D&D 5E The Rogue in 5e

[Ahnehnois]

We've got the magic-user thread, the cleric thread, and the fighter thread. What about the rogue?
(I guess he's been hiding in the shadows while these other classes get beaten on).

Some questions:

How definitional is sneak attack to the rogue? Should it be an option or an inherent part of the class?

How should sneak attack work?

Should a rogue emphasize a surprise attack? Combat positioning (flanking)? Both?

How should a rogue's social skills be implemented?

How should a rogue's perceptive skills and trap/lock expertise be implemented?

What mechanics does a rogue need for self-defense?

What, in the broadest D&D sense, is a rogue?

 

[Vayden]

It's a core archetype - the hero who's fast, not strong. Mobility and flash are the basic needs of the rogue - you can get to places that the woman in plate armor and the man with the long flowing robes with arcane symbols on them can't get to.

You also have the ability to cleverly dispose of your enemies (as long as they don't get a chance to hit you back) - David versus Goliath is one of the oldest Rogue-archetype moments. So, backstab and skillfulness are the key points.

A lot of modern fantasy novels have Rogues with a few low level magic tricks as well, which I'm a fan of (though that should probably be in the multi-classing thread).

 

[Ahnehnois]

A lot of modern fantasy novels have Rogues with a few low level magic tricks as well, which I'm a fan of (though that should probably be in the multi-classing thread).

PF quietly added in some minor spell-like abilities as rogue talents. Frankly, I'm stuck between kind of liking it and kind of thinking it feels wrong. UMD, however, was a significant skill in the original 3.0 conception of the rogue. Rogues aren't really magical, but it makes sense to me that they can do some little tricks, given their cleverness and adaptability (and the general ubiquity of magic).

 

[mlund]

Rogues are, to me, characterized by being the best Skill Monkeys and using stats other than Strength to do damage in melee. "Finesse," "Expertise," "Dirty," and "Psychological" all come to mind when describing the ways a Rogue will fight.

That's one of the reasons why I always see the Bard coming in under the Rogue umbrella (or Super-Class as it were). The Thief Archetype is a Rogue invested into acts of Stealth, Slight-of-Hand, Traps, and Acrobatics along with dangerous agility and accuracy. I feel like the Hunter-style Ranger is also a Rogue, just the wilderness + ranged attacks model. The Bard Archetype is the "mouthy" direction a Rogue can go in, full of social and information skills as well as a bag of magic tricks.

Duelists and two-weapon fighters and scouts all fall nicely under this Super-Class too, in contrast to Fighters with their heavy armor, high hit-points, and brute-force weapons.

- Marty Lund

 

[Olaf the Stout]

To me the Rogue is the skill monkey character class that relies on Dexterity as his core ability.

I couldn't imagine playing a Rogue without a Sneak Attack/Backstab/"Whatever you want to call it" ability.

However, I am ok with there being other class ability that you can take if you decide you don't want a Rogue with Sneak Attack. As long as the option to take it is there I will be kept happy.

Olaf the Stout

 

[DonTadow]

I was for making it a core, but someone changed my mind on hte forum a few days ago, so Im with lumping rougish abilities into the big 3. A rogue is not a job, (like hte other 3) it's a behavior. And it's a behavior that any of the other 3 can have and would be suited.

Fighter with rougish traits (traditional rogue, nimble, quick etc)
Priest with rougish traits (diplomat, cunning etc)
Mage with rougish traits (ruthless, sneaky etc)

BTW, i do agree with all the above though. It needs to have sneak attack, but not just sneak attack, but enhancments to sneak attack. And it needs to be good at doing a number of things in lue of being strong.

 

[Minigiant]

Rogues are special. They don't go to combat school, train under a wizard as an apprentice, or spent hours meditating or reading holy book to channel divine energy. They do everything else. To me there are a couple of aspects of the Rogue I want to see.

Unconventional combat: Rogues master the nontraditional from of combat. Things a fighter's master wont teach him.

-Backstab. Sneak attack. Whatever they have it. Rogues are experts at fighting at hitting weak spots.

