log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Why are Rogue features untouchable for other classes?

ScuroNotte

Explorer
Especially with Tasha out, we see features from other classes available as feats. However, it seems that rogues abilities are untouchable. Why can't there be a feat of just expertise of 2 proficient skills, Cunning action, or evasion. There is a variant of Evasion as part of the shield master feat, but why not just offer evasion as a feat. For the ranger I was hoping for 2 skill for expertise. WoTC thought it was crucial to have expertise in Survival and nature that they gave the Rogue Scout proficiency in those skills and then expertise. For the Ranger, they just offered 1 skill for expertise.
I find it remarkable when a homebrew is created with a rogue feature people come out complaining about that is the rogue's feature. Or if you have to give it, only with limitations. However, there was no or minimal complaint with the creation of the Rogue scout, who far surpasses the Ranger in outdoor survival and tracking.

Additionally, never saw the rogue lack for damage so was surprised they were given a damage boost through Steady Aim. Now a ranged Rogue can take Archery, to go along with sharpshooter and Steady Aim. With advantage, they have a higher chance of a Crit. with the ranged rogue having less risk of being exposed to a attacks than a melee rogue.

Sorry, just had to vent.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

They won't hand out Cunning Action as a feat for the same reason they won't hand out Action Surge, Arcane Recovery, or Divine Smite as a feat. Those are all class-defining Lv. 2 features, which are too much to be handing out wholesale as feats.

I agree about Canny, though, that one really should've given the Ranger 2 expertised skills.
 

Balance. And a way to give classes distinction.
If you made everything attainable, you would have a classless game. That's cool and all, but that is not the pillar D&D was built on.
 

ScuroNotte

Explorer
Balance. And a way to give classes distinction.
If you made everything attainable, you would have a classless game. That's cool and all, but that is not the pillar D&D was built on.
But that is what is happening now with features from other classes being offered as feats.
Additionally there are some features that make sense for other classes or subclasses.
 

But that is what is happening now with features from other classes being offered as feats.
Additionally there are some features that make sense for other classes or subclasses.
True. I can't explain their rationale. But, I assume if they were asked, they would state the two reasons I did: balance and distinction.

I am not against your idea. I just think D&D is a class building game. To do that, you need to make the classes distinctive.
 

cbwjm

Hero
I guess they could make a feat that grants 2 uses of expertise, but I think they've gone a more interesting way in that Skill Expert grants you a boost to an ability score, a new proficiency, and then expertise in a skill. Before that there was Prodigy (limited to 3 races though I opened it up for every race) which granted a skill, language, and tool proficiency as well as expertise in a skill, so it isn't like expertise is off the table for others. Considering that other classes get it (primarily bard but also select subclasses) I don't really see expertise as a uniquely rogue ability, more a skilled ability which can apply to multiple classes/subclasses.

Maybe the ranger's optional Deft Explorer ability could have granted a second expertise skill, or even another expertise at levels 6 and 10, but the ability itself I think is pretty solid and provides additional abilities as the ranger levels. I think just being able to put expertise in Survival at level 1 would solve a lot of the issues people have with the ranger.

For rogue class feats, I think a more likely class feature to grant is sneak attack. Just an extra 1d6 once per turn, which could be taken by the rogue (and most probably would be just like the metamagic feat is most likely going to be taken by sorcerers). Though I could see some other features used as feats such as uncanny dodge, evasion, or reliable talent. You'd probably have to add minimum levels to them though, not sure other feats do that.

I disagree that this would lead to a classless game, I see it more as a different method of multiclassing allowing a player to pick up a little bit of another class without having to give up class levels.
 

I disagree that this would lead to a classless game, I see it more as a different method of multiclassing allowing a player to pick up a little bit of another class without having to give up class levels.
But does it improve the multiclassing rules that are already in place? I guess that is the question we'll wait and see answered.
 

ScuroNotte

Explorer
But does it improve the multiclassing rules that are already in place? I guess that is the question we'll wait and see answered.
I think it can to a certain extent depending on what the player wants. As it currently stands, the barbarian can GWF without a dip in fighter. Or if a player wants Devils Sight due what they envision n the character, they don't need to 2 level dip warlock.
 

BacchusNL

Explorer
Expertise could be much more widely available, especially for things like "the history expert" in the group or so.

Parts of Cunning Action are already available to goblins and I think i've seen it pop up in other places aswell. A monk's step of the wind/ patient defense definatly fills the same role. I like this kind of "limited distribution"-design to specific races or subclasses, compared to a trained proffesional who gets the whole shabang.

