Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ClaytonCross" data-source="post: 7595806" data-attributes="member: 6880599"><p>You are correct sir. But I am also trying to ask for clarification incase I am the one that is confused. (It happens). So I am offering my perspective of what I see and asking for correction in hopes to gain a clearer picture.</p><p> </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, but understanding the full intent is important to constructive input. I am not against diverse builds and breaking free. If fact, I am suggesting it in a way. The idea of holding thug to the rogue sub-class is also a restraint, so I am trying to find why its imperative to the design to be locked to that. Keeping the OPs features and moving to a different class, or keeping the rogue class but achieving the goals with use of dex are attempts at constructive conversation. I offered them not as absolutes but as questions. I am trying to understand the importance of the rogue class features to the build. Your saying that the rogue does not require dex, but it also does not support strength well without heavy armor proficiency, strength saves, etc. As you already said, it tends to favor dexterity, so what about the play style creates the desire for a strength build? Its it simply a need to defy expectation, is it a rogue feature the OP is keying on, or is it the name of the class an the thoughts it provokes. I don't feel like I have received a direct answer from the OP so I am left confused and have attempted to reframe and restate because as you said I feel like the reply of "because strength rogue thugs" is <strong>due to me not asking the question clearly enough</strong>. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am looking for clarity, I used those terms because they are understood but I was to the best of my ability clear that the OP was directly making statements to claim against those while reflecting aspects of those in the build. So <strong>I believe the OP</strong>, but express that the statements to deflect from that and build that supports that muddies the water. So I asked for elaboration in that regard. The words are not intended to be malicious but are well known terms and I quote statements where the OP was dancing around the terms but reflecting on the point. Instead of being vague, I was striate because the dancing around the words makes statements in concise and the meaning muddy. In that regard they are the most appropriate words to clarify a point. I do understand they are loaded so people see their use a cheep shots, but I am asking for clarification of what the OP means as its been state that is not the OPs goal, example, "… That's what it looks like your doing. So I am asking for clarification, because if that is your goal their is no point in saying that's not a good feature. However, if you doing something else, then really the grappling part should be removed since its easily broken with that one feat." Is a constructive request of understanding, as to if this class is intended to be a "power grappler" as the function giving a diverse build something unique or is the interaction with Tavern Brawler and Grappler something they OP had not considered. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You said earlier, you can build a strength rogue already. The OP said they are building an in your face strength based Thug design. The question of "why" is still what I want. I REALLY mean I don't think the OP is being dishonest. I don't know how to type it to be more clear. I really wrote that to say "please don't miss understand this as a personal attack, but a request for clarity". To me diversity of class design has a point. Am I wrong? You said your play a strength based rogue already. So what then is the purpose of the design if it does something you can already do? It adds a few weapon options and it adds a role play premise... both of which are commonly done... so what's is new? Grappling, fear, more grappling, silence casters verbal component, attacking after you grapple... the stated goal is a straight based rogue but features appear to be about superior use of grapple more than anything. Is it so strange for someone to question the grappling with Advantage + expertise + silencing casters + attacking with bonus action after grapple and ask, "are you sure this is about a strength rogue and not about making a supper grappler? If its not, as a constructive suggestion, you might want to step back from all the grappling because there is potential for abuse." If the intent is to be grapple master not strength rogue then changing the class makes since, because being a grapple master with a class that does all its damage in a single attack then allowing it to gain advantage to get that ability, do massive damage, then take the grappler feat and even further lock down a target is pretty powerful. There are two very different possible options here and to completely different approaches to dealing with them based on what is really important to the OP. It's also possible their is a third option I am not seeing... So yes I do want to know why and I am asking for the OP to re-assess an clarify their goal. Because I do believe this the OP started with the intent of a strength rogue aka Thug and grappling may very well be a by product of grapping being the only thuggish thing the OP could think of but did the build take a life of its own and lean more to something else. Does the Op realize the implications of what this would do if a rogue caught an enemy caster with this design? I don't know. I am not assuming one way or another. I am asking for clarification. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I made a grappling barbarian human variant with tavern brawler at 1 and grappler at 4. Their are options, but I am not against more options. I am confused though by the statement of "strength rogue is already possible", "lets make a strength rogue work", giving it a ton of grapple, and nothing being based around any other rogue features or design. ….I am surely missing something... I don't understand what about these features doesn't work with this as barbarian subclass except for backstab... if the other features don't matter then would it be equally as good if you gave a special opportunity attack to barbarian instead of advantage they already get from rage? I am not saying this should not exist. <strong>I am asking what makes rogue important to the build</strong>. Can it be done? Sure. But what does it really provide the subclass as rogue instead of barbarian. If the intent as stated is to be a strength rogue, why is it so grapple heavy when that's something you can upgrade with 2 feats already? Could the be strength rogues and not be grapplers at all?