D&D 5E What is the "Generic" Rogue?

[Mephista]

Personally, I see the thief as the iconic rogue. I would accept the thief as the generic rogue if it were not so tied to certain aspects of thievery and the D&D tropes of thieves. Not using the subclass features is not an option as those features are tied to the class' power. It is like telling the guy who wants to be an artificer to play a wizard and not cast offensive spells. Offensive spellcasting is part of the wizard's power.

Generic rogues ARE tied up in aspects of thievery. That's why you are offered things like Stealth, Thief Tools, Slight of Hand, and Deception. Expertise is designed to make you really good at those skills. Thieves’ Cant is for communicating in code with others in a "thief guild" situation. Cunning Action is for moving quickly and getting out of sight. The Thief subclass just makes you better at those basic stuff.

EDIT - even the other subclasses are tied up in thievery. Assassin - you've got disguises to sneak in and kill someone, and you'll need to use your Sleight of Hand and lock picking to plant the poison, or get them somewhere alone, etc. Arcane Trickster uses the mage hand for telekinetic legerdemain. Swashbuckler is the only exception, given its focus on fighting over doing anything else.

Traditional. Smaditional.
Rogues who blow stuff up, chuck bombs, coat their weapons with special oils and toxins, and guzzle their own special brews are all over fantasy in modern media.

*raises eyebrow* Name them. Poison is a rogue thing, yes. So are things like choking powder, caltrops, and trip wires. But the rest? Not really. World of Warcraft doesn't count, as Engineer and other alchemist stuff is divorced from class. A "generic rogue" uses poison, traps, stealth, acrobatic tricks, speed, and dirty fighting - of late, shadowstepping is also growing popular addition, but that's been relegated to the Shadow Monk and Arcane Trickster. Smoke bombs are a thing (thief cunning hand), but blowing things up and potion guzzling isn't really a rogue thing.

There's D&D gnomes and kobalds (which in other mediums occasionally merge halflings and goblins) who are big on that stuff, but their entire cultures are invested in the alchemy, including non-rogue types.

I don't actual want a generic rogue.

I'm just asking if one needs to be made to fill in the many missing popular holes in the rogue subclasses that feats and subclasses don't fill. Especially if prior editions did them.

No roguish archetype features, feats, multiclass options, or variants for tumbling, balancing, escape artistry, potion brewing, oil mixing, minor alchemy, poison concentration, bomb making, sly flourishes, tightrope walking, pole vaulting, appraisal, trap making, script deciphering, rope use, information gathering, local knowledge, or reading of faces

Irregardless, just asking what you thought it lacked. Which you seem to have listed! So, lets look, shall we?

You want tumbling and balancing? Reliable Talent, Second Story Work, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, and Evasion. Trap making? Get a kit proficency. Escape artistry, rightrope walking, pole vaulting? That's acrobatics skill, which rogues get and can take Expertise in. Poison concentration is due to a poison kit proficency (add your proficency bonus to poisons you make). Sly flourish is sneak attack in a nutshell. Script deciphering is in a feat. Reading of faces is Insight or Deception checks (skills rogue has).

That leaves your alchemy stuff (which is NOT part of a generic rogue), rope use (no rules in 5e for it), and local knowledge checks (again, no rules anywhere). Everything else is already there. The "holes" aren't really there.

 

[neobolts]

I think the universal parts of rogue are being nimble, streetwise, and capable with a blade in close-quarters. The core of the 5e rogue covers all of that before the archetype even comes into play. They are quick on their feet (cunning action). They are unusually skillful (expertise) and are given a number of Dex and Cha based skill prof options. They get sneak attack and "finesse" dex-based fighting is built into the weapons now.

 

[Mephista]

All in all, I can't think of anything that's not quite being covered by the current line up of Rogue plus its four subclasses. We could use some more random items for the rogue to use or set up in a hurry.

