Some thoughts on the Rogue

[JohnDaBarr]

After spending some time with the new PHB it seems that I am in love with the new edition. Almost very problem that i had with the 3.x or 4.0 is, if you ask me, fixed.

Soo being a guy how apparently has a fetish on skill-monkeys I started checking out the new Rogue and I must say I am a bit divided... generally speaking the class and it's subtypes look good (definitely would like to play it) but it feels like the new Rogue is not nearly as skillful as it's 3.x predecessor. The class only gets four proficient skills... yes ok the class get the x2 rule on these skills, but still we are talking about every narrow specialization without a possibility for broader skill set. And then when I looked at options the Bard has with possible six proficient skills, Jack of all Trades and full caster progression it seems to me that playing a ''roguish'' Bard is better than playing a simple Rogue.


Also on the topic of Rogue subclasses:
-Thief is a parkur rogue with better sneaking, still lvl 13 and lvl 17 abilities are good.
-Assassin get to be more deadly but other abilities can are replace with a bit magic and good roleplay.
-Arcane Trickster with access to spells seems to be the most versatile, still access a bit better progression wouldn't brake the game.

Agree or disagree? Thoughts?

[Caelic]

Some things to bear in mind:

1. The rogue also gets proficiency in thieves' tools, which is two 3.5 skills in and of itself (Open Locks and Disable Device.)
2. The rogue's Cunning Action is going to be ASTOUNDINGLY useful, given the ability to divide movement in combat. A lightfoot halfling rogue can step out from behind his Barbarian buddy, shoot from hiding, step BACK behind his barbarian buddy, and use his bonus action to hide again.

I think you're right that the Bard is going to be a bit more of an overall skill monkey, but the Rogue has some really interesting things going for it. I'm curious to see how they play out.

[hymer]

I'm slightly concerned about skill-monkey'ing in general for 5th edition. Some proficiencies are pretty clearly understood, like stealth, perception, and thieves' tools. But I'd like to know if lore skills are going to ID creatures and their peculiarities, what persuasion can be expected to accomplish, the DC for walking a tightrope, and so on. It seems to me that most DCs and outcomes will be set ad-hoc by the DM, which includes a tendency that the better you are at something, the higher the DC will be (which frustrates me to the point that I won't want to play a skill monkey at all).
Perhaps the DMG will have some clearer guidelines, though the players will be working somewhat in the dark as it is.

[JohnDaBarr]

I'm slightly concerned about skill-monkey'ing in general for 5th edition. Some proficiencies are pretty clearly understood, like stealth, perception, and thieves' tools. But I'd like to know if lore skills are going to ID creatures and their peculiarities, what persuasion can be expected to accomplish, the DC for walking a tightrope, and so on. It seems to me that most DCs and outcomes will be set ad-hoc by the DM, which includes a tendency that the better you are at something, the higher the DC will be (which frustrates me to the point that I won't want to play a skill monkey at all).
Perhaps the DMG will have some clearer guidelines, though the players will be working somewhat in the dark as it is.

Well sometimes it can be hard to place skills and the current situation but even if you can't it's not hard to improvise a roll for the unlikely situation when it occurs. And as for persuasion, it cover social interaction and it's rolled when trying to improve your standing with NPC's.

Adjusting DC for lvl was one of the most idiotic things a have ever seen. Climbing a ladder in a tight situation can be a bit challenging but noting to hard, yet somebody thinks that a character should have the same chance to fail as a lvl 1 despite all the experience he gained in the meantime.

And clearer guidelines, at least for me, are unnecessary. How hard is to judge a situation on the scale of very easy to early impossible, even ad-hoc? It's a simple matter of the Dm getting better at his job.

[Edge of Dreams]

Don't forget that you can get skill proficiencies from your background and even one or two races as well.

[Malifice]

Some things to bear in mind:

1. The rogue also gets proficiency in thieves' tools, which is two 3.5 skills in and of itself (Open Locks and Disable Device.)

Criminal background gets this too. Although the Rogue is the only class that can gain expertise in them.


2. The rogue's Cunning Action is going to be ASTOUNDINGLY useful, given the ability to divide movement in combat. A lightfoot halfling rogue can step out from behind his Barbarian buddy, shoot from hiding, step BACK behind his barbarian buddy, and use his bonus action to hide again.

