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

[DEFCON 1]

At some point people will eventually realize that playing strictly and ONLY "by the book" does not give you any points. You don't gain any extra "lookit me!!!" bennies from the gaming community for being able to say "I use the books strictly Ruled As Written!" So needing or expecting the rules to cater to your design space so that you don't have to "house rule" or "homebrew" is a fruitless gesture that no one (designer, player, DM or otherwise) should EVER worry about.

You literally gain nothing extra for playing strictly by the book versus playing less than strictly by the book.

 

[Greg K]

Or maybe...just maybe...the designers did listen to you, and they thought you had great input, and they talked about it, tried various options of Scout for Ranger, Rogue, and Fighter, but in the end they just reached a different conclusion than you did.

No, you misunderstood. I am not talking about the Rogue Scout playtest. I am talking about the original 5e open playtest and many of us realizing that these issues were going to arise with classes whom receive their subclasses starting after first level. This was just one example as was the spell-less ranger.

 

[Guest 6801328]

No, you misunderstood. I am not talking about the Rogue Scout playtest. I am talking about the original 5e open playtest and many of us realizing that these issues were going to arise with classes whom receive their subclasses starting after first level. This was just one example as was the spell-less ranger.

Doesn't change the point. "The designers ignored me/us" is not the same thing as "the designers, after careful consideration and no small amount of soul-searching, reached a different conclusion."

I'm sure it's telling...of something...that so many people jump on the former interpretation, without any evidence.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I agree. As someone else mentioned, during the open playtest, many of us were sending in comments addressing this (and similar issues), Despite our best efforts we were ignored by the designers.

I guess the question becomes, is the fix worth the effort?


Changing language proficiency or tool proficiency is one of the easiest possible switches in the game. The mechanical impact is nearly zero, only blipping up past that if your DM is one who is really into using languages.

And, the Rogue knowing Thieves Cant makes perfect sense in the PHB, standard Assassins, Thieves and Arcane Thieves (called tricksters to harken back to the prestige class) would all likely have connections to enough criminal elements either in their past or in their present that the proficiency makes sense.

The cases when this is not so might be considered edge cases.


Look for a similar problem, you have racial languages. Why do all Tieflings know Infernal? I can chalk it up to Hell Magicks and call it a day, but it is a serious element you have to consider while world-building.

And, talking about edge cases, what about the Dwarf/Gnome/Elf/Halfling (how many people even remember they have their own language now?) who is raised by humans and has no contact with their people, having been led to believe they were human or some other race this entire time. For some reason people love this concept, but then the question needs to be asked, why do they know their racial language, it makes almost no sense for them to know it.

Or, how about a Dwarven soldier who held a rank in the army, fought in the goblin wars for 20 hundred years, never learned the language of his enemies? That doesn't make a lot of sense, but there is no way for a Dwarf Fighter Soldier to learn any languages other than Dwarvish and Common per the rules.


So, you either come up with an explanation that works for you, or you homebrew it or you switch out the languages.


It is an issue sure, but not one that needs a comprehensive or even official fix.

 

[Satyrn]

Or, how about a Dwarven soldier who held a rank in the army, fought in the goblin wars for 20 hundred years, never learned the language of his enemies? That doesn't make a lot of sense, but there is no way for a Dwarf Fighter Soldier to learn any languages other than Dwarvish and Common per the rules.

This is one of my weird pet peeves,mso pardon my nitpicking.

There absolutely is a way to do that by tbe rules. The rules explicitly say the can modify the background proficiencies as they see fit. So that dwarf's player can take Goblinese in place ofthe gaming kit or vehicle prof, or whatever the zoldier background gives.

That said, I agree with what you were saying.

 

[Guest 6801328]

At some point people will eventually realize that playing strictly and ONLY "by the book" does not give you any points. You don't gain any extra "lookit me!!!" bennies from the gaming community for being able to say "I use the books strictly Ruled As Written!" So needing or expecting the rules to cater to your design space so that you don't have to "house rule" or "homebrew" is a fruitless gesture that no one (designer, player, DM or otherwise) should EVER worry about.

You literally gain nothing extra for playing strictly by the book versus playing less than strictly by the book.

Actually, I'm one of those players that really likes to play by the book. Homebrew adventures, sure, but even when I'm not playing AL games I like to comply with AL rules. I just like playing within the confines of official rules; that gives me pleasure.

And yet even *I* am more than a bit askance at this argument about Thieves' Cant and Scouts. If that's really the best reason its opponents can come up with to "justify" there opinion (which, as an opinion, is entirely valid without trying to prove anything) then I think WotC probably got it right.

 

[Greg K]

It is an issue sure, but not one that needs a comprehensive or even official fix.

Oh, I didn't meant to say that, in this instance, it is a big issue. My own fix took me about 5 minutes. However, in other instances, it is going to be more work (e.g., the spelless ranger)- especially, for new players and DMs. The WOTC designers could have made it a lot easier if they had approached class design a little differently with respect to subclasses.

 

[Greg K]

Doesn't change the point. "The designers ignored me/us" is not the same thing as "the designers, after careful consideration and no small amount of soul-searching, reached a different conclusion."

I'm sure it's telling...of something...that so many people jump on the former interpretation, without any evidence.

I don't care what soul searching they did. As far as I am concerned, they dropped the ball

 

[Guest 6801328]

I don't care what soul searching they did. As far as I am concerned, they dropped the ball

That's fine. I think they made a bunch of poor design decisions as well. But I also think they listened to me and everyone else before making those decisions.

 

[Azzy]

Or we could admit that WotC screwed up one way or another.

Or not. Because I disagree with the assertion.