Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6686421" data-attributes="member: 92511">I understand what you mean that it isn't &quot;generic&quot;...but you are equating &quot;Thief&quot; to &quot;Fighter&quot;...instead of &quot;Rogue&quot; to &quot;Fighter&quot; and &quot;Thief&quot; to &quot;Champion&quot;...which is what 5e does.Right. A Fighter isn't necessarily a knight or military commander [Battlemaster] or, necessarily, a &quot;hard hitter&quot; [Champion] but those are the subclasses we've started with. A Fighter gets its base elements of WHAT a fighter does, and then the subclass adds and expands on the HOW they do that. The concept of &quot;Fighter&quot; (not &quot;Champion&quot;) is generic.Rogue isn't necessarily a thief or an assassin...but those are the archetypes we started with.&nbsp; The ROGUE gets its base elements of WHAT a rogue does, and then the subclass (thief or assassin) adds and expands on the HOW they do that. The concept of &quot;Rogue&quot; (not Thief) is generic.The Rogue, at its root, is getting Expertise, Sneak Attack, and Cunning Action (and thieves' cant, but we'll just stipulate to that...as a rogue of any stripe you know how to chat with folks that might be otherwise...shall we say, &quot;disreputable.&quot;). From that Rogue you can go in whatever direction you want subclass-wise.Yes, the Champion, arguably, is more &quot;generic&quot; as the &quot;default&quot; Fighter class. But, as I said, the Thief allows for a wide variety of broad characters, whether the character sheet says &quot;Thief&quot; on it or not, and thus suitably (to me) &quot;generic&quot; as the &quot;default&quot; Rogue class.These are all very specific archetypes, and (I would add) largely dependent on nothing more than RP. Your issue seems to come from the attitude/perspective that each/every one of these ideas is deserving of its own personalized mechanics...and that, in 5e's design structure/philosophy, just isn't so. Yet you are arguing that there should be a generic enough rogue class in which cover all of these options...it is...confusing.There is no reason I can't play an Indiana Jones type character with the thief subclass. There's no reason I cannot play a James Bond with the Assassin. There is no reason I can't do a &quot;demo expert&quot; or &quot;smuggler&quot; (or scout either) as either one. A lookout? A getaway driver? Really? You need new/different subclass that's not a thief to play a lookout or getaway driver?I am all for (and am working on, myself) a variety of new Rogue subclasses...but they are not really dependent on that level of granular story/specialty. They need to be generic enough and have enough story assumption without setting specificity to warrant their creation as a subclass...for me.But a &quot;generic&quot; in the sense of &quot;covers any possible rogue type [you've] described here&quot; does not seem possible. You are looking for a class/subclass that allows all of these things...but that have specialized/individual skills...that...isn't possible[1]. I'm not sure what else to tell you.[1]It isn't possible without being so generic as to be meaningless. Such as, &quot;Explorer: now just hand-pick X individual skills from this list over here.&quot; By the design framework and apparent goal of 5e, that just isn't going to fly/jive for many players.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6686421, member: 92511"] I understand what you mean that it isn't "generic"...but you are equating "Thief" to "Fighter"...instead of "Rogue" to "Fighter" and "Thief" to "Champion"...which is what 5e does. Right. A Fighter isn't necessarily a knight or military commander [Battlemaster] or, necessarily, a "hard hitter" [Champion] but those are the subclasses we've started with. A Fighter gets its base elements of WHAT a fighter does, and then the subclass adds and expands on the HOW they do that. The concept of "Fighter" (not "Champion") is generic. Rogue isn't necessarily a thief or an assassin...but those are the archetypes we started with. The ROGUE gets its base elements of WHAT a rogue does, and then the subclass (thief or assassin) adds and expands on the HOW they do that. The concept of "Rogue" (not Thief) is generic. The Rogue, at its root, is getting Expertise, Sneak Attack, and Cunning Action (and thieves' cant, but we'll just stipulate to that...as a rogue of any stripe you know how to chat with folks that might be otherwise...shall we say, "disreputable."). From that Rogue you can go in whatever direction you want subclass-wise. Yes, the Champion, arguably, is more "generic" as the "default" Fighter class. But, as I said, the Thief allows for a wide variety of broad characters, whether the character sheet says "Thief" on it or not, and thus suitably (to me) "generic" as the "default" Rogue class. These are all very specific archetypes, and (I would add) largely dependent on nothing more than RP. Your issue seems to come from the attitude/perspective that each/every one of these ideas is deserving of its own personalized mechanics...and that, in 5e's design structure/philosophy, just isn't so. Yet you are arguing that there should be a generic enough rogue class in which cover all of these options...it is...confusing. There is no reason I can't play an Indiana Jones type character with the thief subclass. There's no reason I cannot play a James Bond with the Assassin. There is no reason I can't do a "demo expert" or "smuggler" (or scout either) as either one. A lookout? A getaway driver? Really? You need new/different subclass that's not a thief to play a lookout or getaway driver? I am all for (and am working on, myself) a variety of new Rogue subclasses...but they are not really dependent on that level of granular story/specialty. They need to be generic enough and have enough story assumption without setting specificity to warrant their creation as a subclass...for me. But a "generic" in the sense of "covers any possible rogue type [you've] described here" does not seem possible. You are looking for a class/subclass that allows all of these things...but that have specialized/individual skills...that...isn't possible[1]. I'm not sure what else to tell you. [1]It isn't possible without being so generic as to be meaningless. Such as, "Explorer: now just hand-pick X individual skills from this list over here." By the design framework and apparent goal of 5e, that just isn't going to fly/jive for many players. [/QUOTE]

Verification