D&D 5E The Dumbest Rogue

[ccooke]

It opens up more weapon choices, for one thing, and it keeps those annoying rapier and scimitar builds away from rogues. As far as damage goes the loss of the d8 is only a single point on average... big loss (not). shrug

All that helps in my book.

It adds a few and takes a few away. It removes the whip (which is a pretty nice rogue weapon), it removes the rapier (which apparently you don't like). It adds a few pretty d4 or d6 weapons, the only one of which that really adds anything is the hand axe (and I do love the hand axe in 5e).

Despite what you've said, it does nothing to stop rogues using scimitars, which are both light and finesse.

Basically, this sounds to me like one of those odd house rules (and we've probably all done something like it) that is designed to promote (probably not very accurately, see above ;-)) some internal feeling for what something "should" be. There's no problem with that, and while I don't much like it I guarantee I've done worse at some point. The only issue I have is that you presented it as "helping" the concept of the STR-based rogue, and... I just can't see how it does that. Promotes what you think might be the 'right' way to do it, maybe, but it's a very minor nerf, so I can't see it as helpful. A helpful houserule would, perhaps, embrace the power of 'and' (which probably wouldn't break things, but (very personally) I don't think it's actually needed).

 

[bedir than]

I do want an official thug/bouncer/tough subclass

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Rogue should probably be able to sneak attack with the rogue weapon list but not anything they're proficient in a'la 3E raging barbarian/rogue or 2E fighter/rogue with a lance on a charging warhorse (3d6 X10 damage).

Rogue using a longsword two handed is about the best you could do with a mastermind and not suck.

If they get proficiency from another source, I've no issue with it. Using a weapon two-handed is generally a damage loss compared with dual-wielding for a rogue.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I mean, if your DEX is low, you won't be sneaking anyway. Choose Athletics for Expertise so you can Grapple & Shove with a near-zero failure rate.

 

[Todd Roybark]

Expertise: Athletics + the Tavern Brawler Feat+ the Grappler Feat has a nice synergy.
Attack with Improvised Garrote (wire cord), grapple as a bonus action.
Once Grappler comes on line, all attacks have Advantage. ( In a Grapple)

Fighter levels may not even be necessary....Evasion + Uncanny Dodge + bonus action Disengage prevents quite a bit of damage.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It adds a few and takes a few away. It removes the whip (which is a pretty nice rogue weapon), it removes the rapier (which apparently you don't like). It adds a few pretty d4 or d6 weapons, the only one of which that really adds anything is the hand axe (and I do love the hand axe in 5e).

Despite what you've said, it does nothing to stop rogues using scimitars, which are both light and finesse.

Basically, this sounds to me like one of those odd house rules (and we've probably all done something like it) that is designed to promote (probably not very accurately, see above ;-)) some internal feeling for what something "should" be. There's no problem with that, and while I don't much like it I guarantee I've done worse at some point. The only issue I have is that you presented it as "helping" the concept of the STR-based rogue, and... I just can't see how it does that. Promotes what you think might be the 'right' way to do it, maybe, but it's a very minor nerf, so I can't see it as helpful. A helpful houserule would, perhaps, embrace the power of 'and' (which probably wouldn't break things, but (very personally) I don't think it's actually needed).

Sorry, I forgot our DM's weapon table bumped Scimitars to d8 and removed the Light property. My house-rule for when I DM was going from that table. So, yeah, speaking PHB table it won't stop scimitars, but they are only d6 weapons then so no issue for me.

Anyway, it removes rapier and whips, neither of which is good for "sneak attacks" IMO, but adds clubs, handaxes, light hammers, and sickles. I'm not wild about sickles as no ever uses them, but whatever.

Personally, a rule I like best is to bump up sneak attack damage by 1d6 and have it replace weapon damage, then add normal bonuses. Then you could have it apply with any weapons you wanted or limit them depending on your preference.

 

[Unwise]

I actually played a Str-based Rogue. He was a nobleman with a high Cha and was well-educated with a decent Int. I wanted a guy who was OK at combat but was excellent at diplomacy, intrigue and knowledge skills.

For a different spin on the same character, Str-rogues also make good Samurai. They can wear the heavy armor and doing one excellent chop in combat makes a lot of sense thematically. As skill-monkeys rogues can be great artists, diplomats, historians etc

 

[DND_Reborn]

I actually played a Str-based Rogue. He was a nobleman with a high Cha and was well-educated with a decent Int. I wanted a guy who was OK at combat but was excellent at diplomacy, intrigue and knowledge skills.

For a different spin on the same character, Str-rogues also make good Samurai. They can wear the heavy armor and doing one excellent chop in combat makes a lot of sense thematically. As skill-monkeys rogues can be great artists, diplomats, historians etc

I'll second the Samurai concept. In out main game our half-orc is a fighter (samurai)/ rogue (assassin) and being able to give himself advantage when he really needs it is very good!

 

[Benjamin Olson]

The "dumbest rogue" to me has got to be one who takes two levels of Barbarian so that he can reckless attack for sneak attack at all times. No need to even be proficient in stealth.

 

[Ogre Mage]

When I saw the thread title I thought it was going to be something similar to an EN World thread from 15 years ago -- "Lame-o Characters In Your Party."