D&D 5E Want a better Rogue? Build a Wizard. Or why play a Rogue?
- Thread starter pogre
- Start date
Undrave
Legend
I really want to try a Mastermind one of these days!
The Rogue is just a cool build and the reason why I used it as the basis of my Warlord.
tommybahama
Adventurer
The Ministry of Magic is a government bureau while the Thieve's Guild is a private enterprise.
Undrave
Legend
Using complicated magic naughty word to do things mundane means can do easily is probably one of the most Harry Potter thing ever.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
Seriously though, think about what it means to be a rogue.
Stealthy, moving unseen and unheard. Picking locks and pockets alike. Finding things that others would wish stay hidden--be it a secret door, a boobytrap, or a tome of ancient lore. Masters of disguise, can appear as anyone and infiltrate organizations. Quick and nimble, both in body and mind. Good with daggers, incredibly high damage output.
Does that about cover it?
Now. Re-read that list and ask yourself: Did I just describe a wizard? (The answer is "yes but..." and I'mma let you finish, but hear me out.) Stealthy, moving unseen and unheard? Yep, there are spells for that. Finding things that others would wish stay hidden? Yep, there are spells for that. Masters of disguise? Yep. Quick and nimble, good with daggers, high damage output? Yep and yep and yep.
Now read it again and ask yourself: Did I just describe a ranger? (Again, I know the answer is still "yes but..." and we will get to that, I promise.) Still stealthy stabby guy who can spot stuff and move fast and do a lot of damage all at once. With the proper combination of race, subrace, and background, a bard, cleric, druid, or monk could all meet that list. A changeling barbarian with the criminal background? Check.
The point is, that list of What It Means to be A Rogue is actually a pretty low bar to clear in 5th Edition. There are several ways to be stealthy, several ways to detect stuff, several ways to make a disguise, be quick, use daggers, and deal damage. If you are willing to live with the choices you make (give up spell slots that would otherwise be spent on fireballs, give up skill proficiencies that be better used elsewhere, using equipment that isn't stereotypical for your character, etc.), you can make a passable "rogue" out of anything.
Okay. Now for the butts.
"Yes but," you might be thinking, "it's just easier for the Rogue class." Or "Yes but, casting spells is more restrictive and boring." And you're right. I mean, you're not "correct," but nobody can argue with you. Preferences are subjective: what's easy, sensible, and fun for you might be difficult, weird, or dull for someone else.
So to show my own butt: I'd go with a Trickery cleric if I wanted to play a stealthy, lock-picky, blasty, searchy-findy chameleon with a knife. It's just more my style: all of the "what makes a rogue" list, and with better weapons, armor, and spells to boot.
Stealthy, moving unseen and unheard. Picking locks and pockets alike. Finding things that others would wish stay hidden--be it a secret door, a boobytrap, or a tome of ancient lore. Masters of disguise, can appear as anyone and infiltrate organizations. Quick and nimble, both in body and mind. Good with daggers, incredibly high damage output.
Does that about cover it?
Now. Re-read that list and ask yourself: Did I just describe a wizard? (The answer is "yes but..." and I'mma let you finish, but hear me out.) Stealthy, moving unseen and unheard? Yep, there are spells for that. Finding things that others would wish stay hidden? Yep, there are spells for that. Masters of disguise? Yep. Quick and nimble, good with daggers, high damage output? Yep and yep and yep.
Now read it again and ask yourself: Did I just describe a ranger? (Again, I know the answer is still "yes but..." and we will get to that, I promise.) Still stealthy stabby guy who can spot stuff and move fast and do a lot of damage all at once. With the proper combination of race, subrace, and background, a bard, cleric, druid, or monk could all meet that list. A changeling barbarian with the criminal background? Check.
The point is, that list of What It Means to be A Rogue is actually a pretty low bar to clear in 5th Edition. There are several ways to be stealthy, several ways to detect stuff, several ways to make a disguise, be quick, use daggers, and deal damage. If you are willing to live with the choices you make (give up spell slots that would otherwise be spent on fireballs, give up skill proficiencies that be better used elsewhere, using equipment that isn't stereotypical for your character, etc.), you can make a passable "rogue" out of anything.
Okay. Now for the butts.
"Yes but," you might be thinking, "it's just easier for the Rogue class." Or "Yes but, casting spells is more restrictive and boring." And you're right. I mean, you're not "correct," but nobody can argue with you. Preferences are subjective: what's easy, sensible, and fun for you might be difficult, weird, or dull for someone else.
So to show my own butt: I'd go with a Trickery cleric if I wanted to play a stealthy, lock-picky, blasty, searchy-findy chameleon with a knife. It's just more my style: all of the "what makes a rogue" list, and with better weapons, armor, and spells to boot.
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Arcane Trickster is really an extremely good Rogue - and hilariously for this thread can get Find Familiar so can get the advantages of that AND of being a Rogue. That plus just the invisible Mage Hand without even getting into other stuff is just incredible for dealing with stuff.
