Why is the Rogue the 'skill monkey'? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

NewDM

2016-04-25, 09:28 AM

I can only compare with 3.5. In 3.5 the sheer number of skills was a major impediment to being skilled, as was the pretty severe cross-class limitation. The rogue was the best in terms of both skill access and ranks to put into them, making them the skill monkey.

The Rogue had the most skills available but they could only max 4-5 of them each level unless they had an insanely high intelligence. Even then it was about 7 skill maxed. Again, why does the Rogue in 5e get expertise, never roll 9 or lower, and auto-20? None of that happened in earlier editions. They could have simply given it 6 skills off its list and been done with it.

Both of these limitations been eliminated. In 5e it's easy to make a fighter that can stand watch well (one of the stupidest limitations from 3.5), or even pick locks or know history. Also, the number of skills total is pretty trivial.

Expertise gives rogues a corollary to the 3.5 exclusive ability to find and disarm magic traps. It lets them hit DCs that are impossible for other players.

lol, why not just have a class feature "The rogue can find and disarm magical traps". yes, it lets them hit impossible DCs, but no other edition allowed that.

Rogues, bards, rangers, knowledge domain clerics, and more I'm probably missing all get double proficiency to certain skills...and even though rogue and bard expertise is flexible, it's best used on something they already have the attributes for - DEX skills for rogue, CHA skills for bard.

No, that's actually the complete list. It just makes no sense why they did that. It should have been a Bard only thing (well at least the part about picking whatever you want. I can see Rogues getting expertise in Thieves' Tools)

The rogue is not really an outlier here. Of course, you could argue that more classes should get these mechanics - I would love to see a fighter with double proficiency to athletics/acrobatics, for example.

The rogue is absolutely an outlier. Other classes have very specific guidelines as to what they can get double proficiency from and its usually a pretty narrow sub-set of skill situations. I completely agree that the Bard should get it, but the rogue doesn't make sense.

MightyDog16

2016-04-25, 09:28 AM

I believe they made the rogue lean towards skill monkey because they are pretty one dimensional in combat (unless you are a very creative player or you spice it up with feats or MC). Rogue would be pretty boring to play if you didn't have some cool things you could do outside if combat, in my opinion. Though, if I were to make a skill monkey I'd totally make a bard instead, they don't get as many proficiencies but they do get expertise, some really good utility spells, and the high Cha for some good dialogue.

The whole "they didn't do it this way in X edition" argument is crap. Why would they ever make a new edition if they were just going to make it the same old thing?

NewDM

2016-04-25, 09:33 AM

The fundamental aspects of the rogue as an archetype are what - the ability to sneak, to get into places they are not meant to go, and to go there unnoticed. Usually, this means that the rogue has the ability to stealth, climb (like a cat burglar), find and disable traps and locks, and search for secrets (like hidden doors).

The rogue has always been good at this. The bard, originally, was a weird amalgam of magic user, fighter, and thief. So sure, it could do thiefly things, because it distilled the fundamental part of thief into skills. But the fundamental part of a magic user was magic, and of a fighter was combat, so the bard got those things from those classes, rather than any skills they were peripherally good at.

The thief, then, was the class associated with non-combat skill. As the editions changed, the devs adapted the class to fill its archetype in the new system. In 3.5, that means diversifying skills, although rogues noticeably still had bonuses to dodge and disarm traps, and their primary attribute complemented the archetypal skillset.

I can't speak to 4th, I have no experience with it.

In 5th, the rogue gets a wider array of skills, and is substantially better at some of them than most anybody else - except the bard, since the bard still contains that essence of thief as a skill-monkey.

This is my attempt at explanation.

Actually the Thief was only better than other classes at doing those things at high level. For instance in the Gray Book it talks about rolling 1 or 2 on 1d6 which is about 33% chance to find a secret door or trap or listen through a door. Elves had a better chance at finding a secret door by walking past it than a Rogue did (Elves were Fighters or Wizards in those days). The only difference is the Rogue rolled percentile dice instead of 1d6 and could get better at it.

