D&D 5E Rogue Expertise, another alternative

[BobTheNob]

Rogue expertise. Wow, what a storm that is causing.

Im in the "I dont like rogues as fighter light" camp. Just dislike the two classes overlapping. However, I am also in the "rogues should be able to do *something* in a fight" camp. I just dont want it to be the same thing as a fighter.

I want something far more interesting that that. I want the rogue to improvise, and I want there to be a framework for supporting this. I will borrow from FATE which had FATE points, but will rename to "improvisation" points, or even improvisation dice. The aspect I am taking from FATE (for those that know FATE, thats a pun!) is using point to inject narrative, that you can "add" things into what is going on around you rather than them having to be pre-defined by adventure design.

For instance, a fight in the main hall of a castle.

Player (of the rogue) : "Hey, that chandalier above the guards"
DM : "There is no chandalier"
Player : (Wink) "Oh, I think there is"
DM : "You know, I think you are right, there is a chandalier...spend an improvisation point"
Player : "And Im standing near the rope to cut it loose?"
DM : "Yep"
Player : "Cut the rope"

At this point, the DM has a series of guidelines to define expected damage, knockdown and pinning for those under the falling chandalier plus expected save targets. Just to push the example further

Player : "Can I hold onto the rope and have it catapult me to the 2nd floor balcony?"
DM : "Ok your pushing your luck with what this chandalier can do for you now"
Player : "Even if I pay another improvisation point?"
DM : "In that case, No problem, but I will require an acrobatics roll to have you pull it off"
Player : "Done"

The end result of this interaction is the player cuts a rope on a chandalier which drops onto 3 guards, one of which jumped clear. The player then held the rope as it pulled him upwards with such force that he flew up to the second floor balcony.

This is what I sorta want to see with a rogue. No, he doesnt directly confront enemies in combat. He is just not as toe-to-toe as a fighter is. Rather, he looks around and finds ways to turn the encounter to his advantage. He improvises. To me, it gives the rogue his own schtick, leaves the fighter his schtick, and brings a whole new type of character into the game for those of players who enjoy that sort of thing.

(This is spitballing, so if you dont like the idea, you can disagree without vowing a death curse on me and my family for having suggested)

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's clever, but there's a big problem at the core of it:

It's insanely metagamey.

How big a problem that is for you is going to vary with your table, so it works as an option. And I like it as an option. Though I don't know why a rogue should be the only one able to do it, I also am fond of unique class mechanics, so perhaps I should quit while I'm ahead.

But yeah. Cool idea, not going to work for everyone, but certainly has merit.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My first impression is that your examples seem somewhat unnecessary. Even in 4E they've tried to push the 'Say Yes' mantra where you don't need to spend anything to have what you described happen... that kind of allowance should more often than not just be given by the DM through the normal roleplay.

I actually think ALL classes and players should be in the habit of adding details to a scene such as you describe, and the DM going along with it as often as is reasonable... just because it makes for a more fun game experience in my opinion.

That being said... in reference to your original point... I think that once a complete set of Maneuvers get created, each class that ends up using maneuvers will have a more unique group that only belong to their class. So a Rogue won't feel much like a "fighter-light" because the list of maneuvers in their various Schemes won't have as many duplicates that appear in Fighter Styles.

 

[BobTheNob]

Ah, Not against people improvising. Totally for it. I just sorta see the rogue as the master of it.

If, in that example, the chandalier was already there, the fighter could have cut the rope. The thing the rogue did which was special was that he *injected* the chandalier into the situation. Kinda did a mini re-write of the scenario.

So, what Im saying is that anyone can improvise when circumstance allows, but the rogue can change the circumstance so he can do it all the time.

So a rogue is not measured by by combat competencies (thats the fighter) but rather his quick thinking and problem solving.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

That just makes the Rogue an unreal character. Improvising what might be in the room is suitable for all characters, but to be able to override the DM's say with metagame points? The Rogue becomes the guy breaking the 4th wall in a sitcom. Not cool.

 

[howandwhy99]

What is the Fighter best at? Fighting
What is the Wizard best at? Spellcasting

The answers to the question Wizards has not figured out yet are:

What is the Rogue best at?
What is the Cleric best at?

Please note that none of these answers remove the possibility of other classes from performing within each other's scope of play. A Fighter can use magic quite well, but she's using it through items, not spells. In fact, there are many magic-items the Fighter uses better than anyone else (namely fighting focused magic-items).

Skipping back to Rogues, What is it this class is best at ???
[sblock]I don't know frankly. Rogues are defined as loners, not a class you want in a cooperative game.

I've thought of them as covert, but any core class could be played that way as a general strategy. Subclasses of each could be made to do so too. Certainly fighters engage in covert warfare, Illusionists are practically built to do nothing but fool others with magic, and clerics operating in secret are a staple of history regardless of alignment.