You cant hide while being observed.

Just like if the same Rogue was in a 100 by 100 foot room containing nothing but a rock and was hiding behind that when an enemy walked in. He might start hidden, but he cant pop out, shoot that dude in the face (revealing his position) then pop down and suddenly be hidden again.

The instant he makes his attack roll, he reveals his postion. The monster knows he is there behind the Rock/ Barbarian. Its now exepcting his attack, wary of it and knowing exactly where its coming from. He cant hide again because the monster knows exactly where he now is.

Nice trick for the halfling to pull once a fight though.

[Malifice]

Of course if the Halfling could move to somewhere (out of sight) so the monster no longer knows where he was, could rinse and repeat.

Misty step and so forth would be useful for just such a tactic.

[JohnDaBarr]

Good use of smoke sticks/smoke grenades could do the trick if one requires to change location without being seen. But I am not sure is there a specific rule covering this particular item.

[Caelic]

Of course if the Halfling could move to somewhere (out of sight) so the monster no longer knows where he was, could rinse and repeat.

Misty step and so forth would be useful for just such a tactic.



The thing is, Malifice, the rules don't actually say that you can't attempt to hide unless you move to a new location. The rule simply says that you can't hide if the enemy can see you. If you can get to a spot where you're unseen, even if the enemy still has a good idea of where you are, you can hide. The lightfoot halfling EXPLICITLY gets the ability to hide if he has concealment from a larger creature. The general idea, it seems, is that he's small enough to lose himself in the chaos of battle by ducking between someone's legs.

Saying that he has to first somehow ensure that the enemy doesn't know where he is anymore is imposing a restriction that, as far as I can tell, just doesn't exist.

[Malifice]

Good use of smoke sticks/smoke grenades could do the trick if one requires to change location without being seen. But I am not sure is there a specific rule covering this particular item.

That would work. Popping behind the fighter and using a teleport like Misty Step to jump behind another PC (or other hiding spot) also works. Of course youll also need to blow another action (or bonus action) to hide once you get there. Hiding isnt an automatic thing despite 100 percent concealment.

Im weirded out by the fact people seem to miss the clear rules on hiding, and ignore the common sense approach.

[Malifice]

The thing is, Malifice, the rules don't actually say that you can't attempt to hide unless you move to a new location.

No, but they say you cant hide when youre being observed.

For example you cant walk into room containing nothing but a monster and a coffin, walk right in front of the monster, crawl into a coffin and close the lid and make a Hide check.

The monster knows exactly where you are! He watched you go there!

Same deal with popping back behind the Fighter. The monster is observing you. Its not gonna work.


If you can get to a spot where you're unseen, even if the enemy still has a good idea of where you are, you can hide.

No, you cant. The rules are clear on this.


The lightfoot halfling EXPLICITLY gets the ability to hide if he has concealment from a larger creature. The general idea, it seems, is that he's small enough to lose himself in the chaos of battle by ducking between someone's legs.

NOTHING in the Halflings ability overrules the rule that you cant hide when being observed. It just lets him hide behind a medium creature.

In other words, before the Fighter kicks in the door, the Halfling hides behind the Fighter. Until the Halfling reveals himself he is hidden from anything in the subsequent room. The instant he reveals himself (by making an attack, or via a perception check) the jig is up.

He could try again, but he's going to have to get to a new hiding place unobserved.

[Malifice]

Saying that he has to first somehow ensure that the enemy doesn't know where he is anymore is imposing a restriction that, as far as I can tell, just doesn't exist.

What?

How on earth can you hide from someone when they know exactly where you are?

Nothing in the Halflings ability overrules this. It simply lets you hide behind other PC's.

Seriously. I watch you crawl into a coffin and close the lid. You cant make a Hide check, even as a bonus action (despite no longer being 'observed' because I know exactly where you are. I most certainly wont be suddenly surprised when you pop out again and shoot me. In other words (common sense should prevail here) youre not hidden!

Ever played Hide and Seek? You can try this at home if you dont believe me.

:smallwink:

Youre somehow conflating being observed going into your hiding spot (which is what the rules are saying) with being observed when youre actually hiding.