Evasion is pretty generic which is why you see it on shield master, danger sense and probably a few other abilities i'm forgetting aswell. Bracing for, or dodging the impact of, a fireball is not a very unique maneuver and can be done in several ways, which makes sense I'd say.

Uncanny Dodge would be an example of something I'd try to keep wholly unique to the Rogue.
 
Last edited:

cbwjm

Hero
But does it improve the multiclassing rules that are already in place? I guess that is the question we'll wait and see answered.
I don't think it needs to improve the current multiclassing rules, just provide a different option for the players. If they want to make a fighter/rogue they can currently multiclass but if they want to remain a fighter then a feat that grants some minor ability of the rogue lets them to add in a little rogue flavour. Another way would of course be a suitable subclass that brings in that flavour, like how the eldritch knight brings in some magical ability for a fighter/wizard.
 

ScuroNotte

Explorer
Uncanny Dodge would be something I'd try to keep wholly unique to the rogue.
You can offer a variance of it as for the Monk's Step of the Wind. Can offer a choice of 2 of the 3. I can see the Ranger having both Hide and Dash. "Dashing" through the woods in hot pursuit of their prey.
 

BacchusNL

Explorer
You can offer a variance of it as for the Monk's Step of the Wind. Can offer a choice of 2 of the 3. I can see the Ranger having both Hide and Dash. "Dashing" through the woods in hot pursuit of their prey.
I think you are confusing Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge? Like I said, I can easily see how bonus action hide or dash can be given to some classes or races that fit the flavour. A unique reaction like Uncanny dodge; not so much.
 

ScuroNotte

Explorer
I think you are confusing Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge? Like I said, I can easily see how bonus action hide or dash can be given to some classes or races that fit the flavour. A unique reaction like Uncanny dodge; not so much.
I did confuse the 2. Sorry

Though Uncanny Dodge is offered to Hunter Ranger at 15th level as an option
 

MoonSong

Rules-lawyering drama queen but not a munchkin
Especially with Tasha out, we see features from other classes available as feats. However, it seems that rogues abilities are untouchable. Why can't there be a feat of just expertise of 2 proficient skills, Cunning action, or evasion. There is a variant of Evasion as part of the shield master feat, but why not just offer evasion as a feat. For the ranger I was hoping for 2 skill for expertise. WoTC thought it was crucial to have expertise in Survival and nature that they gave the Rogue Scout proficiency in those skills and then expertise. For the Ranger, they just offered 1 skill for expertise.
I find it remarkable when a homebrew is created with a rogue feature people come out complaining about that is the rogue's feature. Or if you have to give it, only with limitations. However, there was no or minimal complaint with the creation of the Rogue scout, who far surpasses the Ranger in outdoor survival and tracking.

Additionally, never saw the rogue lack for damage so was surprised they were given a damage boost through Steady Aim. Now a ranged Rogue can take Archery, to go along with sharpshooter and Steady Aim. With advantage, they have a higher chance of a Crit. with the ranged rogue having less risk of being exposed to a attacks than a melee rogue.

Sorry, just had to vent.
I don't have the book yet, so I don't know which material got it and which material didn't. But if you want expertise somehow, there's the prodigy feat?
 


ScuroNotte

Explorer
I don't have the book yet, so I don't know which material got it and which material didn't. But if you want expertise somehow, there's the prodigy feat?
Xanathar's Guide has prodigy. But my point was why not straight expertise? For Fighting Initiate, it doesn't offer 1 style and your stuck with that style. Its the full feature of martial characters in that it allows you to change it later on.
 



6ENow!

The Game Is Over
Reasons such as offering class-defining features as feats is just one of the many reasons why I don't like TCoE. :mad:

As for Expertise being a feat--it already is in a fashion with Prodigy. ;)

Other subclasses often get the ability to add double your proficiency bonus, such as the Knowledge Domain for clerics and such.
 

I don't buy this. Multiclassing exists. If it were actually a balance problem then everyone would dip rogue 2 like people dip warlock 2. There's clearly a cost that's too high for the feature to be worthwhile. It's just a matter of finding it.
I humbly disagree. This is what I think they would say. So I can be way off. But it can be balance because multiclassing has a cost. If you lower the cost (i.e. widen the restrictions) then you do have a greater chance of losing balance. I also said I think the reason is class distinction, which might be even more important. Just my two cents.
 

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top