In 5e giving the rogue more skills is perfectly fine and follows the traditions of previous editions, giving them weird class features that make them better at skills than everyone else has no root in tradition.

Demonic Spoon

2016-04-25, 09:36 AM

No, that's actually the complete list. It just makes no sense why they did that. It should have been a Bard only thing (well at least the part about picking whatever you want. I can see Rogues getting expertise in Thieves' Tools)

The rogue is absolutely an outlier. Other classes have very specific guidelines as to what they can get double proficiency from and its usually a pretty narrow sub-set of skill situations. I completely agree that the Bard should get it, but the rogue doesn't make sense.

So you agree that it's appropriate for a class to be able to pick whatever skills they want to get Expertise in (the bard), but you don't think it makes any sense in the rogue's case. Why exactly does it not make sense for the rogue to have flexible expertise?

smcmike

2016-04-25, 09:36 AM

The Rogue had the most skills available but they could only max 4-5 of them each level unless they had an insanely high intelligence. Even then it was about 7 skill maxed. Again, why does the Rogue in 5e get expertise, never roll 9 or lower, and auto-20? None of that happened in earlier editions. They could have simply given it 6 skills off its list and been done with it.

No, the 3.5 Rogue could max 8 + intelligence modifier skills, and given that Search and Investigate and skill ranks ran off of intelligence, they had some incentive to have a decent score. 9 or 10 max skills.

The reason rogues can't just get 6 skills in 5e is that there just aren't very many skills to get, and you quickly get into things that aren't necessarily very roguish. In fact, this is basically what lore bards get. Rogues are specialists, and if you build them the standard way, are the best sneaks and trapfinders and lock openers and pickpockets. Exactly like in other editions.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 09:53 AM

So you agree that it's appropriate for a class to be able to pick whatever skills they want to get Expertise in (the bard), but you don't think it makes any sense in the rogue's case. Why exactly does it not make sense for the rogue to have flexible expertise?

I agree that its appropriate for Bard who is the 'jack of all trades' class. They know a little bit of everything, but now come to think of it, they shouldn't be best at any one thing. You could probably get away with not giving them any skills but Perform, Persuasion, and Deception and then letting them add 1/2 proficiency to all untrained skills. So you are correct and I change my stance on the Bard. Maybe give them double proficiency on Tool: Instrument, and Perform.

In reality I could see giving a single narrow skill situation double proficiency in each class:
Bard-Instrument or Perform (their choice)
Barbarian-Constitution based endurance checks such as swimming, running, or forced marches.
Cleric-Religion checks related to rules and regulations and historical knowledge
Druids-Nature checks
Fighters-Strength based skill checks (maybe limited to Athletics)
Monk-Acrobatics checks
Paladin-Religion checks related to undead, or otherworldly beings
Ranger-Int/Wis checks to do with favored enemies/terrain (as it is now)
Rogue-Thieves' Tools (which would cover the magical traps scenario), climbing, and perception to find traps and secret doors.
Sorcerer-Arcana dealing with natural talents of monsters or the effects of magic
Warlock-Religion about otherworldly beings
Wizard-Arcana dealing with spells
Then take away the Rogues expertise, never lower than 9, and auto-20. Take away the bards expertise.

No, the 3.5 Rogue could max 8 + intelligence modifier skills, and give that Search and Investigate and skill ranks ran off of intelligence, they had some incentive to have a decent score. 9 or 10 max skills.

The reason rogues can't just get 6 skills in 5e is that there just aren't very many skills to get, and you quickly get into things that aren't necessarily very roguish. In fact, this is basically what lore bards get. Rogues are specialists, and if you build them the standard way, are the best sneaks and trapfinders and lock openers and pickpockets. Exactly like in other editions.

I was recalling from memory. Its a little higher than I recalled, but they still weren't any better than other classes with the same skills.

Rogues in 5e already get Thieves' Tools which allow for opening locks, disarm traps, and other thief like skills. So they really already get 6 skills.

smcmike

2016-04-25, 10:06 AM

I was recalling from memory. Its a little higher than I recalled, but they still weren't any better than other classes with the same skills.

