Playtest (A5E) Level Up Playtest Document #3: Rogue

Welcome to the third Level Up playtest document. This playtest contains a candidate for the first 10 levels of game’s rogue class.

You will also need to refer to the previous fighter playtest document for information on Traditions and Maneuvers, as we haven’t repeated that information in this document.

Download the playtest document

Are you ready to level up your 5E game? Welcome to Level Up, the standalone 'advanced 5E' backwards compatible tabletop RPG coming in 2021!

A crunchier, more flexible version of the 5E ruleset which you know and love. If you love 5E but would like a little more depth to the ruleset, Level Up is the game for you!

What this is
This is a playtest document. We’d love you to try out the rules presented here, and then answer the follow-up survey in a few days.

What this is not
This is NOT the final game. It’s OK if you don’t like elements of these rules; that’s the purpose of a playtest document. Be sure to participate in the follow-up survey in a few days. All data, positive or negative is useful.

What we use this for
Your survey responses help form the direction of the game as it goes through the development process.

Don’t forget!
Sign up for the mailing list for notifications of playtests, surveys, and news, and to make sure you get notified on Kickstarter when the project launches in 2021.

Continue reading...

 

[CroakerofPadora]

This looks great. I love the expertise dice. I agree with other commenters about the trapsmith. I don't think every rogue needs to be a trapsmith. It would be great if I could trade it out for an extra knack.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

I have to say, I'm having a hard time imagining a finesse greataxe or glaive. Perhaps limit this to weapons that aren't heavy or require two hands.

And maybe to weapons that use Dex or possibly Wiz as a modifier (if there is a class ability that lets you switch the primary stat to Wis) and if the weapon is smaller than the wielder.

 

[Stacie GmrGrl]

Seeing both the Fighter and the Rogue makes me question if the Ranger class is needed. A lot of what makes the Ranger unique... Having an animal companion, tracking, wilderness survival and bow/ranged attacks can easily be subsumed into the Fighter and/or Barbarian rather easily.

 

[Horwath]

Seeing both the Fighter and the Rogue makes me question if the Ranger class is needed. A lot of what makes the Ranger unique... Having an animal companion, tracking, wilderness survival and bow/ranged attacks can easily be subsumed into the Fighter and/or Barbarian rather easily.

this worries me as well.

Rogue isn't the problem, as rogue and ranger did overlap a little in every edition but fighter maybe steps too much on rangers toes.

Amphibious Combatant, Campaigner, Mountaineer and Nightwatch are what I think when I think about how to start building a ranger.

Maybe ranger will get more of those knacks or better versions of it to give it an edge in those situations over fighter.

Also spell-less ranger/paladin would be a good addition to those classes in A5E.

 

[CroakerofPadora]

Seeing both the Fighter and the Rogue makes me question if the Ranger class is needed. A lot of what makes the Ranger unique... Having an animal companion, tracking, wilderness survival and bow/ranged attacks can easily be subsumed into the Fighter and/or Barbarian rather easily.

I feel like the Ranger is living in a design Dead End.

Look at Pathfinder 2nd edition. The Ranger became redundant almost instantly. The Ranger doesn't need to exist in most modern RPGs.

If the Ranger didn't have an association with Aragorn I doubt it would still be around.

I really wish that a modern RPG would just bite the bullet and remove dead ends like the Ranger. I think fans overreacting is a big reason we still have a bunch of design dead ends in RPGs.

 

[Zaukrie]

I feel like the Ranger is living in a design Dead End.

Look at Pathfinder 2nd edition. The Ranger became redundant almost instantly. The Ranger doesn't need to exist in most modern RPGs.

If the Ranger didn't have an association with Aragorn I doubt it would still be around.

I really wish that a modern RPG would just bite the bullet and remove dead ends like the Ranger. I think fans overreacting is a big reason we still have a bunch of design dead ends in RPGs.

I agree! I think Level Up could pass on the ranger class......it already exists in 5e. Do something original instead! Like a real poisoner/alchemist/potion maker.

 

[CroakerofPadora]

I agree! I think Level Up could pass on the ranger class......it already exists in 5e. Do something original instead! Like a real poisoner/alchemist/potion maker.

Alchemist would be great but that starts to step on the toes of the branching off that Paizo did in 2e. I doubt they want to look like they are just trying to be PF2e lite for 5e.

Another class would be cool or maybe save the page space for more archetypes.

 

[Zaukrie]

Alchemist would be great but that starts to step on the toes of the branching off that Paizo did in 2e. I doubt they want to look like they are just trying to be PF2e lite for 5e.

Another class would be cool or maybe save the page space for more archetypes.

I hope they aren't worried about what PF2 did. If it's a good idea there, it is a good idea for DnD too......

 

[Faolyn]

Seeing both the Fighter and the Rogue makes me question if the Ranger class is needed. A lot of what makes the Ranger unique... Having an animal companion, tracking, wilderness survival and bow/ranged attacks can easily be subsumed into the Fighter and/or Barbarian rather easily.

The ranger has been a D&D mainstay since forever, but it's always been one of those classes that kind of doesn't need to exist. I think it's because there's no primary view on what it actually is. Is it Robin Hood or Aragorn? Is it a friend to animals or a really good hunter--or a bounty hunter? Is it a straight fighter or a guerilla warrior? Is it an archer or a two-weapon fighter or a staff fighter? Does it rely on wood-lore and herbalism, or is it good at magic? The ranger is kind of all of these things at once, which makes it a bit of a mess without a solid identity beyond "good at fighting in the wilderness and good at tracking." Which, as you say, can be easily put into other classes.

 

[Stalker0]

I'm torn on the ranger notion. On the one hand, I 100% agree that the ranger as a class doesn't really need to exist. On the other, the 5e ranger is one of the worst classes by poll so it would be great to see what a revamping can do.