D&D (2024) Rogues and sneak attacks... Must all rogues have it?

[TwoSix]

with more/better skills/tools you can help your party before combat with scouting/negotiating and simple knowledge checks to find out what to hit the enemy with and what not to use.

I mean, that's really kind of the main question, isn't it? 5e builds core competency in some facet of combat into every class. The question then is, is it OK to violate that precept in order to have a character focused on exploration and interaction?

I don't see why not, but "every character should have to pull a certain amount of weight" is an opinion I've seen expressed by many posters over the years.

 

[bedir than]

Skill actions would do things normal skill uses can't get. C'mon man, have some imagination.

I'd prefer an answer to the question.
I remain confused as to how 5e's allowance for using a Skill as an Action is different than a Skill Action in Pathfinder. I don't play Pathfinder.

 

[Shardstone]

I'd prefer an answer to the question.
I remain confused as to how 5e's allowance for using a Skill as an Action is different than a Skill Action in Pathfinder. I don't play Pathfinder.

I don't want to use skills an action. I want unique actions that can only be used if you have prof in certain skills. Things like a "Distract" action using Performance, or how Shove/Grapple use Athletics.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't want to use skills an action. I want unique actions that can only be used if you have prof in certain skills. Things like a "Distract" action using Performance, or how Shove/Grapple use Athletics.

I think that's a really neat idea, it's just a matter of coming up with them.

I'd also like 5.5E to official recognise the concept of not letting someone roll at all for certain things if they don't have the Skill Proficiency. A lot of people use this as a house rule, but it's not officially supported (even as an optional rule AFAICT), and I think it should be (though I think Bardic thingy should count as Proficient, because that's kind of the point).

 

[bedir than]

I don't want to use skills an action. I want unique actions that can only be used if you have prof in certain skills. Things like a "Distract" action using Performance, or how Shove/Grapple use Athletics.

Xanathar's Guide gets into some of that, but mostly with Tools.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

If you have something in the class and actively not using it, then you are working against yourself and rest of the party.

That is why I suggested what you could get to compensate for lack of SA dice.

and yes, I know that this kind of character would have minimal impact in direct damage in combat, but if you are in a party with a barbarian and a paladin on the front line... you have that covered.

with more/better skills/tools you can help your party before combat with scouting/negotiating and simple knowledge checks to find out what to hit the enemy with and what not to use.

I fail to see what it would offer over a bard, who has multiple expertise options, magic, and bardic inspiration to assist their allies. When even second level spells like pass without trace offer a +10 to the party's stealth rolls. Skills really can't keep up as written in 5E.

 

[Shardstone]

Xanathar's Guide gets into some of that, but mostly with Tools.

Yes! This was part of the inspiration. I think if we have a Rogue who trades in Sneak Attack for more ability profs, its only really fun for the Rogue if they are getting expanded options from their skills.

 

[Jer]

I'd also like 5.5E to official recognise the concept of not letting someone roll at all for certain things if they don't have the Skill Proficiency. A lot of people use this as a house rule, but it's not officially supported (even as an optional rule AFAICT), and I think it should be (though I think Bardic thingy should count as Proficient, because that's kind of the point).

As an optional rule I guess. But in 5e there's supposedly not a "skill roll" - it's an ability check that is modified by proficiency in a particular area of the ability. And anyone should be able to make an ability check - I wouldn't want the default to be a character can't try to climb a rope if they don't have Athleics as a skill proficiency. So I wouldn't want to see that as the standard rule.

The only skills that I can think of that I would do that to are the "knowledge" skills (Arcana, History, Medicine, Nature and Religion). And I'm really thinking that those work sufficiently differently from the other skills that they should be treated differently anyway - more like languages and tool proficiencies than skill proficiencies.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd also like 5.5E to official recognise the concept of not letting someone roll at all for certain things if they don't have the Skill Proficiency. A lot of people use this as a house rule, but it's not officially supported (even as an optional rule AFAICT), and I think it should be (though I think Bardic thingy should count as Proficient, because that's kind of the point).

Agreed, as that's exactly how I run at my tables (right down to the bard thing).

 

[Sir Brennen]

The oven wasn't even warm enough to call this idea half-baked, but ...

What if, through skill checks, the rogue could lend their sneak attack to other characters? Maybe at a reduced number of dice, but essentially using a "help-like" action to point out a foe's vulnerable spots? Of course, that might require the mapping of monster knowledge back to specific skills as done in previous editions. (Note, probably shouldn't stack with another character's Sneak Attack... they're already going for the vulnerable spot.)

I also like the idea of special actions that can be performed through the use of skills as a class ability. Perhaps only usable X/times per short/long rest. Basically, like Battle Master maneuvers. As skills, however, those special actions or abilities could extend beyond the Combat pillar.