 

[Minigiant]

Generic rogues ARE tied up in aspects of thievery. That's why you are offered things like Stealth, Thief Tools, Slight of Hand, and Deception. Expertise is designed to make you really good at those skills. Thieves’ Cant is for communicating in code with others in a "thief guild" situation. Cunning Action is for moving quickly and getting out of sight. The Thief subclass just makes you better at those basic stuff.

EDIT - even the other subclasses are tied up in thievery. Assassin - you've got disguises to sneak in and kill someone, and you'll need to use your Sleight of Hand and lock picking to plant the poison, or get them somewhere alone, etc. Arcane Trickster uses the mage hand for telekinetic legerdemain. Swashbuckler is the only exception, given its focus on fighting over doing anything else.

*raises eyebrow* Name them. Poison is a rogue thing, yes. So are things like choking powder, caltrops, and trip wires. But the rest? Not really. World of Warcraft doesn't count, as Engineer and other alchemist stuff is divorced from class. A "generic rogue" uses poison, traps, stealth, acrobatic tricks, speed, and dirty fighting - of late, shadowstepping is also growing popular addition, but that's been relegated to the Shadow Monk and Arcane Trickster. Smoke bombs are a thing (thief cunning hand), but blowing things up and potion guzzling isn't really a rogue thing.

There's D&D gnomes and kobalds (which in other mediums occasionally merge halflings and goblins) who are big on that stuff, but their entire cultures are invested in the alchemy, including non-rogue types.

Never said the rogue isn't tied to thievery. I said it's too tied to it.

Well WOW Rogues aren't alchemist someone should tell Hearthstone that their rogues who do Deadly Poison + Tinker's Sharpsword Oil + Sap the taunt + Hit the face + Blade Flurry are doing it wrong.

Then there's Dragon Age's Rogue-Artificers, FF's Chemists, Diablo Demon hunters, Might and Magic Tower Might heros, and many other sneaky guys in light or no armor who chuck bombs, use oils, and use minor gadgets.

Its even worse in Modern Urban Fantasy where half the rogues are expected to sneak in the physical or electronic bomb or be the nonmagical tech guy.

Irregardless, just asking what you thought it lacked. Which you seem to have listed! So, lets look, shall we?

You want tumbling and balancing? Reliable Talent, Second Story Work, Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, and Evasion. Trap making? Get a kit proficency. Escape artistry, rightrope walking, pole vaulting? That's acrobatics skill, which rogues get and can take Expertise in. Poison concentration is due to a poison kit proficency (add your proficency bonus to poisons you make). Sly flourish is sneak attack in a nutshell. Script deciphering is in a feat. Reading of faces is Insight or Deception checks (skills rogue has).

That leaves your alchemy stuff (which is NOT part of a generic rogue), rope use (no rules in 5e for it), and local knowledge checks (again, no rules anywhere). Everything else is already there. The "holes" aren't really there.

Second Story Work is Athletics not Acrobatics. So why does Athletics get a subclass feature and not Acrobatics? Both are rogue "class skills".

Same with Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Perception, Performance, and Persuasion.

Why do thieves tools and disguise kits get subclass features and not herbalism kit, or artisans tools?

You have:
The Thief: Athletics, Sleight of Hand, Thieves tools
The Assassin: Deception, Disguise, kit, posioner's kit.
The Arcane Trickster: Illusions and Enchantment magic
The Swashbuckler: dual wielding, Persuassion

Why not:
The Acrobat: Acrobatics, Performance, poles and ropes.
The Treasure Hunter/Scholar: Languages, History, gaming set, navigator's kit
The Scout: Perception, Herbalism Kit, Investigation
The Ruffian: Intimidation, Gather Information, nonfinesse weapons

 

[Mephista]

Never said the rogue isn't tied to thievery. I said it's too tied to it.

You've just been complaining about it being there at all!

Well WOW Rogues aren't alchemist someone should tell Hearthstone that their rogues who do Deadly Poison + Tinker's Sharpsword Oil + Sap the taunt + Hit the face + Blade Flurry are doing it wrong.

