Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6686393" data-attributes="member: 92511">Well, in a way, you answer you own query...the default/generic "rogue" is the Thief. That's that it was created as and has had a place as even since 3e changed the class name...to the significantly more broad term of "rogue"...creating this issue in the first place since,  now, the class has this "what is it supposed to be" problem...where B/X, BECM, 1e "Thief" or 2e "Rogue" as category and thief as default, there really was no question what your archetype was. 3e+ changing the CLASS name has created this issue. Whether this was right/wrong/good/bad is a matter of different debate, since it's happened...how to deal with it.Here's how I look at "Rogues"...1. They are the "skill" class. 2. Primary, if not defining, skills must be/are a) Stealth and b) Sleight of Hand (applicable to many different things from picking pockets/palming objections, running scams/cheating at gambling, juggling, etc...etc...) "Sneak Attack (nee Backstab)" is not/should not be one of the rogue's defining/overarching features. 3. What skills apply beyond that are what shape the given rogue archetype.Throw in lock-picking, trap finding/disabling, pickpocketing/sleight of hand...you get a burglar/thief...[I do, as an aside, want to take this moment for an aside to note, since the terms tends to get thrown around as synonymous...the point of the "burglar" is to get in, bypass traps/guardians, get the treasure/target/item, and get out...WITHOUT BEING NOTICED! You are not trying to fight guards/kill anything. You are not trying to take anything/everything you can. No one should know you were THERE or anything is missing until you are, preferably, long gone.Also, IMO the inclusion of "Backstab" as a core element of the Thief class was a mistake. Flavorful yes. Immediately recognizable and, likely, the cause of many a game's player v. player/PC stealing from PC shenanigans..."What's a thief?" Someone who will, quite literally and figuratively, backstab you. I understand it was probably from the wargaming roots...the character class needed something it could do that other classes couldn't to cause damage in combat different from Fighters/Warrior types....but it's continued inclusion and subsequent prominence has done nothing to HELP the thief/rogue class's definition...again, imo. /Aside]Throw in lock-picking, disguise, maybe some deciphering/language skills, sneak attack/backstab...there's your assassin (which I will always contend was another mistake of 1e...as much as I understand why it was...and naming the subclass "Spy" would have been much better.)Throw in tumbling/agility, reflexes/balance stuff...you get an acrobat. Throw in a little [illusion] magic...your arcane trickster. Throw in some nature/survival, some tracking...you have yourself a little scout/thiefy-ranger action.Throw in some acrobatics and nautical stuff...you get a swashbuckler.etc...etc...etc...ad infinitum.This could be extended by subclass/archetype design (and has been in various editions and OSR/retroclone games) to include monks, bards...perhaps even rangers as a whole.Stealth + Sleight of Hand + whatever other skills/features = Rogue character type. If an archetype doesn't need stealth or have something they can do with sleight of hand...doesn't matter what other skills they possess, they don't need to be a Rogue class. So, as for 5e's design and structure, it seems clear the solution is to create multiple more subclass archetypes that cover major roguish character types that can not, currently, be. So...what is the default/generic rogue? The thief. I can be the street urchin pickpocket, the cat burglar, the smuggler, the fence, the scam artist, the cardshark/"hustler", the black market supplier, the archeologist or just plain greedy treasure hunter who researches/knows where to find the artifacts, I can be the knife-fighter or carnival knife-thrower/juggler, the highwayman/bandit, the scoundrel, the street thug or organized crime enforcer,...the organized crime BOSS/guildmaster, for that matter.For me, the term "Thief" is suitably generic (and has far too much tradition/legacy behind it) to be replaced by something else just because someone wants to play "Indiana Jones", thinks they should be a "rogue", but can not wrap their head around taking the thief class features without filing off the name/"thief" just being something on the character sheet. Things like "Rake", "Cad", "Scoundrel" all have, I think, a more limited feel/meaning than rogue or thief. Yeah, the term "rogue" is more generic than thief...but following 5e's naming conventions, you can't have a Rogue class with a Rogue subclass. Would the class "Thief" with the subclass "Rogue" be better? I don't think so. I think the titles need to stay as they are...the Thief as the default/generic "Rogue" and other archetypes that are different enough [and it is, of course, a fuzzy ever-shifting line from person to person as to what "different enough" is] can simply be developed and added....Soooo...that answer some of what you asked? hahaha. Anywho, those're my thoughts on rogue classes/archetypes, in general and for 5e.</blockquote>

Verification