D&D 5E Building a better Rogue

[Aldarc]

I would also argue that Spellthief is lackluster as the subclass "capstone" for Arcane Tricksters. I get the idea. It's flavorful and cute. It's a Magical Rogue, so it gets a Spell Thief. Clever. But it somewhat feels dissociated from rest of the abilities that the Arcane Trickster get, which entail having magic enhance their rogue abilities (mage hand legerdemain, mage hand grants advantage on attacks: i.e., sneak attack) or their rogue qualities enhance their magic (e.g. hiding grants advantage on spell saving throws). Many of the other rogues get an ability that greatly improves their combat output, sneak attack, or kill factor at 17th level. Arcane Trickster? You may get a low level spell you don't otherwise know if the targeted caster doesn't make the save using its spellcasting stat. Meh.

I think that I would prefer that Arcane Tricksters gain the ability at 17th level to apply sneak attack damage to any spell requiring an attack roll and not just the ones that incorporate weapon attacks (e.g. booming blade, greenflame, etc.). This makes the Arcane Trickster more similar to past editions.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

I actually think you didn't go far enough here. A thug rogue also needs medium armor to avoid having the lowest AC in the game (which is very bad for a melee character), so give rogues that as well. It doesn't help dex rogues at all, and doesn't increase the highest possible AC a rogue can get, but it does allow rogues that prioritize strength over dex, and allow some more freedom to the DM when assigning loot.

I think once you start demanding that thuggish rogues should get to wear half-plate, you're closer to a criminal fighter than a rogue. Having a decent Str score doesn't require you to dump dex: a thug probably isn't going to have an amazing AC, but that should encourage them not to fight fair. Stuff like Uncanny Dodge can make a rogue in melee tougher than they would appear.
If the non-optimised AC of a strength-based rogue is a dealbreaker for you, you could always look at a level or two of Fighter or Barbarian perhaps? That would be quite thematic, as well as improving your capabilities in areas that you probably want to.

I think such a rogue (strength based) would be fun and I'm somewhat surprised we haven't seen one in a UA article yet.

A subclass devoted to it isn't entirely necessary, but you could make one along the lines of using Intimidate to give social and combat bonuses and a few more melee-effective capabilities.
Or just dip Fighter or Barbarian a bit.

The problem is that it doesn't make sense. You can't swing with strength in order to hit between armor plates; you must finesse it in order for that ability to be what it is.

The rules are fine with "swinging with strength" for a Sneak Attack: you don't have to "finesse it".
They limit the weapons with which you can perform a sneak attack, not the ability to use to make it.

Outside the rules, you can swing with strength to hit between armour plates: it is strength that grants control over a sword to strike suddenly and get past an opponent's guard. The image of medieval warriors just crudely bludgeoning one another with blunt swords doesn't have much traction nowadays.

If you want to play a strength-based rogue-type character, make a fighter with the criminal background.

Or just play a Rogue character with a decent strength . . .

But that isn't how Sneak Attack works in 5e. In 5e, it's about hitting a distracted character. Cold-cocking someone totally fits that description.

That is basically why I removed the finesse requirement: As long as you're proficient with a weapon, you have control and skill enough to fight dirty with it.

 

[akr71]

Mostly though, I would be more likely to take ideas from the Rogue, and apply them to other classes that need help, like Fighters.

I'm intrigued - care to elaborate? What Rogue features would you apply to the Fighter?

 

[Draegn]

I'm intrigued - care to elaborate? What Rogue features would you apply to the Fighter?

IMO features are nothing more than skills. There is absolutely no reason why a non-rogue is prohibited from being sneaky and assassinating someone. Nor is there a reason for a non-rogue not being able to pick pockets, locks, etc.... We solved this problem by greatly expanding the skills list into three groups: physical, mental, social and having only three character types: Arcane, Divine, Mundane.

 

[Aldarc]

Yeah, and this is also something that I did not particularly understand with Tony Vargas's post either, was why the split between Arcane and Divine remains preserved? If there is a desire to reduce everything achievable by fighters, rogues, warlords, and their ilk to "mundane" why is magic not also similarly reduced to "magic"? I fail miserably at seeing a fundamental difference apart from forced flavor that would dictate the split between divine and arcane magic.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

IMO features are nothing more than skills. There is absolutely no reason why a non-rogue is prohibited from being sneaky and assassinating someone. Nor is there a reason for a non-rogue not being able to pick pockets, locks, etc.... We solved this problem by greatly expanding the skills list into three groups: physical, mental, social and having only three character types: Arcane, Divine, Mundane.

But you don't have to be a Rogue to be sneaky, assassinate people, pick locks, pick pockets etc.

The rogue gets some bonuses when doing some of those things, but non-rogues can do them: Even without proficiency in the applicable skill, a character can have a go at them.

 

[Draegn]

Cap'n Kobold, my game is heavily home brewed. You could say that the only thing that is D&D about my game is that we have AC, HP, EXP, levels, spell slots, and use many polyhedron dice. When playing your skills are you bonus, so while anyone can pick up a bow and attempt to loose an arrow, it is only the "ranger" who trained with a bow from his backgrounds that will have a good chance of hitting the enemy knight leading a group of opponent cavalry.

 

[akr71]

Yeah, and this is also something that I did not particularly understand with Tony Vargas's post either, was why the split between Arcane and Divine remains preserved? If there is a desire to reduce everything achievable by fighters, rogues, warlords, and their ilk to "mundane" why is magic not also similarly reduced to "magic"? I fail miserably at seeing a fundamental difference apart from forced flavor that would dictate the split between divine and arcane magic.

All this just makes me want to get back to working on my 'classless' character class. There have been other attempts than I have found interesting, but something always seemed lacking to me.

 

[FrogReaver]

All this just makes me want to get back to working on my 'classless' character class. There have been other attempts than I have found interesting, but something always seemed lacking to me.

IMO a classless system will always be lacking.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The rules are fine with "swinging with strength" for a Sneak Attack: you don't have to "finesse it".
They limit the weapons with which you can perform a sneak attack, not the ability to use to make it.

The wording of the rule technically allows it, but it's clearly not the intent. Everything about the class tells us that Rogues should be using Dexterity. Making a sneak attack with Strength and a finesse weapon is an obscure corner-case scenario that the rules simply don't address because it's never going to happen.