Total concealment and the hide action (which infers moving unobserved into a place where you can... you know... hide) are not the same thing!

[JohnDaBarr]

Here I think Malifice is correct in this.

Now to go back on the topic. Yes with the background and as a Human (optional rule) Rogue can have 7 proficient skills and that is a descent number. Now I was thinking, how lenient should a DM be with the training option (250 days + 250 gp = new skill/tool)?

[Malifice]

Here I think Malifice is correct in this.

Now to go back on the topic. Yes with the background and as a Human (optional rule) Rogue can have 7 proficient skills and that is a descent number. Now I was thinking, how lenient should a DM be with the training option (250 days + 250 gp = new skill/tool)?

Its just languages and tools mate, not skills.

Youll need a feat for extra skills.

[1of3]

And if you need still more skills after the 4+2 skills from Rogue and Background, try Half-Elf for two more.

[Person_Man]

Rogue is my current favorite non-magical class. My thoughts:

1) The basic attack routine decision tree is the most interesting and flexible for any non-caster.

1) If I can get Advantage on an enemy without moving next to them, throw a dagger at them. It's a finesse/light/thrown weapon. If I hit, I deal 1d4 + Dex bonus + Sneak Attack damage. I then move away (preferably around a corner or heavy cover), and use use my Bonus Action to to Hide so that I can't be targeted by counter attacks. I don't mind giving up the chance at an additional 1d4 damage from a potentially successful second attack in exchange for the security of being farther away from and/or hidden from enemies.

2) If I can't get Advantage on an enemy, I move so that I'm "flanking" an enemy and then attack it with a shortsword, a finesse/light weapon. If I hit, I deal 1d6 + Dex bonus + Sneak Attack damage. Then use my Bonus Action to Disengage and then move away from the enemy (assuming that he won't follow me, since my flanking buddy can get an Opportunity Attack against him) or if I succeed in killing my target I move away and Hide so that I can't be targeted by counter attacks from his surviving friends. Again, I don't mind giving up the chance at +1d6 damage for the safety of being out of melee and potentially hidden.

3) In either case, if I miss, then I use my Bonus Action to make an additional attack with whatever light weapon makes the most sense. Hopefully I kill my target and can move safely away without provoking an Opportunity Attack. But occasionally I get caught on the front line. But that's the risk of being an adventurer, and I'm not going to hide like a coward every turn because doing so gives up a lot of potential damage from Sneak Attack.

4) There are other rarer but not uncommon cases where Dash can be very useful, and having it as a Bonus Action can be very helpful. It's a lot more useful if you use a tabletop map (not the default) where you actually need to count squares for movement.


2) Thief subclass could be awesome with magic items, since he can use Use and Object as a Bonus Action with the Fast Hands Ability, which by current RAW means he can use a magic item as a Bonus Action. (Though Mearls has tweeted that this was not intended. He'll probably end up creating a seperate "Use a Magic Device" action in the DMG, which is unfortunate). Assassin otherwise seems to be the most useful and powerful, since they can auto-crit enemies who haven't acted yet and Sneak Attack dice are multiplied on a crit, and the fluffy roleplaying abilities are cool as well. Arcane Trickster seems like a huge disappointment to me, since it only has 1/3 casting, which is a joke at high levels. I think I'll house rule Ranger/Paladin spell progression instead (which is still pretty weak).

3) Rogue is surprisingly very tanky. Cunning Action makes them very hard to counter attack. Being Dex based + Evasion makes Dex Save spells mostly useless against them. Uncanny Dodge is awesome when you're fighting a small number of enemies. Plus Rogues are arguably the most SAD-ish class in the PHB, since they only need high Dex and Con, whereas everyone else needs high primary attribute + high Con + non-dumped Dex (which effects Initiative, Dex Saves, and sometimes AC.

Overall, I wish the Rogue has more Cunning Action stuff at mid-high levels. But I'm very pleased with the class.

[Caelic]

What?

How on earth can you hide from someone when they know exactly where you are?

Nothing in the Halflings ability overrules this. It simply lets you hide behind other PC's.

Seriously. I watch you crawl into a coffin and close the lid. You cant make a Hide check, even as a bonus action (despite no longer being 'observed' because I know exactly where you are. I most certainly wont be suddenly surprised when you pop out again and shoot me. In other words (common sense should prevail here) youre not hidden!