I've thought of them as criminals, lawbreakers who are skilled at acts illegal in the society they grew up. But then any act could be illegal, combat, spellc asting, even having a temple to Thor.

Studying the AD&D handbook my best guess is:
Thieves (rogues) steal. They are honed in the profession of taking what is not easily gotten, especially when others actively try to stop them. This is not just material wealth, but all treasure.

There it lists 5 Primary Functions: 1. Picking Pockets (covert action in public), 2. Opening Locks (unconventional mechanism use), 3. Finding / Removing Traps (searching ability and #2 again), 4. Moving Silently (Covert action vs. hearing), Hiding in Shadows (Covert action vs. sight).

Secondary Functions are: 1. Listening at doors (searching again, but by sound), 2. Climb Walls (Maneuvering in unconventional means), 3. Back Stabbing (covert combat attacks)

Tertiary Functions are: 1. Thieves Cant (shared covert language), 2. Read Languages (Decipher codes), 3. Decipher Magical Writing / Utilize Scrolls (Deciphering codes / languages again)

That comes down to:

• Covert Action (in public, vs. hearing, vs. seeing, and in combat)
• Searching (Looking for treasure, Listening for treasure)
• Unconventional Maneuvering (Climbing walls, Contortion, Tightrope walking, etc.)
• Unconventional Mechanical Device Use (Designing, Crafting, Using, and disabling)
• Covert Speech (signalling and deciphering codes / languages)

I think these guys are simply best at being thieves as criminals could be lawyers, heads of business / merchants, mercenaries, and even sorcerers and high priests. Can other classes steal? Yes, they might loot all day long, but none of them are as good at it as Rogues.
[/sblock]

 

[BobTheNob]

Im with what you are saying howandwhy99. I guess this is the big problem I am having with the rogue. His lack of identity.

The latest revision tried to give him some combat efficacy by moving him onto the fighters little subsystem...and I couldnt help but feel that this decision took away his (and the fighters) identity. It made the rogue "another type of fighter", and boy did I roll my eyes when I read that.

I spitball not because I think I know the final solution for what the rogue should be, but because I am figure it out for myself.

What-ever it is, Im pretty sure its not just another type of fighter.

 

[Li Shenron]

What is the Rogue best at?

I am totally with [MENTION=82425]BobTheNob[/MENTION] 's starting point that the answer to this question should be "The Rogue is best at improvising".

But as others, I also feel uncomfortable with the action points solution, because it forces the game to be very narrative and allows the players to shape the environment (not every DM like that, not every campaign should be forced to be like that).

I don't have a solution, but I have the feeling that it should be based around ability checks (and related to trained skills) and some unique way of the Rogue in using them.

Some ED mechanic may still be usable here, but should not really allow damage or AC bonuses or anything directly related to combat actions. Rather, it should be entirely concerned with using non-combat actions in combat (and not strictly in combat anyway). The chandelier is a good example of a non-combat action used in combat: it's not an attack, and it's not even a check which has the enemy as a target, the target is the rope, but the ultimate effect is the enemy.

So if they could find a way to give the Rogue an edge on these type of things, but without requiring action points or other meta/narrative devices, then for me it would be totally awesome!

 

[DogBackward]

The problem is that you're saying two things. One: "You shouldn't be able to improvise without spending special points on it." Two: "Only the Rogue should be good at improvisation."

First of all, everybody should be able to try these improvised tactics, and should be able to try them without having to spend some sort of metagame resource. Why should I have to spend a point of something to do something that anyone can try? And why the hell should only the Rogue be able to master the swinging chandelier?

Second, the level of meta-manipulation is simply too high for some people's games. Basing an entire class's schtick around something that doesn't fit in many play styles is just bad design.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with the Rogue using Expertise. People keep whining because the Rogue isn't as good a Fighter as the Fighter... that's the point. The Fighter is best at dealing damage, the Rogue is best at skills. You get twice as many skills, and Skill Mastery is an amazing maneuver. And, oh, side-note: it makes the Rogue best at improvisation, by giving him the highest skill checks available to a player.

People need to quit thinking of the Rogue in 3e/4e "I'm a spike-damage dealer" terms, and remember that the Rogue started out as just the clever thief. Even thinking back to classic media, the Rogue-type character never manages to fight as well as the main warrior, not even with finesse and panache. In an entire fight scene, you might see the plucky thief wait and watch, and finally jump in for that last-minute backstab... getting one kill to the seven the brave hero already has.

And for the record: that flashy, finesse-based duelist (the one that's always riding the chandeliers from here to there) is not a Rogue, he's a Fighter.

Modern MMO's and recent editions of D&D have fixated players on this idea that the Rogue is some sort of DPS/Striker, when that's only a recent development. You will never play a Rogue that matches a Fighter in combat. That's the entire point of having different classes.

 

[Bluenose]

Even thinking back to classic media, the Rogue-type character never manages to fight as well as the main warrior, not even with finesse and panache.

The Grey Mouser would like a word with you.