I am so happy none of my players have played Arcane Trickster yet.
Totally fair, but I find this hysterical because literally my first-ever properly created and played D&D character was a Specialty Priest of Mask in 2E, which amounted, in many ways, to being a way better Thief. So that tradition goes back a long, long time!
A rogue relays information to the party when scouting by returning to the party and speaking. Real time communication is available through a few spells, but one of the easiest is for the rogue to pick up message as a cantrip. It's pretty easy for arcane tricksters.
A rogue who "gets caught scouting" is likely to escape because of cunning action and good skills. It's not a huge concern compared to having 1 hp, and the familiar definitely lacks the rogue's escape options.
The comments on the size of a rogue compared to some familiars was interesting. It looked like equating hiding to scouting. A tiny familiar does have an advantage in hiding because in order to hide there needs to be a suitable place to hide. That's much more likely to occur for a familiar (tiny) than it is for a PC (not tiny). The difference is the familiar can have opportunities to take the hide action that are denied the rogue. Using stealth also gets applied when there is no place to hide (which dictates starting distance is line of sight if the check is made and then surprise applies) and that's what seems to be the allusion. Hiding uses stealth but stealth does not necessarily include hiding.
A rogue who "gets caught scouting" is likely to escape because of cunning action and good skills. It's not a huge concern compared to having 1 hp, and the familiar definitely lacks the rogue's escape options.
The comments on the size of a rogue compared to some familiars was interesting. It looked like equating hiding to scouting. A tiny familiar does have an advantage in hiding because in order to hide there needs to be a suitable place to hide. That's much more likely to occur for a familiar (tiny) than it is for a PC (not tiny). The difference is the familiar can have opportunities to take the hide action that are denied the rogue. Using stealth also gets applied when there is no place to hide (which dictates starting distance is line of sight if the check is made and then surprise applies) and that's what seems to be the allusion. Hiding uses stealth but stealth does not necessarily include hiding.
Ratskinner
Adventurer
I think the wording is unclear on whether that is possible or not. For instance "where you cast the spell"...is that where you are (and if so, what does that mean) or the location of the object/target/center of the Glyph?
But that is just one of several things that are unclear about this trick (and your workaround), AFAICT.
... its unspecified what exactly is required for Somatic components. A BoH opening is only 2ft in diameter. Does that constrain the Somatic Component?
...the interdimensional space inside a BoH is odd. Its geometry is undefined. So can objects inside even interact with each other? If not, how do lifeforms inside it breath (as specified in the description)?
...you must be holding the Material components (and the object) while casting. But if you insert an item into a BoH it goes into the interdimensional space awaiting retrieval. i.e. Is it even possible to "hold" an item in the weird space inside?
...your hands are part of you, and the description doesn't talk about the BoH like something can be sticking partway out of it. Its either in or out. So...it may not even be possible for you to stick your hands in without entering the bag entirely. Not a hindrance for casting AFAICT, but you need someone to pull you out.
But most importantly...
...what precisely differentiates an "object that can be closed" from a "surface"? Just about any object I can think of (closeable or not) has a surface. So...If I declare that I'm casting it on the surface of the book rather than the book itself, the object and movement restrictions don't apply? (The spell even gives the example of a table as a surface...to which someone on the interwebs suggested ripping the legs off and having the muscle carry it around.) If I declare that I'm scribing the glyph on the surface of this piece of paper, can I fold it into a paper airplane and use it as a missile? If so, then all the shenanigans with the BoH are pointless, because the trigger conditions are totally open: "When I have thrown this acorn and it strikes a creature." seems perfectly legit to me, so long as you specify that you are casting it on the surface of the acorn.
All in all, this is a DM call, either way, IMO. Certainly the relevant wordings allow for multiple interpretations.
Play however you see fit, I guess.
Son of the Serpent
Pupil
Glyph of warding is TYPICALLY put on things that can be opened (thats what the description says)
Description also makes it pretty clear it can be placed on any surface and that things that can be opened are just a common use.
The trigger mechanism is where the tricky stuff starts. Everything else i think is pretty basic.
I use pebbles usually for my glyphs.
A creature triggering the condition can be hilariously inept to avoid those conditions though. And the conditions can (and if you're a wizard worth your salt) and often should be complicated.
Son of the Serpent
Pupil
@Ratskinner When I have thrown this acorn and it strikes a creature.
Yes. But it does have to be a little more clear. Examples:
Any creature who spills its blood on this arrow.
Or
When a creature strikes this acorn with its face.
It has to somehow be a thing the creature definitely did. But yes. You get it.
Yes. But it does have to be a little more clear. Examples:
Any creature who spills its blood on this arrow.
Or
When a creature strikes this acorn with its face.
It has to somehow be a thing the creature definitely did. But yes. You get it.