Deadly poison. Its even in the name. Sharpsword Oil works just like more poison that any class can take; coat a weapon in it, it hurts more. The rest have nothing to do with alchemy, they're tactics on the battlefield. Plus? Card game. People will play warlocks with all mechs and no demons or warlock spells. Not the best example.

Then there's Dragon Age's Rogue-Artificers, FF's Chemists, Diablo Demon hunters, Might and Magic Tower Might heros, and many other sneaky guys in light or no armor who chuck bombs, use oils, and use minor gadgets.

*rubs eyes* DA's Rogue-Artificers aren't alchemists or deal with throwing bombs, they're trap specialists, which is a Rogue thing. Chemists aren't rogues. Demon hunters are Ranger archetypes that exist in a setting with gunpowder, but if you want to stretch it, I'll give you this one, though I protest your definion of "rogue" as anyone that's sneaky with light or no armor; they even have the bow-focus rangers are known for. Tower Might heroes are called artificers, make golems, and wear armor made of rare alloys they create.

Demon hunters are your one debatable example, which lack any number of rogue qualities beyond "light armor and mobile." The rest are either artificers as D&D defines it, or a trap master, which we already said was a rogue thing, but doesn't involve throwing explosives like you said. Its plain you're reaching here. It doesn't fit.

Its even worse in Modern Urban Fantasy where half the rogues are expected to sneak in the physical or electronic bomb or be the nonmagical tech guy.

Modern Fantasy has no such expectations. Rogue isn't even an archetype for the modern fantasy genre!

Second Story Work is Athletics not Acrobatics. So why does Athletics get a subclass feature and not Acrobatics? Both are rogue "class skills".

Same with Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Perception, Performance, and Persuasion.

Why do thieves tools and disguise kits get subclass features and not herbalism kit, or artisans tools?

You said tumbling and balancing, not athletics/acrobatics. Climbing and jumping are things an acrobat should know how to do, but not necessarily other things covered under Athletics. As for other Acrobatic stuff, I liked a host of other abilities that tied in, you don't need more.

Why not other skills? Because there's not much need for them; you can get Expertise and Reliable Talent on them, whereas jumping and climbing need a bit of help due to low Strength scores on a rogue.

Why those kits? Because they're iconic, the others are unrelated to rogues in general. It makes no sense to ask for them.

Why not:
The Acrobat: Acrobatics, Performance, poles and ropes.
The Treasure Hunter/Scholar: Languages, History, gaming set, navigator's kit
The Scout: Perception, Herbalism Kit, Investigation
The Ruffian: Intimidation, Gather Information, nonfinesse weapons

That acrobat is an Entertainer background. Scholar is the Sage background. Scouts are part of the Ranger class. Ruffian can be a Strength-based rogue subclass that comes in the future for being intidiating and non-finesse weapons, but, again, there is no Gather Information rules in 5e. You're really focused on things that have no rules at all - its a blank spot in the game. Bards can't even gather information.


I have to conclude that your'e mixing up classes now and stepping on others toes. You're describing alchemist and rangers in a lot of cases, as if they should all fit under Rogue. They don't.

 

[Greg K]

Scouts are part of the Ranger class.

That is just one way to handle it, but not the only one. A rogue subclass would be another as there was a 2e Scout kit for the thief while 3e Unearthed Arcana had the Wilderness Rogue variant (which could be used alone or combined with the Martial Rogue variant in the same book) and could make a decent scout

Ruffian can be a Strength-based rogue subclass that comes in the future for being intidiating and non-finesse weapons,.

It could also be a fighter with the Criminal background

I have to conclude that your'e mixing up classes now and stepping on others toes. You're describing alchemist and rangers in a lot of cases, as if they should all fit under Rogue. They don't.

