlaquin of the Jack not having a big damage buff. So, small attacks that put the enemy at a disadvantage, with only subclasses like the swashbuckler getting any kind of real damage buff.

I’ll give it a look. Thanks!

Oh, what if when they pass a saving throw or when they use uncanny dodge, they can move 10ft or something without OA?

Maybe on uncanny dodge (as a slightly higher level add-on), but with having cunning action available, I don’t think they should be able to do a 10 ft. disengage on every saving throw - I can’t see it fitting against, say, being charmed.

 

[steeldragons]

I don't know that I agree about the Rogue/Bard stepping on each other's toes. I totally agree with the Bard being...not what it should be.

It absolutely boggles the mind how they created the design space of "half-casters" in the game, as a basic construct for integral classes. Then said, "Yes let's do this with Paladin and Ranger" but somehow, simutaneously, thought, "Nah, the Bard doesn't have to be that. We'll do something else and [bafflingly] keep it [yet another] full caster."

It is one of the -if not top of the list- serious design missteps of 5e, imo.

 

[Charlaquin]

So, if the Jack (non assassin rogue) uses status effects to model fighting dirty/unfairly and/or using wits to win, what could that look like? A short list of effects like the Open Hand Monk, once per turn when you hit? More powerful effects available if you crit?

Preferably things that feel like they’d let the Jack run away from the threat, and that definitely do make the enemy vulnerable to the other PCs, I think. Hmm.

I imagine conditions like blinded, prone, restrained, maybe even stunned that last for a round or can be ended on a save or something. Maybe non-condition effects like attack penalties, speed penalties, inability to take reactions, etc.

I like that, though I think to be really effective with those effects they’d need to have more attacks, and leave the single big attack shtick to the assassin.

Yeah, I think lots of attacks makes sense for the Jack. If you look at rogue-type classes in video games, their damage often comes from making lots of attacks that don’t individually do a lot of damage, but have a high crit chance. I think that would be a strong direction for the Jack. Dual-wielding, extra attacks, ways to gain Advantage on the attack rolls, maybe an expanded crit range, and debuffs or other rider effects they can apply on a hit, or maybe on a crit.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know that I agree about the Rogue/Bard stepping on each other's toes. I totally agree with the Bard being...not what it should be.

It absolutely boggles the mind how they created the design space of "half-casters" in the game, as a basic construct for integral classes. Then said, "Yes let's do this with Paladin and Ranger" but somehow, simutaneously, thought, "Nah, the Bard doesn't have to be that. We'll do something else and [bafflingly] keep it [yet another] full caster."

It is one of the -if not top of the list- serious design missteps of 5e, imo.

The bard was a half-caster at first in the playtests. Apparently feedback showed a demand for them to be full casters though. I think this followed from the idea of the bard being jack of all trades. There was a lot of demand for the bard to actually be good at all trades, and half-casting just wasn’t enough to make them a good fit for the caster role.

 

[TwoSix]

The bard was a half-caster at first in the playtests. Apparently feedback showed a demand for them to be full casters though. I think this followed from the idea of the bard being jack of all trades. There was a lot of demand for the bard to actually be good at all trades, and half-casting just wasn’t enough to make them a good fit for the caster role.

Yea, I was definitely one of the people voting for them to be full casters; I like the idea of song being a magical source on par with arcane, divine, and primal (druid).

Although I do feel the warlock base (pact magic and invocations) would be even better for bards, just replace invocations with bard songs.

 

[steeldragons]

The bard was a half-caster at first in the playtests. Apparently feedback showed a demand for them to be full casters though. I think this followed from the idea of the bard being jack of all trades. There was a lot of demand for the bard to actually be good at all trades, and half-casting just wasn’t enough to make them a good fit for the caster role.

Right. I get that.

Unbelievably, and it may not be a popular view, but it is entirely possible for a "majority" of feedback -or the "avidly vocal minority" of a playtest sample, more likely- to be wrong.

Since when and why did people think a Bard was supposed to walk into a "full caster" role? That is so very not what I think -nor history, legend or game history support- a bard "should" be/is.