D&D 5E Building a better Rogue

[Tony Vargas]

IMO a classless system will always be lacking.

Lacking? Lacking rails. Lacking niche protection. Lacking class imbalance. Lacking suck, in general. ;P

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?

It was never much of a split. In the classic game, clerics nominally prayed for their spells and wizards studied their books, but they both used the 'memorization' mechanics. In 5e, they're both neo-Vancian casters. They both casst spells, and Dispel Magic and anti-magic works on them regardless.

The big differentiation, traditionally, was the Clerics (and Druids) healed and Magic-users (and illusionists) had fun. Now Bards (and Artificers, I suppose) are 'arcane' but also heal.

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

I don't think 'all of them' would be out of line. Certainly, Expertise.

Yes, including SA - with the proviso it be 1/round and/or require its own action, not an attack action compatible with Extra Attack et al.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

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.

IMC, it happens almost every combat round. Rogue/barbarian has a lot of synergy.

 

[Charles Rampant]

I'd be interested in the "Thug" subclass concept, the chap who lurks and cracks people in the head with a club. However, it is admittedly a bit obscure as to how you'd handle that, since that is basically just a fighter with the Criminal background. Something akin to the Barbarian perhaps, where they get to add bonuses from both Str and Dex to AC, but use Str only for attacks? In other words, a set of mechanics that forces MAD, but gives some sort of stunlocking ability in return.

Or, er, you could just play a Monk...


Sent from my iPad using EN World

 

[The Crimson Binome]

IMC, it happens almost every combat round. Rogue/barbarian has a lot of synergy.

What happens when you exploit optional rules is not a concern with the base game. None of the class features were designed in the context of what happens when you use multi-classing, or feats, or anything like that.

 

[akr71]

I don't think 'all of them' would be out of line. Certainly, Expertise.

Yes, including SA - with the proviso it be 1/round and/or require its own action, not an attack action compatible with Extra Attack et al.

I would certainly agree that all classes should have access to Expertise at least once. I'm likely going to make it a Feat in my games, once we start a new campaign. I dislike changing how things work, mid-stride.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

What happens when you exploit optional rules is not a concern with the base game. None of the class features were designed in the context of what happens when you use multi-classing, or feats, or anything like that.

Don't be ridiculous. Everything in the Player's Handbook was deliberately designed to be usable together, because if it weren't, if there were some "base" class feature that was broken by an "optional" rule in the same damn book, well, that would be a pretty poor book, now wouldn't it? You said that Strength-based sneak attacks are an obscure corner case. They aren't. Rather than being a snob about the base game, maybe give the developers a little credit for foreseeing the possibility and writing it into the class feature.

 

[Guest 6801328]

IMO a classless system will always be lacking.

I think much of the disagreement among gamers comes down to a deep preference regarding constraints. Often when I express a preference for fewer classes, fewer weapons, fewer options there is an assumption that I just get overwhelmed by choices and can't handle complexity (thanks for the vote of confidence...)

But games are games because of constraints; a big part (all?) of the fun is achieving goals inside of the constraints. Each time we add an option we remove a constraint.

Now, there's no "correct" sweet spot of constraints. That's purely a matter of personal preference. I happen to love The One Ring; it's a beautiful and some would say minimalist RPG. A lot of newcomers to TOR gripe and moan about the lack of choices. "Why can't I play a Wizard?" "Where's the plate armor?" "What about dual wielding?" "What do you mean there's no sneak attack?" Others...many of whom are experienced gamers, love it just as it is. Again, personal preference.

Anyway, that's one reason I don't like classless systems. I like the constraints of, for example, "If you want to cast spells you can't wear metal armor." Or whatever. As long as they are well designed from a mechanics point of view. I don't particularly care about realism or internally consistent logic; I just want rules that force interesting decisions, not "have your cake and eat it too...and then sell it for a profit".

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would certainly agree that all classes should have access to Expertise at least once. I'm likely going to make it a Feat in my games, once we start a new campaign. I dislike changing how things work, mid-stride.

We do have the UA feats. I think Expertise is a fine idea for the non-caster sub-classes to get. Other sub-classes study magic, non-casters have to spend all that free time/dedication on something. Well, they don't have to, and probably wouldn't, if we were being realistic, but if you're earning the same exp to go up a level...

Don't be ridiculous.

Why stop at this late date?

I think much of the disagreement among gamers comes down to a deep preference regarding constraints. Often when I express a preference for fewer classes, fewer weapons, fewer options there is an assumption that I just get overwhelmed by choices and can't handle complexity (thanks for the vote of confidence...)

But games are games because of constraints; a big part (all?) of the fun is achieving goals inside of the constraints.

I sorta agree: part of the appeal of RPGs is that they take a very complicated, frustrating thing - 'life,' the human experience, whatever you want to call it - and make it abide by rules you can wrap your brain around and even optimize within.

Each time we add an option we remove a constraint.

I guess that depends on the nature of the options and how they're chosen & used. Whether you have 3 classes to choose from or 10, if you can only have one class, class is constrained, for instance.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Don't be ridiculous. Everything in the Player's Handbook was deliberately designed to be usable together, because if it weren't, if there were some "base" class feature that was broken by an "optional" rule in the same damn book, well, that would be a pretty poor book, now wouldn't it? You said that Strength-based sneak attacks are an obscure corner case. They aren't. Rather than being a snob about the base game, maybe give the developers a little credit for foreseeing the possibility and writing it into the class feature.

It seems much more likely that the book is poorly designed (so to speak) than that they explicitly considered the possibility of a DM invoking the multi-classing optional rule and that a player would follow that up by specifically crossing the Dexterity-based rogue class with the Strength-based barbarian class, given that rogues are designed exclusively around the concept of finesse and ranged weapons while barbarians are designed exclusively around strength-based attacks.

If this was Pathfinder, or even 3.5, I would probably give them the benefit of the doubt. This edition just isn't written that tightly, though. This edition is written to be fast and loose and subject to DM interpretation.

 

[Leatherhead]

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

Most of them. Though I wouldn't give every ability to every Fighter, I would seed the majority of them into subclasses or present them as alternative options.

Priority 1: The skill stuff. Expertise is a really nice way to get heroic characters who can perform spectacular feats of strength, or show off leadership ability, whatever. Also, bonus action skill use is really nice. Maybe in place of getting extra feats.

Priority 2: The defensive stuff. Fighters should be hard to take down. Saving throw bonuses are nice to have on a "mundane" class, though they already have Indomitable for that, so it might be too much. Uncanny Dodge and Elusive are good for representing someone who has trained how to fight. These are definitively more subclass things.

Sneak Attack I could see being worked in, if you limited the fighter to two attacks, but I don't know if I like that idea. It kind of homogenizes them with the other warrior classes, has weird interactions with Battlemaster Dice, and makes them even more dependent on their party.

The other stuff, like Blindsense, is just a bit too weird to be given out normally. They are the kinds of things that should be feats.