Rogue Mastermind Archetype Up, Courtesy of Extra Life

They stole my my help as a bonus action idea...

 

[Imaro]

I do agree that there should be more reasons for rogues to boost more than Dex, though.

I'm curious... why do people feel this way? I'd rather have abilities that aren't dependent on multiple attributes or that replace physical attributes with mental with little to no explanation... but I am curious why other's feel this would be a positive?

Also I don't see a mastermind rogue as being the most book smart character (which is what Int seems to cover), IMO he's more cunning and quick witted than the most learned person in the group and there really is no attribute for that.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I think it's interesting, and should be pointed out, that this one ability is the entire 3rd-level combat feature for a subclass. Because it is quite potent. Anyone toying around with home-brew classes that are built around helping/bolstering allies should keep that in mind when weighing what all else they are giving them...

Yeah, yeah, we get it. You think warlords shouldnt exist and should suck if they do. This ability is far from overpowered and the entire subclass looks pretty average to me. The level 17 ability is incredibly narrow in application.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm curious... why do people feel this way? I'd rather have abilities that aren't dependent on multiple attributes or that replace physical attributes with mental with little to no explanation... but I am curious why other's feel this would be a positive?

I've not seen anyone in the thread advocating arbitrary substitution of mental abilities for physical ones as an attack stat; I think that is a red herring.

For me, though, the answer is heterogeneity. I want there to be multiple interesting builds for the rogue, and there are just so many stories about rogue-like characters that are not about their agility and reflexes. There are stories I want to play, but the system currently punishes that diversity, I feel.

(And it's not just the rogue: Fighters already have a wider variety because they have two equally viable attack stats; wizards have eight schools; and (in 5e) you can make legitimate STR, DEX, WIS, and CHA-based clerics -- Int too via knowledge domain, though I'm not sure you'd want Int ahead of Wis in any case.

The potential for the same flexibility is in the rogue, and we've now got 4 subclasses for the rogue; but even a viable strength build is hard to pull off without at least a 14 or 16 dex. Instead, what the game has given us is a large number of backgrounds that allow you to mimic a rogue without being one -- currently, that's the best way to develop the variety I would hope for.

(Just speaking for myself; ymmv; my opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my employer; etc.)

 

[Xeviat]

I think rogues using Dex for everything is a good thing. Why? Because after Dex, they have free range of choice of their secondary stat. Combat rogue? Choose Con. Mastermind? Choose Int. Dashing Duelist? Choose Cha. Easy, simple.

I did like 4E's design of variable secondary stats, but that's behind us now.

 

[Imaro]

I've not seen anyone in the thread advocating arbitrary substitution of mental abilities for physical ones as an attack stat; I think that is a red herring.

Well then you run into the problem of being dependent on numerous attributes for your abilities to be effective, so now instead of the Dex attribute being primary and the rest being a matter of concept... I have two or more attributes I have to account for in keeping up to be effective.

For me, though, the answer is heterogeneity. I want there to be multiple interesting builds for the rogue, and there are just so many stories about rogue-like characters that are not about their agility and reflexes. There are stories I want to play, but the system currently punishes that diversity, I feel.

Eh, when I look at the mastermind abilities they aren't about being agile and having great reflexes but they also don't key off a secondary attribute which to me seems the best of both worlds.... My rogue can be intelligent based if I want him to be, I just raise or start Int high... but I don't have to in order to play the mastermind rogue (which again seems less about book smarts and more about being clever/cunning) and be effective in combat.

Though I do have to ask... what rogue archetypes are you trying to play where Dex/stealth/nimbleness/etc. isn't a part of the concept?

(And it's not just the rogue: Fighters already have a wider variety because they have two equally viable attack stats; wizards have eight schools; and (in 5e) you can make legitimate STR, DEX, WIS, and CHA-based clerics -- Int too via knowledge domain, though I'm not sure you'd want Int ahead of Wis in any case.

First the wizard schools don't in any way change the primary casting attribute so I think you're making some strange comparisons here...

I'm also trying to understand how the cleric is an example of this as well... As an example the trickster Cleric doesn't gain any advantage from being Dex primary and probably suffers if he makes that choice... same for the War domain and Strength. The abilities in these domains are similar to mastermind in that they are pretty independent of the cleric's actual stats in the secondary ability.

Finally if you do consider the Trickster domain cleric a Dex build or the War domain cleric a strength build then the Arcane Trickster should easily be considered an Int build since he gets more advantage from a high Int than the cleric in those domains gets from Strength or Dex being primary.

The potential for the same flexibility is in the rogue, and we've now got 4 subclasses for the rogue; but even a viable strength build is hard to pull off without at least a 14 or 16 dex. Instead, what the game has given us is a large number of backgrounds that allow you to mimic a rogue without being one -- currently, that's the best way to develop the variety I would hope for.

(Just speaking for myself; ymmv; my opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my employer; etc.)

I'm a little confused here so I'll ask again... exactly what Rogue archetype are you trying to recreate where Dex should be lower than a 14? And at that point are you probably looking for a different class in the same way you had to take ranger as opposed to fighter in 4e to be a decent archer?

 

[sleypy]

I'm a little confused here so I'll ask again... exactly what Rogue archetype are you trying to recreate where Dex should be lower than a 14? And at that point are you probably looking for a different class in the same way you had to take ranger as opposed to fighter in 4e to be a decent archer?

Probably because people want to be a "mastermind", not a "rogue mastermind." Only guessing.

I know for me, I would like a martial class that put mental stats ahead of physical stats. Since that doesn't exist, rogue is closest to filling the niche.

 

[Imaro]

Probably because people want to be a "mastermind", not a "rogue mastermind." Only guessing.

I know for me, I would like a martial class that put mental stats ahead of physical stats. Since that doesn't exist, rogue is closest to filling the niche.

But how does said hypothetical class stay competitive in combat without having some kind of physical capability?

EDIT: Or are you saying you want a class that uses mental stats to attack?

 

[sleypy]

But how does said hypothetical class stay competitive in combat without having some kind of physical capability?

By making them MAD; MAD is an issue for some, other would gladly accept it to reach a particular character concept (see monks).

 

[Imaro]

By making them MAD; MAD is an issue for some, other would gladly accept it to reach a particular character concept (see monks).

But if they are giving you abilities (like in the Mastermind) that aren't (for the most part) dependent upon secondary or tertiary abilities but still allow you to influence the game like said archetype would... what does it matter?

Edit: It seems like asking for a drawback in order to gain something they are/will give you without it. And this still doesn't mean you can't raise your Int/Wis/Cha to fit your vision of the archetype.

 

[sleypy]

But if they are giving you abilities (like in the Mastermind) that aren't (for the most part) dependent upon secondary or tertiary abilities but still allow you to influence the game like said archetype would... what does it matter?

Edit: It seems like asking for a drawback in order to gain something they are/will give you without it. And this still doesn't mean you can't raise your Int/Wis/Cha to fit your vision of the archetype.

I care about a particular aesthetic, and the cost of the drawback is minor compared to the expense of the aesthetic. I don't know that there is any way to quantify its importance to me to you.

I rather have a tradeoff between choosing to invest in Int/Wis/Cha over choosing to invest in Dex. That means trading away some basic combat competences for some other worthwhile features. There will always be plenty of combat monsters playing D&D, Mastermind looks like a good start at bringing something else to the table. I just wish they had went a little bit further.

Don't get me wrong, I like what they did with the mastermind. Just seeing it opens up a lot more possibilities.