Rogues in 5e already get Thieves' Tools which allow for opening locks, disarm traps, and other thief like skills. So they really already get 6 skills.

Well, quite a bit higher, really. Also, rogues were the only core class that had open lock or disable device on their list, so they were twice as good as any other class that tried to mimic them. Hmm, twice as good.... that sounds familiar.....

And, yeah, they already get enough skills in 5e. That's my point - giving them breadth of skills doesn't help them do roguish things in 5e, because there aren't that many skills that are roguish. In 3.5 you could sink points into hide, move silently, search, spot, listen, climb, disable device, open lock, tumble, use rope, appraise, forgery, use magic device, balance and on and on. In other words, you needed a ton of skills to do what rogues do.

In 5e you can do most of this with stealth, perception, athletics, acrobatics, sleight of hand, and thieves tools.

Here's a question - do you think that rogues should be able to be the best at sneaking, opening locks, and disarming traps?

Spacehamster

2016-04-25, 10:10 AM

Originally the Fighting Man did all that. Then the Thief got a chance to succeed at what the DM up until then made people roll for (or just told them they succeed or fail at). Until the Thief came into being the chances of doing something like their skills were determined by rolling a 1or 2 on 1d6 IIRC. So they actually had a better chance than the Thief until about mid level. Then there were the spells that automatically succeeded at those tasks.

The have a lot of skill points, but they had to obey the class and cross class maximums that all classes had. So give them extra skills sure, but why are they getting all kinds of skill related class features in their base class? If anything the Bard should get all that and the Rogue should just get more skills.

Well if you made the bard the best skill monkey it would make him one of the best full casters, a pretty good martial(if valor) AND the best at skills, does not seem very balanced to me. :)

SharkForce

2016-04-25, 10:11 AM

rogues became skill monkeys because they needed to have something.

can't speak to earlier, but the 2e AD&D thief's special ability wasn't the thief skills (most of which were pretty terrible, especially when you look at the success chance). it was the exp table. also, if you used the optional rules, the way they gained exp. they were crap at fighting, backstab was a terrible joke (it was once per fight, if you were lucky, your THAC0 was probably awful too), your hit dice sucked, you couldn't wear good armour, and when your thief skills actually worked they didn't work as well as low level spells, generally speaking. the only thing they had going for them was that you could gain levels ridiculously fast, which you only really cared about for one skill that actually had any value; find/remove traps.

when the switch came to 3.x where everyone had the same exp table, they had to throw rogues a bone somewhere. skills were the most logical option, so that's what rogues got (incidentally, they did too get bonuses with skills to make them better than others. for starters, so many things required half a dozen skills just to do that having 8 base skill points was a big deal. for another, the huge number of class skills, particularly UMD, was a skill-related ability. finally, thy could choose to take 10 in stressful situations, which was a fairly significant boost).

with 5e, class skills died and you no longer need half a dozen skills to do things, plus anyone with proficiency can be good at the traditional "thief-only" skills. so, to differentiate the rogue, they gave expertise. and that's fine. fighters generally speaking *are* really good at jumping (which is based far more on strength than skill proficiency) and climbing.. proficiency + attribute is enough to be a godlike grappler (seriously, a level 1 fighter grapples a bear more often than not, and the list of monsters that you can expect to grapple better than a fighter rapidly decreases as the fighter gains levels until it's pretty much limited to "things that are too large for the fighter to be allowed to even attempt a grapple at all"). they do just fine at strength-based physical tests in general as well.

rogue is not the problem, here. they had to have a niche somewhere, and skills makes more sense than pretty much anything else.

(that said, if you want a skilled fighter, fighter/rogue is an excellent combination done properly).

fishyfishyfishy

2016-04-25, 10:15 AM

I think a better question is "why not"? Why wouldn't you have 1 class that represents the skilled infiltrator/assassin/trickster? These are popular archetypes that many people enjoy and I don't understand why this seems to be a problem for you.