-Poison. The realm of poisoning should be for rogues only (unless they have rangers as a separate class then only rogues and rangers can collect, utilize and focus on poison at no penalty or resource cost).

-Explosives. Rogues should be evil midnight bombers what bomb at midnight. If alchemy is nonmagical in 5e, I want rogues to get it instead of wizards and magic users.

-Magic Wands. I kind of likes rogues being able to activate wands. Rogues probably have a few spellcasting contacts who could have taught them a thing or two.

-Bodyguards and pets. Rogues can't fight trained warriors. They bring warriors with them to fight with them. If they party lacks a trained warrior, a rogue can bring his own.


Contacts: I would like to see a contact system in 5e. Rogue would start with contacts or get bonus contacts. That way the rogue can get a nice stash of items: poisons, acids, explosives, smoke bombs, catrops, and other minor adventuring items. Also the rogue would "know a guy" or "look around for a guy" who can speak a certain language, or get them access to a certain place, or sell performer outfits.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I was for making it a core, but someone changed my mind on hte forum a few days ago, so Im with lumping rougish abilities into the big 3. A rogue is not a job, (like hte other 3) it's a behavior. And it's a behavior that any of the other 3 can have and would be suited.

Fighter with rougish traits (traditional rogue, nimble, quick etc)
Priest with rougish traits (diplomat, cunning etc)
Mage with rougish traits (ruthless, sneaky etc)

I see the difficulty in defining the rogue. Indeed other classes should be able to be stealthy, diplomatic, or clever. I do think there is a need for the rogue though, and not just because it's a classic.

Unlike the other basic classes, which are defined by what they can do, rogues I think are really defined by what they can't do. Rogues are not tough. They're not strong. They don't have arcane training. The gods haven't blessed them. Thus, they have to get by in life by coming up with something else. This makes it really difficult to define a rogue class, but the underlying psychological reason for playing it is really distinct and really a classic archetype. The guy who isn't a paragon of anything but just knows how to get stuff done.

Unconventional combat: Rogues master the nontraditional from of combat. Things a fighter's master wont teach him.

-Backstab. Sneak attack. Whatever they have it. Rogues are experts at fighting at hitting weak spots.

-Poison. The realm of poisoning should be for rogues only (unless they have rangers as a separate class then only rogues and rangers can collect, utilize and focus on poison at no penalty or resource cost).

-Explosives. Rogues should be evil midnight bombers what bomb at midnight. If alchemy is nonmagical in 5e, I want rogues to get it instead of wizards and magic users.

-Magic Wands. I kind of likes rogues being able to activate wands. Rogues probably have a few spellcasting contacts who could have taught them a thing or two.

-Bodyguards and pets. Rogues can't fight trained warriors. They bring warriors with them to fight with them. If they party lacks a trained warrior, a rogue can bring his own.


Contacts: I would like to see a contact system in 5e. Rogue would start with contacts or get bonus contacts. That way the rogue can get a nice stash of items: poisons, acids, explosives, smoke bombs, catrops, and other minor adventuring items. Also the rogue would "know a guy" or "look around for a guy" who can speak a certain language, or get them access to a certain place, or sell performer outfits.

I like the idea of tying rogues to explosives, alchemy, and poison more strongly, as they are the best suited for it, and those thing are underrepresented un every iteration of the D&D rules I've seen.

Contacts and bodyguards and pets I'm split on. These are things that have been done poorly in the past in various ways. They can be metagame-y and unbalanced. I also tend to thing of rogues as working alone, but I do like contacts. Having a little subsystem for contacts that emphasized charisma and gave the rogue an advantage would be nice.

To me the Rogue is the skill monkey character class that relies on Dexterity as his core ability.

I couldn't imagine playing a Rogue without a Sneak Attack/Backstab/"Whatever you want to call it" ability.

However, I am ok with there being other class ability that you can take if you decide you don't want a Rogue with Sneak Attack. As long as the option to take it is there I will be kept happy.