Ever played Hide and Seek? You can try this at home if you dont believe me.



So you're saying "This doesn't work because common sense says it doesn't."

I agree that common sense says this shouldn't work. Common sense says that MANY things that work in D&D shouldn't work.

Now, please show me a rule which says that your location needs to be unknown before you can attempt to hide.

We're arguing two different things here. You're arguing that this shouldn't be possible; I'm arguing that the rules say it is.

Now, dealing with the "common sense" issue, this is one of those cases where common sense is actually wrong. You say that after the halfling shoots you, you know exactly where he is and are watching where he goes.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you've never actually been in a melee. I have. I can tell you that, chances are, you're NOT watching the archer who just took a shot at you from thirty feet away; you're watching the guy right in front of you who's trying to smash your face in. You'll try your best to spare attention for other opponents, but it's REALLY easy to get blindsided in a melee, even by opponents you know are there. I've both BEEN blindsided by opponents I knew were there, and I've blindsided opponents who knew I was there.

I didn't use Misty Step to zip to a different area; I simply moved to a different spot while their attention was tied up with the guy they were meleeing. And I am not a small guy, nor a STEALTHY guy--particularly when I'm wearing plate armor.

If I can shed an opponent's attention in combat without magic, I'm pretty sure a trained rogue a quarter of my size can do the same.

[Malifice]

Now, please show me a rule which says that your location needs to be unknown before you can attempt to hide.

The rule says you cant hide from a creature that can see you. Thats the rule. The act of moving into a hiding spot is you hiding. Reading it any other way leads to absurd results that defy common sense.

If your Rogue moved into a 100 by 100 foot room with nothing but an Orc standing in front of a coffin, crawled into the coffin while being observed by the Orc, and then closed the lid granting him 100 percent cover from the Orc, your Rogue cannot take the 'hide' action as long as he is in that coffin, in that room, with that Orc.

The Orc knows exactly where he is. Youre not hiding from ****. Hence the rule on hiding while being observed.

Feel free to run it some other way in your campaigns if you want. Im sticking with the rules and common sense.

[JohnDaBarr]

Its just languages and tools mate, not skills.

Youll need a feat for extra skills.

''Your DM might allow additional training options.'' PHB 187, Training paragraph

To Person_Man

You raise a couple of good points there. I must say I like the fact that only roll advantage is needed to apply sneak attack. Also since I didn't find anything I presume that sneak attack works on undead/construct targets as well as on live ones.

[JohnDaBarr]

H i d i n g
When you try to hide, make a Dexterity (Stealth) check. Until
you are discovered or you stop hiding, that check’s total is
contested by the Wisdom (Perception) check of any creature
that actively searches for signs of your presence.
You can’t hide from a creature that can see you, and if you
make noise (such as shouting a warning or knocking over a
vase), you give away your position. An invisible creature can’t
be seen, so it can always try to hide. Signs of its passage
might still be noticed, however, and it still has to stay quiet.
In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger
all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach
a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain
circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay
hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing
you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.

PHB, 177

I hope this will clear up this discussion

[Caelic]

The rule says you cant hide from a creature that can see you. Thats the rule. The act of moving into a hiding spot is you hiding.



...and when you're sufficiently obscured, the creature can't see you, and you can hide. That's the rule.

...and when a Lightfoot halfling is behind a larger creature, he's sufficiently obscured, and can hide. THAT'S the rule.




Reading it any other way leads to absurd results that defy common sense.


"It goes against common sense!" is not the same thing as "It's not how the rules work!"

Also, as I pointed out above, there are cases where common sense is wrong, and this is one of them. It's entirely possible to hide from an opponent who knows where you are in combat.



Feel free to run it some other way in your campaigns if you want. Im sticking with the rules and common sense.

No. You're sticking with common sense. Every single argument you have brought up appeals to common sense--not to any rule which actually supports your claim.

Which is fine, but please don't argue that it's "the rules."

[Malifice]

''Your DM might allow additional training options.'' PHB 187, Training paragraph

Big call seeing as 3 skills = a feat. Theyre hard to get with Multiclassing too.