D&D is a class based system and always will be. If you don't like that certain classes are designed with specific archetypes in mind then maybe what you need is another gaming system entirely.

Gastronomie

2016-04-25, 10:28 AM

I think a better question is "why not"? Why wouldn't you have 1 class that represents the skilled infiltrator/assassin/trickster? These are popular archetypes that many people enjoy and I don't understand why this seems to be a problem for you.

D&D is a class based system and always will be. If you don't like that certain classes ate designed with specific archetypes in mind then maybe what you need is another gaming system entirely.This, so much this. Also, there's always the "Skill Monkey Feat" you were talking about, "Skilled", if you REALLY want that much skills.

Giving skill-based subclasses for every class - I wouldn't stop it, but I doubt anyone will use them 'cause, really, Bards and Rogues seem most thematically correct for most roleplaying situations in which skills become an issue. Monster Hunter from the Unearthed Arcana sorta does it in a nice way, tho', so you might wanna check it out.

Demonic Spoon

2016-04-25, 10:34 AM

I agree that its appropriate for Bard who is the 'jack of all trades' class. They know a little bit of everything, but now come to think of it, they shouldn't be best at any one thing. You could probably get away with not giving them any skills but Perform, Persuasion, and Deception and then letting them add 1/2 proficiency to all untrained skills. So you are correct and I change my stance on the Bard. Maybe give them double proficiency on Tool: Instrument, and Perform.

In reality I could see giving a single narrow skill situation double proficiency in each class:

So basically, your argument is that skills should be supplementary to the class, and be used to reinforce the class flavor, whereas right now they are largely detached.

The reason it is the way it is now is because WotC did not envision skills as very tightly bound to an individual class. That's why backgrounds provide skill proficiency regardless of what class you have. The general case is that adventurers are good at some things, not tightly related to their class, and especially good at specific things based on their class. Wizards are especially good at spells. Knowledge domain clerics are especially good at knowing things (and the skill expertise is just a vehicle to get there). Rogues and bards just get the flexibility to be especially good at whatever the choose (but are rewarded for choosing something that matches their favorite attributes)

NewDM

2016-04-25, 10:38 AM

Well, quite a bit higher, really. Also, rogues were the only core class that had open lock or disable device on their list, so they were twice as good as any other class that tried to mimic them. Hmm, twice as good.... that sounds familiar.....

2 more is not 'quite a bit'. Yes, as they should be the only ones to get OL, DD. They were not twice as good. Everyone else was 1/2 as good. Big difference.

And, yeah, they already get enough skills in 5e. That's my point - giving them breadth of skills doesn't help them do roguish things in 5e, because there aren't that many skills that are roguish. In 3.5 you could sink points into hide, move silently, search, spot, listen, climb, disable device, open lock, tumble, use rope, appraise, forgery, use magic device, balance and on and on. In other words, you needed a ton of skills to do what rogues do.

There are as many skills as needed to be Roguish in 5e. They just need fewer skills and thus need fewer trained skills to be just as effective as in 3.x. In 5e they just need Thieves' Tools (which they get automatically), Stealth, Perception, Investigation, Athletics, Acrobatics, and Sleight of Hand to do all that. So maybe give them 2 more trained skills? I'm not seeing a strong argument for giving them those 3 key features that make them better at skills than everyone else.

In 5e you can do most of this with stealth, perception, athletics, acrobatics, sleight of hand, and thieves tools.

Here's a question - do you think that rogues should be able to be the best at sneaking, opening locks, and disarming traps?

Sure. Which is why I said give them double proficiency bonus to Thieves' Tools. Then you can do the same for the Thief/Assassin Class Options for Stealth. Just make sure you do something similar for every class.