I agree that sneak attack/backstab is iconic and I also have trouble imagining a rogue without it. But I also think that an "alternative class feature" for sneak attack would really open up a world of scouts, spies, charlatans. Just the list of PF rogue archetypes is one of the most evocative lists of "class names" I've ever seen. imagine if we could have all of these well-respresented by the rogue mechanics:

Acrobat
Bandit
Burglar
Chameleon
Charlatan
Cutpurse
Driver
Investigator
Knife Master
Pirate
Poisoner
Rake
Roof Runner
Sanctified Rogue
Scout
Scroll Scoundel
Sniper
Spy
Survivalist
Swashbuckler
Thug
Trapsmith

That, folks, is D&D.

 

[ferratus]

Rogues have always been my favourite class, and I finally got to play the rogue I wanted to play in 4e. A rogue in 4e had a handful of dirty tricks for fighting. Blinding people with blinding powder, crippling wounds which made opponents slow or weak, attacking the reflex defense to slip a dagger into the gaps of armour. These are all things which were lacking effective and easy mechanics in prior editions, yet are essential to the archetype of the adventuring thief, swashbuckler or assassin.

So any future edition has to have the rogue able to do those things. Anything to do with magic or fighting toe-to-toe with fighters can be done with multi-classing. But a rogue that can throw powder in a paladin's face, slip a dagger in a gap in his armoured leg to keep the paladin from running for backup then doing a large amount of damage on a crippled opponent that he has at his mercy? Yes please!

I don't agree that rogues should be relegated to skill monkeys. A player should be able to participate in all areas of the game. If combat happens where the party is caught in the open and its the fighter's time to shine, that's fine. However, there should be times where fights occur where the battle favours the scoundrel and his cheap and dirty way of fighting. It should not be the case that the rogue always takes a backseat in combat to the mage, fighter and cleric.

Also on the issue of skills, there needs to be a mechanic where the rogue can split from the party where it won't be an immediate death sentence or a grand diversion from the rest of the players. A simple roll to scout ahead, find out information, and get back would be fine. If the roll is failed, the rogue should still be able to get back to the party, but perhaps with lost hp and the element of surprise gone. I'm sick of every single rogue trying to infiltrate a place stealthily, inevitably getting discovered from a bad roll, and then being pounded into paste.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Rogues have always been my favourite class, and I finally got to play the rogue I wanted to play in 4e. A rogue in 4e had a handful of dirty tricks for fighting. Blinding people with blinding powder, crippling wounds which made opponents slow or weak, attacking the reflex defense to slip a dagger into the gaps of armour. These are all things which were lacking effective and easy mechanics in prior editions, yet are essential to the archetype of the adventuring thief, swashbuckler or assassin.

So any future edition has to have the rogue able to do those things. Anything to do with magic or fighting toe-to-toe with fighters can be done with multi-classing. But a rogue that can throw powder in a paladin's face, slip a dagger in a gap in his armoured leg to keep the paladin from running for backup then doing a large amount of damage on a crippled opponent that he has at his mercy? Yes please!

Another vote for expanding combat maneuvers/stunts/etc. It does seem like the rogue is begging for more creative combat rules than it's had (except possibly in PF; I haven't played a PF rogue).

However, there should be times where fights occur where the battle favours the scoundrel and his cheap and dirty way of fighting. It should not be the case that the rogue always takes a backseat in combat to the mage, fighter and cleric.

Also on the issue of skills, there needs to be a mechanic where the rogue can split from the party where it won't be an immediate death sentence or a grand diversion from the rest of the players. A simple roll to scout ahead, find out information, and get back would be fine. If the roll is failed, the rogue should still be able to get back to the party, but perhaps with lost hp and the element of surprise gone. I'm sick of every single rogue trying to infiltrate a place stealthily, inevitably getting discovered from a bad roll, and then being pounded into paste.

I'm a bit baffled here. Frankly, I always thought the rogue being in danger out of combat (and being in the background and never a target in combat) worked pretty well. I also always enjoyed surprising people with a sneak attack and never really saw the rogue as being too weak.