And you are acting as if there is only one way to do a concept. There are multiple ways. An acrobat could be an entertainer, but there is no reason that the rogue can't have Acrobat, Treasure Hunter/Scholar, and Scout subclasses as well.

 

[Minigiant]

You've just been complaining about it being there at all!

I have no problem with all rogues getting thieves tools. I have problem with the "generic rogue" having a class feature devoted to it without the option of using other tools or checks.

Deadly poison. Its even in the name. Sharpsword Oil works just like more poison that any class can take; coat a weapon in it, it hurts more. The rest have nothing to do with alchemy, they're tactics on the battlefield. Plus? Card game. People will play warlocks with all mechs and no demons or warlock spells. Not the best example.


*rubs eyes* DA's Rogue-Artificers aren't alchemists or deal with throwing bombs, they're trap specialists, which is a Rogue thing. Chemists aren't rogues. Demon hunters are Ranger archetypes that exist in a setting with gunpowder, but if you want to stretch it, I'll give you this one, though I protest your definion of "rogue" as anyone that's sneaky with light or no armor; they even have the bow-focus rangers are known for. Tower Might heroes are called artificers, make golems, and wear armor made of rare alloys they create.

Demon hunters are your one debatable example, which lack any number of rogue qualities beyond "light armor and mobile." The rest are either artificers as D&D defines it, or a trap master, which we already said was a rogue thing, but doesn't involve throwing explosives like you said. Its plain you're reaching here. It doesn't fit.

Oils and bombs fit the rogue's flavor best however. A rogue would focus on it.

Fighters know how to fight. They re trained to attack others and defend themselves against the attacks of other.

Rogues aren't trained to fight. So rogues hide, use sneak attacks, and cheat.

That's why they use poisons. Since they don't know how to hit hard and often as well as a fighter, they learn how to make the few times they hit count and make sure the target can't attack back well.
The same go for traps, smoke bombs, flash bombs, caltrops, ball bearing, buff potions, weapon oils, and magic tricks.

I always get DA's artificers and tempests mixed up. The names are weird.

Personally I like the image of an intelligent rogue going back to his hideout after an afternoon shopping at the shadiest areas of town to mix and replace all the bombs, oils, poisons, and stones he used on the last adventure.

You said tumbling and balancing, not athletics/acrobatics. Climbing and jumping are things an acrobat should know how to do, but not necessarily other things covered under Athletics. As for other Acrobatic stuff, I liked a host of other abilities that tied in, you don't need more.

Yes, Climbing and jumping is not tumbling and balancing. There's not standing up as a bonus action or reaction like acrobats of D&D of the past could. No acrobatics charges over difficult terrain. No tumbling to trip up an ogre with Dexterity. No tumbling down the side of a building to chase the monk that jumps off it. No dashing on clotheslines or diving through a hole without losing one's stride.

Why not other skills? Because there's not much need for them; you can get Expertise and Reliable Talent on them, whereas jumping and climbing need a bit of help due to low Strength scores on a rogue.

Why those kits? Because they're iconic, the others are unrelated to rogues in general. It makes no sense to ask for them.

That acrobat is an Entertainer background. Scholar is the Sage background. Scouts are part of the Ranger class. Ruffian can be a Strength-based rogue subclass that comes in the future for being intidiating and non-finesse weapons, but, again, there is no Gather Information rules in 5e. You're really focused on things that have no rules at all - its a blank spot in the game. Bards can't even gather information.

I have to conclude that your'e mixing up classes now and stepping on others toes. You're describing alchemist and rangers in a lot of cases, as if they should all fit under Rogue. They don't.

The acrobat was an iconic class or option for the rogue.
Scholarly rogues are popular in fantasy settings with gadgetry, alchemy, and science.
And not all scouts are rangers. There is a noticeable call for a nonmagical scouts.

There are many things missing in the game and many of them were aspects or attributed to rogues, rogue subclasses, and mutlticlass rogues.