Well if you made the bard the best skill monkey it would make him one of the best full casters, a pretty good martial(if valor) AND the best at skills, does not seem very balanced to me. :)

I changed my stance on the bard. Their Jack of all trades feature is all they need. They should also lose Expertise in my opinion.

rogues became skill monkeys because they needed to have something.

can't speak to earlier, but the 2e AD&D thief's special ability wasn't the thief skills (most of which were pretty terrible, especially when you look at the success chance). it was the exp table. also, if you used the optional rules, the way they gained exp. they were crap at fighting, backstab was a terrible joke (it was once per fight, if you were lucky, your THAC0 was probably awful too), your hit dice sucked, you couldn't wear good armour, and when your thief skills actually worked they didn't work as well as low level spells, generally speaking. the only thing they had going for them was that you could gain levels ridiculously fast, which you only really cared about for one skill that actually had any value; find/remove traps.

Yep, I remember this because it was great to multiclass a Fighter/Thief to get backstab in the first round of a fight.

when the switch came to 3.x where everyone had the same exp table, they had to throw rogues a bone somewhere. skills were the most logical option, so that's what rogues got (incidentally, they did too get bonuses with skills to make them better than others. for starters, so many things required half a dozen skills just to do that having 8 base skill points was a big deal. for another, the huge number of class skills, particularly UMD, was a skill-related ability. finally, thy could choose to take 10 in stressful situations, which was a fairly significant boost).

They could only do that at level 10 and only if they chose the 'skill monkey' choice for the "Special Abilities" feature. Like I said, I'd have no problem if the 'Skill Monkey rogue were a Class Option(sub-class) of Rogue (or any class for that matter), but as the base class it makes no sense.

In 5e terms they should get 4-6 skills and Thieves' Tools for the above and possibly leave in the feature that lets them take 9 as the lowest roll on the d20. The rest still don't make sense.

with 5e, class skills died and you no longer need half a dozen skills to do things, plus anyone with proficiency can be good at the traditional "thief-only" skills. so, to differentiate the rogue, they gave expertise. and that's fine. fighters generally speaking *are* really good at jumping (which is based far more on strength than skill proficiency) and climbing.. proficiency + attribute is enough to be a godlike grappler (seriously, a level 1 fighter grapples a bear more often than not, and the list of monsters that you can expect to grapple better than a fighter rapidly decreases as the fighter gains levels until it's pretty much limited to "things that are too large for the fighter to be allowed to even attempt a grapple at all"). they do just fine at strength-based physical tests in general as well.

The same can be said of Rogue and dexterity based checks. They can generally be expected to succeed as well or better than most classes because they start with +5 and move up to +11 at the highest levels. Just like the Fighter.

rogue is not the problem, here. they had to have a niche somewhere, and skills makes more sense than pretty much anything else.

(that said, if you want a skilled fighter, fighter/rogue is an excellent combination done properly).

I'd rather Rogues stuck to what rogues are which is either stuff a burglar would do or what an assassin would do. The base class should focus on what those two have in common:

Stealth
Perception
Climbing (Athletics)
Opening Locks
Cheap Shots (A.K.A. Sneak Attack)

Gastronomie

2016-04-25, 10:42 AM

If you're frustrated at how Bards and Rogues overshadow the other classes in terms of Skill, as a DM you could always make a houserule that allows certain characters to use certain skills more effectively.

For instance, while most Rangers would dump INT, it's perfectly natural for them to be able to use the Nature skill and get it right most of the time. Same with Religion and Clerics. In these sorts of situations, I as a DM either "ignore negative ability modifiers" (INT 8 doesn't give a -1 penalty, for instance) and/or "give the roll advantage". It encourages the players to get skills that are more thematically correct - I don't want a party consisting of a Warlock who doesn't know anything about Arcana, a Cleric and Paladin who both doesn't know anything about Religion, and a Druid and Ranger who both doesn't know anything about Nature. It's just really, really stupid.

EDIT: Upon seeing the topic creator's post that was posted while I was typing the above reply, I actually have a feeling that this thread is gonna be locked sooner or later.

wunderkid

2016-04-25, 10:42 AM

2 more is not 'quite a bit'. Yes, as they should be the only ones to get OL, DD. They were not twice as good. Everyone else was 1/2 as good. Big difference.

