D&D General Rogue as Assassin and Rogue as Jack

[Aldarc]

Starfinder kind of divides the rogue into the Operative (Rogue/Ranger in SPACE!) and the Envoy (the Face/Celebrity/Diplomat/etc.).

Likewise Fantasy AGE 2E (also originally helmed by Owens K.C. Stephens) splits the Rogue into the Rogue (Exploration/Assassin/Thief) and the Envoy (The Face/Socialite/Commander).

ps but isn’t really cut out for a fair fight and has to rely on cheap tricks to contribute to combat, vs the WoW style DPS king who’s squishy but rips enemies to shreds as long as the tougher party members can hold the aggro. I’m certainly open to the idea of trying to separate those two identities into distinct classes, but I fear the AD&D style “jack” rogue would struggle in today’s highly combat-centric D&D.

Sadly Rogue is usually not the DPS king in WoW because a lot of fights favor ranged DPS. This has been something that WoW (and other MMORPGs) have struggled with.

 

[Charlaquin]

Sadly Rogue is usually not the DPS king in WoW because a lot of fights favor ranged DPS. This has been something that WoW (and other MMORPGs) have struggled with.

Shows what I know about WoW then lol

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What is the reason for not just making them subclasses, for 5e at least? If they have the same core starting stuff, then at 3rd level they can split. It just seems like a lot of work for little return.

Could this idea also apple to other classes like the fighter that could be viewed at a plate-mail knight or a Conan-lucky warrior?

They don’t have all the same core stuff. Assassin doesn’t even have sneak attack, their bonus action features have different moves, they have different base skill loadouts, only one gets jack of all trades, very different level 5 features offense and defense wise, one is (almost entirely) at-will while the other has Focus like a monk, and their specialties are very different, not to mention high level features which I haven’t even touched on yet.

They’re about as much subclasses as the Ranger and rogue are, at most.

I agree with the core idea - rogue has long had an identity crisis between the AD&D style boxman who’s there to crack locks and disable traps but isn’t really cut out for a fair fight and has to rely on cheap tricks to contribute to combat, vs the WoW style DPS king who’s squishy but rips enemies to shreds as long as the tougher party members can hold the aggro. I’m certainly open to the idea of trying to separate those two identities into distinct classes, but I fear the AD&D style “jack” rogue would struggle in today’s highly combat-centric D&D.

I disagree, as long as the Jack can debilitate enemies, set up Allie’s for higher damage, and get close to te damage per round baseline. A ton of groups have more exploration than combat anyway, and groups that don’t can just use the normal rogue if they don’t want a trickster version of the rogue.

agreed, being a skillmonkey or the like really isn't a viable standalone class concept in 5e

Yes, it is.

 

[Greg K]

Subclasses, Swashbuckler (gets manuevers, specifically melee focused), Thief, Acrobat, Arcane Trickster, Shadow Dancer, Gadgeteer, Trickshot (guns or crossbows, gets manuevers)​

Personally, I would like to break the Swashbuckler off into the subclass of a new light/ no armored warrior maneuver based classs with Corsairs/ pirates, ,Edo period samurai, Fencers and courtly sword duelists, musketeers, swashbucklers etc. being subclasses. Otherwise, I agree with the rest of your idea.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Personally, I would like to break the Swashbuckler off into the subclass of a new light/ no armored warrior maneuver based classs with Corsairs/ pirates, ,Edo period samurai, Fencers and courtly sword duelists, musketeers, swashbucklers etc. being subclasses.

We can have both tbh. And we should, IMO.

My rewrite for the monk had that as its focus, with a lean toward Samurai, Kensei, wuxia sword saints, and Destreza (Spanish semi-esoteric fencing school of “true skill”) and so a focus on a single weapon or fighting style with martial arts attacks being flavored as unarmed or simply light strikes with your weapons.

 

[Greg K]

We can have both tbh. And we should, IMO.

My rewrite for the monk had that as its focus, with a lean toward Samurai, Kensei, wuxia sword saints, and Destreza (Spanish semi-esoteric fencing school of “true skill”) and so a focus on a single weapon or fighting style with martial arts attacks being flavored as unarmed or simply light strikes with your weapons.

The rewrite sounds interesting. Have you shared it online?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The rewrite sounds interesting. Have you shared it online?

Not yet. I will when I update it tho