D&D 5E What about the rouge?

[Blackwarder]

Hi all!

Over the two first iterations of the playtest we've seen the fighter and the cleric grow and change, we also got Mike Mearls and co saying that the wizard is going to get some love in the next packet, not to mention more warlock and sorcerer pacts and origins (who's with me for arcane origin) but what about the rouge?

AFAIK, the only things MM said about the rouge is that he don't like the fact that sneak attack is the defining thing about the rouge and that it forces the rouge to a very narrow playstyle.

So does anyone knows any thing about the rouge in the next packet? I think that WotC goal is to nail down the four core classes before moving to the rest of the classes.

Here are my beefs with the current rouge, I don't like the fact that sneak attack is the only option for rouges and I don't like how sneak attack is implemented, I also don't like the current skill mastery, not because of how the mechanic works but mainly due to how the current skills works, I liked the first playtest way better.

What are your thoughts?

Warder

 

[RangerWickett]

Yeah, I think the sneaky/skill-based class pales in comparison with the smashy/casty classes. Some rouge would add a bit of color, and make it look healthier.

(Sorry for making a little joke. The class's name is spelled rogue. The way you spelled it is red make-up. Easy mistake.)

So far the person playing a rogue in my group likes it. I think, though, that it could be broadened by putting the emphasis first on skills, and then coming up with, say, 3 different fighting styles that work with different skill sets.

The "sneak and ambush" fighting style.

The "bluff and feint" fighting style.

And the "leap and tumble" fighting style.

Heck, maybe even have a 'scholar' fighting style, where you use your lore skills to find weaknesses in your enemies or come up with clever plans (granting your allies bonuses).

 

[Ahnehnois]

Understanding that English may not be your first language, I do feel the need to point out that "rouge" is a type of makeup, and a "rogue" is an unsavory character of the sort one plays in D&D; this is a common misspelling.

That said, the playtest rogue seemed mechanically unsound to me. The blanket never fail a skill check ability seems too powerful and doesn't leave the class anywhere to go. They've still got a per-day ability in there, which is never a good thing. I'm not a fan of this implementation of sneak attack-I think it's one of 3e's significant failures and yet they've ported it in without revision. And I agree that sneak attack doesn't have to be definitional to the rogue.

The schemes concept seems appropriate; rogues comprise a diverse conceptual space and need diverse mechanics, but the class abilities I've seen so far don't make me hopeful that the rogue will fulfill them.

 

[Blackwarder]

OMG.....

I blame the iPad autocorrect, that's my story and that's what I'm sticking to!

Warder

 

[slobo777]

The rogue IMO should be the go-to class for mundane abilities that mirror wizard utility spells. Where the wizard spends reliable resources (in the form of spell slots), the rogue takes risks, so should get the opportunity to outshine the results of any utility spell available at the same level, but also the chance to crash and burn.

This might require some out-of-the box thinking.

Can a rogue teleport? No, but if he could use his streetwise/contacts/bluff to arrange transport or a secret way into a building, at half the cost of casting teleport, whilst running the risk of a double-cross . . . well, that's what I'm talking about!

 

[Li Shenron]

I am currently very pleased by the Rogue design with one exception: the "ignore your low ability score" addition to Skill Mastery.

But I agree that if they introduce an alternative to Sneak Attack that the player can choose freely, this would be a good improvement.

The blanket never fail a skill check ability seems too powerful and doesn't leave the class anywhere to go.

That's untrue, the Rogue can very much fails skill checks. Where she (usually) can't fail is suffering the consequence of a hazard. That's very different...

They've still got a per-day ability in there, which is never a good thing.

Personally I hate non-magical daily abilities, but "luck" and "fatigue" are the only concepts that make them acceptable to me, and this is one such case.

 

[Minigiant]

Here is my little comments on the rogue how it is and could be represented in an edition.

I've noticed something about rogue discussion here ans other places

Whether it is on rogues getting Thieves Cant. Or a rogue's combat skill is. Or much damage Sneak Attack should do. Or how they should get sneak attack. Or how focused, reliable, or powerful their skills are.

It seem that there are different camps on what the rogue is. What DDN builds the rogue as and how important or entwined each aspect of the class is will determined both how it is seen and what the aspects other classes might need.

I see 4 main views.

The rogue is the expert. The rogue is the most focused on skills and is just better at them instead of training in combat or magic, the rogue trains in his or her preferred skills. Sneak attack is secondary, as an near equalized made to make up for combat weakness.

