D&D 5E Xanathar's Guide to Everything: Rogue Scout

[Warmaster Horus]

I'm down with it. If I want a fighter I'll do what I do now and MC.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

And it is now impossible to create a non-magical ranger that does not have intimate knowledge of thievery and the criminal underground (Thieves' Cant). Sigh.

 

[Li Shenron]

It's a small thing but IIRC we tried to point out in the playtest feedback that it would have been better to put Thieves' Cant under the Thief subclass.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

It's a small thing but IIRC we tried to point out in the playtest feedback that it would have been better to put Thieves' Cant under the Thief subclass.

Yeah. But they didn't, which is why they should have left the scout as a fighter subclass, and not an option for the rogue.

 

[Li Shenron]

Yeah. But they didn't, which is why they should have left the scout as a fighter subclass, and not an option for the rogue.

Weelllll..... Rogue or Fighter has huge implications, Thieves Cant is really much less important!

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Weelllll..... Rogue or Fighter has huge implications, Thieves Cant is really much less important!

But still idiotic that my wilderness scout who has never set foot in a city has ties with the criminal underground. Also as ridiculous that fighters are either strong or coordinated, but never both. Things like this should have been hammered out during play testing.

 

[Azzy]

But still idiotic that my wilderness scout who has never set foot in a city has ties with the criminal underground. Also as ridiculous that fighters are either strong or coordinated, but never both. Things like this should have been hammered out during play testing.

It's a ribbon feature. Eith pretend you don't have it, or ask the DM to reinterpret it as some special scout speak or whatever.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Yeah. But they didn't, which is why they should have left the scout as a fighter subclass, and not an option for the rogue.

So...I'm generally not swayed by arguments of "just re-fluff it!"

But, in this case, I have to ask: why not just leave Thieves' Cant proficiency off of your character sheet? I mean, you might be able to persuade your DM to let you trade it for Sylvan, and maybe Thieves' Tools proficiency for "Trapping" or something. But at the very least you could just leave them out. Right?

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

It's a ribbon feature. Eith pretend you don't have it, or ask the DM to reinterpret it as some special scout speak or whatever.

Or we could admit that WotC screwed up one way or another. Scouts, therefore, will not be making an appearance in my games. Luckily, a Fighter with the Outlander background fills that hole sufficiently, especially with a 1 level dip into Ranger.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Or we could admit that WotC screwed up one way or another. Scouts, therefore, will not be making an appearance in my games. Luckily, a Fighter with the Outlander background fills that hole sufficiently, especially with a 1 level dip into Ranger.

I'm sure WotC has screwed up in many ways. I can tell this particular decision disappoints you, but it sounds like you have found a good solution.