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ClaytonCross, post: 7595806, member: 6880599"] You are correct sir. But I am also trying to ask for clarification incase I am the one that is confused. (It happens). So I am offering my perspective of what I see and asking for correction in hopes to gain a clearer picture. Sure, but understanding the full intent is important to constructive input. I am not against diverse builds and breaking free. If fact, I am suggesting it in a way. The idea of holding thug to the rogue sub-class is also a restraint, so I am trying to find why its imperative to the design to be locked to that. Keeping the OPs features and moving to a different class, or keeping the rogue class but achieving the goals with use of dex are attempts at constructive conversation. I offered them not as absolutes but as questions. I am trying to understand the importance of the rogue class features to the build. Your saying that the rogue does not require dex, but it also does not support strength well without heavy armor proficiency, strength saves, etc. As you already said, it tends to favor dexterity, so what about the play style creates the desire for a strength build? Its it simply a need to defy expectation, is it a rogue feature the OP is keying on, or is it the name of the class an the thoughts it provokes. I don't feel like I have received a direct answer from the OP so I am left confused and have attempted to reframe and restate because as you said I feel like the reply of "because strength rogue thugs" is [B]due to me not asking the question clearly enough[/B]. I am looking for clarity, I used those terms because they are understood but I was to the best of my ability clear that the OP was directly making statements to claim against those while reflecting aspects of those in the build. So [B]I believe the OP[/B], but express that the statements to deflect from that and build that supports that muddies the water. So I asked for elaboration in that regard. The words are not intended to be malicious but are well known terms and I quote statements where the OP was dancing around the terms but reflecting on the point. Instead of being vague, I was striate because the dancing around the words makes statements in concise and the meaning muddy. In that regard they are the most appropriate words to clarify a point. I do understand they are loaded so people see their use a cheep shots, but I am asking for clarification of what the OP means as its been state that is not the OPs goal, example, "… That's what it looks like your doing. So I am asking for clarification, because if that is your goal their is no point in saying that's not a good feature. However, if you doing something else, then really the grappling part should be removed since its easily broken with that one feat." Is a constructive request of understanding, as to if this class is intended to be a "power grappler" as the function giving a diverse build something unique or is the interaction with Tavern Brawler and Grappler something they OP had not considered. You said earlier, you can build a strength rogue already. The OP said they are building an in your face strength based Thug design. The question of "why" is still what I want. I REALLY mean I don't think the OP is being dishonest. I don't know how to type it to be more clear. I really wrote that to say "please don't miss understand this as a personal attack, but a request for clarity". To me diversity of class design has a point. Am I wrong? You said your play a strength based rogue already. So what then is the purpose of the design if it does something you can already do? It adds a few weapon options and it adds a role play premise... both of which are commonly done... so what's is new? Grappling, fear, more grappling, silence casters verbal component, attacking after you grapple... the stated goal is a straight based rogue but features appear to be about superior use of grapple more than anything. Is it so strange for someone to question the grappling with Advantage + expertise + silencing casters + attacking with bonus action after grapple and ask, "are you sure this is about a strength rogue and not about making a supper grappler? If its not, as a constructive suggestion, you might want to step back from all the grappling because there is potential for abuse." If the intent is to be grapple master not strength rogue then changing the class makes since, because being a grapple master with a class that does all its damage in a single attack then allowing it to gain advantage to get that ability, do massive damage, then take the grappler feat and even further lock down a target is pretty powerful. There are two very different possible options here and to completely different approaches to dealing with them based on what is really important to the OP. It's also possible their is a third option I am not seeing... So yes I do want to know why and I am asking for the OP to re-assess an clarify their goal. Because I do believe this the OP started with the intent of a strength rogue aka Thug and grappling may very well be a by product of grapping being the only thuggish thing the OP could think of but did the build take a life of its own and lean more to something else. Does the Op realize the implications of what this would do if a rogue caught an enemy caster with this design? I don't know. I am not assuming one way or another. I am asking for clarification. I made a grappling barbarian human variant with tavern brawler at 1 and grappler at 4. Their are options, but I am not against more options. I am confused though by the statement of "strength rogue is already possible", "lets make a strength rogue work", giving it a ton of grapple, and nothing being based around any other rogue features or design. ….I am surely missing something... I don't understand what about these features doesn't work with this as barbarian subclass except for backstab... if the other features don't matter then would it be equally as good if you gave a special opportunity attack to barbarian instead of advantage they already get from rage? I am not saying this should not exist. [B]I am asking what makes rogue important to the build[/B]. Can it be done? Sure. But what does it really provide the subclass as rogue instead of barbarian. If the intent as stated is to be a strength rogue, why is it so grapple heavy when that's something you can upgrade with 2 feats already? Could the be strength rogues and not be grapplers at all? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
The Thug, A Subclass for Strength Rogues
Top