The rogue is a trickster. The rogue doesn't use the proper or common ways to do things and gets what he wants. He steals instead of asking, He lies instead of telling truths. He sneaks instead of waiting for permission. He climbs walls instead of using the door. He back stabs instead of front stabs.

The rogue is a crook. The rogue is a being of the underworld. They lie, cheat, steal, sneak, burgle, and disarm. Good or evil, a rogue is a thief, thug, spy, or con man of some stripe.

The rogue is a skirmisher. They are a light nimble warrior who uses his or her speed and mobility to gain their wishes. They have a few skills and talents picked up on their journey as they are natural sneaks, scouts, bullies, and thieves.


All of theses ideas don't mess. A archeologist expert rogue can't be made easily from a rogue class that assumes the rogue is a dirty crook. A trickster rogue and a heavy hitting skirmisher rogue fight different.

Either the rogue has to be heavily defined and other classes pick up the slack. Or the rogue has a bunch of alternative class features to fit a lot of styles.

 

[Li Shenron]

The rogue is a trickster. The rogue doesn't use the proper or common ways to do things and gets what he wants. He steals instead of asking, He lies instead of telling truths. He sneaks instead of waiting for permission. He climbs walls instead of using the door. He back stabs instead of front stabs.

For me this one is essential (although I have some problems distinguishing it clearly from the expert).

The other concepts are nice additions, but I would at least like the Rogue to not necessarily be a crook, and if also skirmisher would be just an option then even better.

 

[slobo777]

It seem that there are different camps on what the rogue is. What DDN builds the rogue as and how important or entwined each aspect of the class is will determined both how it is seen and what the aspects other classes might need.

I see 4 main views.

The rogue is the expert. The rogue is the most focused on skills and is just better at them instead of training in combat or magic, the rogue trains in his or her preferred skills. Sneak attack is secondary, as an near equalized made to make up for combat weakness.

The rogue is a trickster. The rogue doesn't use the proper or common ways to do things and gets what he wants. He steals instead of asking, He lies instead of telling truths. He sneaks instead of waiting for permission. He climbs walls instead of using the door. He back stabs instead of front stabs.

The rogue is a crook. The rogue is a being of the underworld. They lie, cheat, steal, sneak, burgle, and disarm. Good or evil, a rogue is a thief, thug, spy, or con man of some stripe.

The rogue is a skirmisher. They are a light nimble warrior who uses his or her speed and mobility to gain their wishes. They have a few skills and talents picked up on their journey as they are natural sneaks, scouts, bullies, and thieves.


All of theses ideas don't mess. A archeologist expert rogue can't be made easily from a rogue class that assumes the rogue is a dirty crook. A trickster rogue and a heavy hitting skirmisher rogue fight different.

Either the rogue has to be heavily defined and other classes pick up the slack. Or the rogue has a bunch of alternative class features to fit a lot of styles.

I think all these things and more have been made with earlier rogue versions (most likely in 3E, edit: but also in 4E if you accept a default "plus Skirmisher" on top of the other concepts) or variants, and enjoyed by the players. So they are only asking for the same thing again.

But I do agree as long as the same concepts can be built in D&D Next, it doesn't matter too much whether it comes under the Rogue class umbrella. It might make sense to provide another class, or a "prestige" class that delivers more directly. Or maybe some clever rogue sub-classes and Specialities will cover the ground.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think I've been here too long, because I assumed that he had deliberately misspelled Rogue to Rouge as part of the joke. Anyway, I also find the current Rogue problematic.

Sneak attack should not be the defining Rogue feature, and the implementation is clearly going to cause trouble down the line. The principle of taking an action to gain advantage and then sneak attacking in the next available action is *not* a balanced mechanic, unless you make advantage very rare. If they want to keep this action dynamic, then they need to do it without advantage.

What I'd rather see is the Rogue more frequently gaining advantage. Their attack bonus will not be as good as the Fighter, their damage will not be as immense, but they will have advantage, and thus hit more reliably. Allow them to throw a limited amount of extra damage, or conditions in every so often and that would be more 'dirty fighting' to me.

Skill Mastery is also terrible as it stands, but agreed, that's because skills are not perfected yet and they're trying a fix to what might not be a problem. Rather than taking 10, I think I'd like to see a sort of.. escalation mechanic.. when the Rogue fails a skill check they can try again immediately, but a second failure will have some terrible outcome. I see them as risk-takers, who win most of the time, but sometimes get caught out. An example might be lockpicking - a non-Rogue who tries and fails can't open the chest, a Rogue who tries and fails tries immediately again, and if they fail this time then the lock is properly jammed (wah wah wah).