You raise a couple of good points there. I must say I like the fact that only roll advantage is needed to apply sneak attack. Also since I didn't find anything I presume that sneak attack works on undead/construct targets as well as on live ones.

You get SA with only having an ally standing next to you too. No more flanking needed.

With the Rogue able to make a disengage as a bonus action it makes in/ out striking much more viable.

[Caelic]

H i d i n g
I hope this will clear up this discussion

Exactly, John. The rules are pretty clear--and they DON'T say what Malifice is arguing. You may want to add in the section at the bottom of that sidebar which references obscurement as a means of determining whether you can or cannot be seen, as it's relevant to the Lightfoot halfling's ability to hide when obscured by a larger body.

Nothing in the rules, however, says or suggests that you can't hide if you can break line of sight with a creature that knows where you are. In fact, the rules explicitly establish that if a creature knows where you are, but can't see you, you can attempt to hide. That's WHY an invisible creature can always attempt to hide, even if he's given his position away previously.

So once again:

A. You can hide if you're unseen--even if the enemy knows where you are.
B. Concealment determines whether an opposing creature can see you.
C. Larger creatures provide sufficient concealment for a Lightfoot halfling.

I have yet to see an argument against this that actually references the rules, rather than an appeal to common sense.

[Malifice]

...and when you're sufficiently obscured, the creature can't see you, and you can hide. That's the rule.

Youre reading it wrong.

Otherwise that Rogue in my coffin example is 'hidden' despite the Orc literally watching him climb in there and close the lid.

Somehow.

Just like (going by your interpretation) if a Rogue held up a large blanket in front of him on a stick, in full view of a crowd of people, thus giving himself full concealment, he can could hide.

Madness.


...and when a Lightfoot halfling is behind a larger creature, he's sufficiently obscured, and can hide. THAT'S the rule.

Nope. Im observing him going behind the Fighter. I know exactly where he is. He's not hidden from me at all. Just ike the Orc is watching that other Rogue walk into the coffin and close the damn lid. That Rogue aint hidden from that Orc, and neither is your Halfling from anyone in his room either.


"It goes against common sense!" is not the same thing as "It's not how the rules work!"

My interpretation of the rules conforms with common sense. Your interpretation... doesnt.

Hint hint.

Look, agree to disagree. Like I said, run it however absurdly you want.

[Malifice]

A. You can hide if you're unseen--even if the enemy knows where you are.
.

No you cant, youre conflating 'becoming unseen' with 'hiding'. Theyre not the same thing.

Anyways, like I said. Feel free to play with your rather twisted interpretation, and ill play with the common sense one.

[Theodoxus]

Relevant points regarding hiding in combat:

Hiding - page 177 "In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen."

And that's all there is for hiding in combat - some VERY passive language about 'mosts and usuallys and certain circumstances'.

The Lightfoot Halfling Naturally Stealthy states 'You can attempt to hide even when you are obscured only by a creature that is at least one size larger than you.'

Of course, it doesn't say if the ally is granting the lightly or heavily obscured condition, so that kinda sucks for interpreting.

This is also passive language. Taken together, you always have a chance to try to hide in combat, behind a larger friendly. It's up to the DM to be strict like Malifice or more loose like Caelic... but it's definitely not a done deal and is open to personal interpretation.

[Theodoxus]

No you cant, youre conflating 'becoming unseen' with 'hiding'. Theyre not the same thing.

Anyways, like I said. Feel free to play with your rather twisted interpretation, and ill play with the common sense one.


Stop being pedantic - you know perfectly well that when he said 'unseen' he meant invisible, which EXPLICITLY states in the rules under hiding that an invisible creature can hide anywhere it wants to, because it's invisible.

[Malifice]

Stop being pedantic - you know perfectly well that when he said 'unseen' he meant invisible, which EXPLICITLY states in the rules under hiding that an invisible creature can hide anywhere it wants to, because it's invisible.

How are you observing something that cant be observed due to being.. you know... invisible?

Invisibility is the exception to the general rule. Its more accurate to say that it circumvents the observation rule expressly by making it impossible for you to be.. well.. observed.

So an invisible rogue could use his bonus action to hide each round (and his action to attack) as he is never actually observed after his attack.