If rogues is the skill class with bard a bit behind, every missing skill subsystem is possibly a missing aspect of the rogue or the bard. And with the bard being a full caster now, you can't really add anything to it anymore. So it's all rogues or a new class must be made.

 

[Mephista]

And you are acting as if there is only one way to do a concept.

No, you're just quoting me out of context. We're talking about Rogue subclasses and core concepts of the class. So what if you can make a Fighter with Criminal background? Nothing to do with the Rogue or the conversation in the slightest.

I have no problem with all rogues getting thieves tools. I have problem with the "generic rogue" having a class feature devoted to it without the option of using other tools or checks.

They do have other options. You can use Cunning Action for a ton of stuff, and Expertise is a choice of several things!

Yes, Climbing and jumping is not tumbling and balancing. There's not standing up as a bonus action or reaction like acrobats of D&D of the past could. No acrobatics charges over difficult terrain. No tumbling to trip up an ogre with Dexterity. No tumbling down the side of a building to chase the monk that jumps off it. No dashing on clotheslines or diving through a hole without losing one's stride.

Standing up is part of a move action - Cunning Action covers more than that. Tripping is now (annoyingly) only the domain of Battlemaster Maneuvers and the Shove tactic, so that could work as something new. However, tumbling down the side of a building, dashing on a clothes line, and diving into a hole? There's nothing stopping you from doing all that. Just because there aren't exact rules for it doesn't mean its not possible. You're imagining roadblocks where there are none in a lot of cases.

If rogues is the skill class with bard a bit behind, every missing skill subsystem is possibly a missing aspect of the rogue or the bard. And with the bard being a full caster now, you can't really add anything to it anymore. So it's all rogues or a new class must be made.

This is just wrong. The Rogue isn't defined as "random skill monkey." There's an absolute feel to the class where a number of things simply don't make sense to it. You're making the class out to be something its not. That's possibly why you keep trying to associate Ranger and Artificer things with the class.

 

[Minigiant]

They do have other options. You can use Cunning Action for a ton of stuff, and Expertise is a choice of several things!

But it isn't everything. Not that one should expect everything. But for an edition made to replicate the past, it should replicate most of the past abilities.

Standing up is part of a move action - Cunning Action covers more than that. Tripping is now (annoyingly) only the domain of Battlemaster Maneuvers and the Shove tactic, so that could work as something new. However, tumbling down the side of a building, dashing on a clothes line, and diving into a hole? There's nothing stopping you from doing all that. Just because there aren't exact rules for it doesn't mean its not possible. You're imagining roadblocks where there are none in a lot of cases.

You're mixing up having something being allowed and a character being specially trained to do it.

Anyone can use Charisma and skilled at the Deception skill to fake an identity but the assassin can do it automatically with time and gold and can be an impostor in 3 hours of time without a check for casual observation

Anyone can be good at climbing but a thief can do so at full speed.

Anyone can be good at balancing but acrobats of past editions could balance at full speed and ignore difficult terrain. (This is why my party's rogue need reviving)

Anyone can bluff their motives for spies and spymasters of past editions could hide their motives and identities form divination and telepathy just with their thoughts.

This is just wrong. The Rogue isn't defined as "random skill monkey." There's an absolute feel to the class where a number of things simply don't make sense to it. You're making the class out to be something its not. That's possibly why you keep trying to associate Ranger and Artificer things with the class.

I didn't say that. I worded myself carefully. I said "every missing skill subsystem is possibly a missing aspect of the rogue". The rogue was tied to the most skills so any system or aspect of skills hit them with a higher probability than a fighter or wizard. Rogue were the "Underworld skill monkey" so every missing or undeveloped underworld skill is a missing rogue aspect.

Rogues are still shady folk who usually belong to thieves guild, spy rings, assassin's guilds, band groups, criminal gangs, entertainer troupes, scout corps, and other shady organizations.

There's more to rogues than backstabbing and burglary. And some ways rogues used their skill in better ways than other classes are missing.