D&D 5E Building a better Rogue

[TheCosmicKid]

It seems much more likely that the book is poorly designed (so to speak)...

The Sneak Attack class feature is carefully worded to allow this possibility, and your conclusion is that it is "poorly designed"? Oookay then.

...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.

And yet Conan of Cimmeria is both the iconic barbarian and an iconic rogue. You may need to broaden your ideas about what these classes are "exclusively" designed for.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The wording of the rule technically allows it, but it's clearly not the intent..

It looks like its pretty clearly allowed by intent to me.
To paraphrase, well, you:
"If that was the case, then it would make sense that you couldn't use Strength. Since you can, then that must not be the case."

Everything about the class tells us that Rogues should be using Dexterity.

I dunno: not much in the base class runs directly off Dex, and they have important skills that use Str, Int, Wis, Cha . . .

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.

On the contrary, it happened quite regularly before I houseruled out the finesse requirement. Just because you can use Dex with a finesse weapon, it doesn't mean that you have to.

What happens when you exploit optional rules is not a concern with the base game.

Using Str to attack with a Rogue and gaining sneak attack from it isn't an optional rule. Its hardly an "exploit" in game terminology either.

None of the class features were designed in the context of what happens when you use multi-classing, or feats, or anything like that.

That's an . . . interesting allegation. Given that it directly contradicts stuff that the people who did design the classes have said, (in their comments about UA content for example), what is your source please?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The Sneak Attack class feature is carefully worded to allow this possibility, and your conclusion is that it is "poorly designed"? Oookay then.

It is worded such that it is technically possible, but there's no way to know whether that was actually intended or simply an oversight unless we consult the designer in charge of that section. Given the degree to which the game rules were in flux even after the PHB came out (note discrepancies between monsters in the MM and monster guidelines in the DMG), it's entirely possible that the designer didn't know that it was possible to use Strength with a finesse weapon when they were writing it (or when it was being edited afterward).

And yet Conan of Cimmeria is both the iconic barbarian and an iconic rogue. You may need to broaden your ideas about what these classes are "exclusively" designed for.

I've read a couple of Conan stories. Conan the Barbarian is the iconic barbarian. He rips people apart with his mighty thews, and he sneaks up on people because he's a Mary Sue with ridiculous stats. You might be able to argue that he's a fighter or multi-class fighter-rogue, because he doesn't really rage and he has a lot of skills. However, he definitely doesn't rely on backstabbing as anything more than a one-off circumstantial event - sneak attacking isn't the fighting style that they describe him using - and his distrust of magic was also a strong influence on the barbarian's magic-hating former incarnations.

The iconic rogue is the Gray Mouser, who dual wields and can read scrolls, and Conan is extremely not that. D&D is a class-based system which works on the premise of strongly-codified archetypes. It is not a game of subtle nuance.

 

[Remathilis]

Remathilis's Law: as any thread about thieves/rogues in D&D grows longer, the probability of one or more posters advocating the removal the class and having the fighter take it's stuff approaches one.

 

[Guest 6801328]

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.

But that's a little bit of rhetorical slight of hand. If that one class can have any feature then you've really chosen all classes. True, there are probably a different sort of constraints, e.g. how many features you can choose, or which choices are mutually exclusive. But if you assume 10 classes with 10 features, or 1 class with 100 features of which you can choose 10, the latter still has far, far fewer constraints. (Or 6.2 * 10^18 time as many choices.)

 

[guachi]

I read the Rogue class description in the free Basic rules before the release of the PHB like many of you. The Barbarian is literally the first class listed in the PHB. While reading the class description I thought that it'd be cool to combine Barbarian and Rogue. I flipped to the multiclass section and took some time to absorb the rules (all new as I hadn't played 3e or 4e or PF).

After some minutes I flipped back to the Barbarian section and continued reading thinking "Barbarian/Rogue could be fun!" I got to the feats section and thought "Barbarian/Rogue with Shieldmaster would be silly" until I remembered that raging and shieldmaster bash use both require a bonus action so you can't do both on the same turn.

But if I can think of that within minutes of reading the PHB I'd be surprised if it never occurred to the authors once.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Remathilis's Law: as any thread about thieves/rogues in D&D grows longer, the probability of one or more posters advocating the removal the class and having the fighter take it's stuff approaches one.

Normally Id've jumped in much earlier with that one.

Wonder why we don't get the reverse more often?

 

[Tony Vargas]

And yet Conan of Cimmeria is both the iconic barbarian and an iconic rogue. You may need to broaden your ideas about what these classes are "exclusively" designed for.

The classes have never been that great at modeling actual characters from genre, even those that were most clearly trying to do so, like the Ranger (Aragorn), Barbarian (Conan), and Thief (Grey Mouser).
Remember 'Giants in the Earth,' and how their write ups always broke the rules to pieces?

 

[TheCosmicKid]

It is worded such that it is technically possible, but there's no way to know whether that was actually intended or simply an oversight unless we consult the designer in charge of that section. Given the degree to which the game rules were in flux even after the PHB came out (note discrepancies between monsters in the MM and monster guidelines in the DMG), it's entirely possible that the designer didn't know that it was possible to use Strength with a finesse weapon when they were writing it (or when it was being edited afterward).

Principle of charity. When in doubt, assume a writer knows what they're doing.

I've read a couple of Conan stories.

How about "Tower of the Elephant" or "Rogues in the House" (the clue is in the name)? Conan had a thief phase in his early career. It's not just that he displays abilities consistent with the D&D rogue class, it's that he spent several years making a living by burgling and occasionally assassinating people. This is probably the clearest example in major fantasy fiction of what multiclassing is intended to represent.

The iconic rogue is the Gray Mouser, who dual wields and can read scrolls, and Conan is extremely not that.

You know, thinking about it, I believe Conan does more skulking and backstabbing than the Gray Mouser does. Not that the Gray Mouser isn't an iconic rogue -- of course he is -- but he's a swashbuckling duelist, not an assassin. If, then, your sole metric is the use of sneak attacks, he doesn't qualify very well either. So maybe reconsider that metric?

And while we're on the subject, Fafhrd is surely a barbarian/rogue too. So it's not like Conan's just a one-off.

 

[BookBarbarian]

How about "Tower of the Elephant" or "Rogues in the House" (the clue is in the name)? Conan had a thief phase in his early career. It's not just that he displays abilities consistent with the D&D rogue class, it's that he spent several years making a living by burgling and occasionally assassinating people. This is probably the clearest example in major fantasy fiction of what multiclassing is intended to represent.

Perhaps that's what multiclassing is meant to represent, but I don't think t was't what Howard was trying to represent with Conan. Conan is the triumph of the Uncivilized man over civilization. He is not a Barbarian that learned how to be a rogue, he was a good thief because he was born a barbarian. Likewise being a Barbarian made him a good pirate, mercenary, general and king.

Which just goes to show how that while fictional Characters can inspire Classes like the barbarian, and concepts like multiclassing, I would hesitate to use those characters to define a class.

I like that I can make an Aragorn type character as a Hunter Ranger or, a Battle-master Fighter with the Outlander Background, or OotA Paladin, or some crazy multiclass. Likewise a Conan type character as a pure Barbarian, or a Barb/Rogue or Barb/Fighter, or Barb/Rogue/Fighter. To me that's a strength of the system.

*Which is all beside the point of whether or not the designers knew what they were doing when making sneak attack key of the finesse property and not attacking with Dex, and whether or not that's a good idea, so... feel free to ignore me and carry on.