[Person_Man]

To Person_Man

You raise a couple of good points there. I must say I like the fact that only roll advantage is needed to apply sneak attack. Also since I didn't find anything I presume that sneak attack works on undead/construct targets as well as on live ones.

You are correct, Sneak Attack works on anything, including undead, constructs, etc, with fairly easy trigger options, no exclusions or immunities (unless they're immune to the type of physical damage the Rogue is dealing).

It's also worth mentioning that the Rogue can Sneak Attack once per turn (not once per round). So anything that triggers an Opportunity Attack (like Command, move over there) or that gives the Rogue an attack on another creature's turn (like the Battle Master Fighter maneuver that lets an ally make an attack) gives the Rogue another opportunity to make a Sneak Attack, as long as it otherwise qualifies.

[akaddk]

2. The rogue's Cunning Action is going to be ASTOUNDINGLY useful, given the ability to divide movement in combat. A lightfoot halfling rogue can step out from behind his Barbarian buddy, shoot from hiding, step BACK behind his barbarian buddy, and use his bonus action to hide again.

No he can't. Once he steps out, he's no longer in hiding.

[Caelic]

No he can't. Once he steps out, he's no longer in hiding.

Been discussed to death. See associated threads. The general consensus (with some vocal opposition) is that the rules allow for it. According to Mike Mearls, combat is enough of a distraction to allow him to make the attempt at disadvantage, which I think is reasonable.

[akaddk]

The general consensus (with some vocal opposition) is that the rules allow for it.

No it isn't. Stop using your bias to colour your perception.

[Caelic]

No it isn't. Stop using your bias to colour your perception.

Feel free to go in and count the number of people agreeing that the rules allow it (being sure to include Mike Mearls) and the number of people disagreeing that the rules allow it. Malifice counts as one person, despite the number of posts he makes.

[akaddk]

Feel free to go in and count the number of people agreeing that the rules allow it (being sure to include Mike Mearls) and the number of people disagreeing that the rules allow it. Malifice counts as one person, despite the number of posts he makes.

**** Mearls. He doesn't even remember half the rules of the system he oversaw the building of. Even he said he shouldn't be counted as a rules source since he doesn't know the intention behind all the rules. And this forum isn't the only one on the internet, not to mention the fact that some people's opinions should be discounted entirely because they're clueless. Stop interpreting things to benefit yourself and view them objectively and you'll see that RAW & RAI, that it doesn't work the way you think it does.

[Suichimo]

Don't forget that you can get skill proficiencies from your background and even one or two races as well.

And if your background gives you proficiency in something you already have proficiency in, you get to choose any other proficiency of the same type to replace it. For instance, my Paladin was proficient in Athletics and Persuasion already so, when I got to his background and made him a Noble, he picked up History and Perception rather than History and Persuasion.

The book also says you can ask for different features to a background if you like it but want to make it fit your idea more.

[Caelic]

**** Mearls. He doesn't even remember half the rules of the system he oversaw the building of. Even he said he shouldn't be counted as a rules source since he doesn't know the intention behind all the rules. And this forum isn't the only one on the internet, not to mention the fact that some people's opinions should be discounted entirely because they're clueless. Stop interpreting things to benefit yourself and view them objectively and you'll see that RAW & RAI, that it doesn't work the way you think it does.



Okay. So let's see.

My position: "Well, I can make a solid and logical case for this reading of the rules based on specific language from the books. In the most recent discussion thread on the topic, there were about a dozen people generally agreeing that a halfling can attack and then hide again, with some variation on the exact details. There was one person who adamantly said it was impossible, one more who said he was generally inclined to say it shouldn't work, and two who took the position that it was simply unclear. The guy who wrote the rules said this works."

Your position, as I understand it: "Nope. You're wrong, because you are."


Err...okay. I mean, whatever floats your boat, but "Open your eyes, I'm obviously right" has never really been all that persuasive an argument to me. Got anything more?

[akaddk]

Err...okay. I mean, whatever floats your boat, but "Open your eyes, I'm obviously right" has never really been all that persuasive an argument to me. Got anything more?

Typical response from someone who doesn't want to make the effort to challenge their own points of view. As I said, look around, stop being so biased, and you'll see that the "consensus", from people who approach it reasonably, rationally, and from an intelligent analysis of the rules, is pretty much the opposite of what you've decided it is.

[Caelic]

Typical response from someone who doesn't want to make the effort to challenge their own points of view. As I said, look around, stop being so biased, and you'll see that the "consensus", from people who approach it reasonably, rationally, and from an intelligent analysis of the rules, is pretty much the opposite of what you've decided it is.



...and by "reasonable, rational, and intelligent," of course, you mean "People who agree with you." In the meantime, people who DON'T agree with you are unreasonable, biased, stupid, and don't know the rules--including people who, y'know, actually worked on the system.

See, here's the thing: I frequent a lot of forums. I see the discussions. I'm not seeing your "All the reasonable and rational people agree with my obvious rightness, you ignorant, biased blind man, you!" consensus.

I find it ironic that you accuse others of "not wanting to make the effort to challenge their own points of view" when we've laid out our arguments and made the attempt to support them, and your entire argument seems to consist of "I'm right, I'm obviously right, look around and you'll see that I'm right, and if you disagree, it's because you're too ignorant and biased to recognize my obvious rightness."

Yeah. Tell you what: get back to me when you have an actual argument. Thanks.

[Theodoxus]

Sorry Akaddk, but you're wrong. You're making an ignorant remark unsupported by the rules. I know; I read them.

[Malifice]

Sorry Akaddk, but you're wrong. You're making an ignorant remark unsupported by the rules. I know; I read them.

I disagree. Im siding with Akaddk on this one.


Each to their own.

[Cambrian]

I really like the rogue. The cunning action is such a dynamic ability, especially given how movement works in this edition. The evasive abilities are interesting and help the rogue survive despite having to jump in and out of the front line.

I don't recall any of the rogue abilities requiring light armor so I was even playing around with a Mountain Dwarf rogue in medium armor and stacking strength-- more of a dirty fighter than the typical rogue. It was great to see large versatility for the class despite 5th's pruned decision tree when creating a character.


The book also says you can ask for different features to a background if you like it but want to make it fit your idea more.This was one of my favorite parts. Having read through the PHB it in no way feels like the RP focus is anything but genuine. It's refreshing to see and even from a cold-calculating-business perspective it is a wise choice. TTRPGs over time are more and more cornered by advances in videogames. But in that corner you have the freedom of the collaborative storytelling and video games will never compete on that front.

Side Discussion: As far as the hiding debate:
This is the edition that as much as ever encourages DM judgement to play a role. For this the DM should just make the judgement based on the situation.

The coffin example obviously would not allow the character to hide.

The lightfoot halfling hiding behind a larger creature in combat is obviously more reasonable. If it is the halfling, an ally, and a single monster then it's ridiculous to think about the monster losing track of the halfling. If it's a party fighting in a chaotic melee it becomes more plausible (disadvantage?). If there is dust/smoke and other factors it should be more possible (no disadvantage? possibly advantage?).

[Caelic]

I don't recall any of the rogue abilities requiring light armor so I was even playing around with Mountain Dwarf rogue in medium armor and stacking strength-- more of a dirty fighter than the typical rogue. It was great to see large versatility for the class despite 5th's pruned decision tree when creating a character.



Sure. I think for a lot of us, it's going to take some time to retrain our ingrained assumptions--mages don't wear armor, rogues wear light armor, and so forth. No reason at all that a rogue couldn't wear a chain shirt or a breastplate.

Actually, that brings up something interesting: is the Druid the only class left in the game with actual armor restrictions? There are classes for which wearing armor is a bad idea--monk, for instance--but I think the druid may be the only class that just flat-out has a "You can't wear these types of armor" restriction.

Interesting that they'd keep that as a holdover.

[Cambrian]

Given the story and RP focus it's not that surprising.

They want to capture the right feel. For a druid, not allowing them to use metal armor, is simple and easy to remember so it works with the stream-lining.

Compare that to the old rules of arcane spell failure (tables! tables for everything!) and you can see that ditching arcane spell failure makes the game simple.

Armor disrupting spells always felt so arbitrary anyways, while the druid restriction always felt flavorful.

It's very true though about our assumptions. There are some long held restrictions for classes that no longer exist.