There are as many skills as needed to be Roguish in 5e. They just need fewer skills and thus need fewer trained skills to be just as effective as in 3.x. In 5e they just need Thieves' Tools (which they get automatically), Stealth, Perception, Investigation, Athletics, Acrobatics, and Sleight of Hand to do all that. So maybe give them 2 more trained skills? I'm not seeing a strong argument for giving them those 3 key features that make them better at skills than everyone else.

Sure. Which is why I said give them double proficiency bonus to Thieves' Tools. Then you can do the same for the Thief/Assassin Class Options for Stealth. Just make sure you do something similar for every class.

I changed my stance on the bard. Their Jack of all trades feature is all they need. They should also lose Expertise in my opinion.

Yep, I remember this because it was great to multiclass a Fighter/Thief to get backstab in the first round of a fight.

They could only do that at level 10 and only if they chose the 'skill monkey' choice for the "Special Abilities" feature. Like I said, I'd have no problem if the 'Skill Monkey rogue were a Class Option(sub-class) of Rogue (or any class for that matter), but as the base class it makes no sense.

In 5e terms they should get 4-6 skills and Thieves' Tools for the above and possibly leave in the feature that lets them take 9 as the lowest roll on the d20. The rest still don't make sense.

The same can be said of Rogue and dexterity based checks. They can generally be expected to succeed as well or better than most classes because they start with +5 and move up to +11 at the highest levels. Just like the Fighter.

I'd rather Rogues stuck to what rogues are which is either stuff a burglar would do or what an assassin would do. The base class should focus on what those two have in common:

Stealth
Perception
Climbing (Athletics)
Opening Locks
Cheap Shots (A.K.A. Sneak Attack)

*deception
*persuasion
*arcana

Rogues aren't just burglars or assassins, they are the face man, the infiltration expert. That means talking you way past situations too.

smcmike

2016-04-25, 10:50 AM

2 more is not 'quite a bit'.

Why do you do this?

You made an error (4-5 max skills, 7 with an "insanely high intelligence."). This is fine - there's nothing wrong with being wrong once in a while about this or that.

I corrected you - the actual figure is 8 + int, so, with an insanely high intelligence a total of 11 or 12.

So why do you continue to downplay your error? I don't mean to be confrontational - I just don't understand why you would mischaracterize and minimize your error from just up the thread. It's not even a big deal!

Yes, as they should be the only ones to get OL, DD. They were not twice as good. Everyone else was 1/2 as good. Big difference.

I don't see the difference, to be honest.

JNAProductions

2016-04-25, 10:59 AM

What if I want to play a Thuggish Rogue? Or an Urban Druid/Ranger? Or a Cleric who was a simple soldier, chosen by a god?

Why should I be good at sneaking then? Or at nature? Or religion?

It's fine to have thematic builds, but you should be allowed to have others.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 11:01 AM

I think a better question is "why not"? Why wouldn't you have 1 class that represents the skilled infiltrator/assassin/trickster? These are popular archetypes that many people enjoy and I don't understand why this seems to be a problem for you.

You can and you don't need expertise and all the other features that make them good at skills to get that. The infiltrator only needs Proficiency with Thieves' Tools and stealth and maybe the ability to Climb ("You may substitute Dexterity for Strength in Climb checks" would work). The assassin is about dealing lots of damage in the surprise round. That's already covered in the class. Trickster works with or without being super good at skills.

I guess my question is less about skill monkey and more about skill master. I'm fine with the Rogue knowing more skills than other classes. I'm not fine with the Rogue and Bard being best at skills. They should be best at certain specific skills or skill applications, but not best at all skills.

D&D is a class based system and always will be. If you don't like that certain classes are designed with specific archetypes in mind then maybe what you need is another gaming system entirely.

Not what I was saying at all. Also why do people always try to tell everyone to go play another game when they express a dislike for a few features. I love about 70% of 5e. That's plenty enough to make it my primary game.

So basically, your argument is that skills should be supplementary to the class, and be used to reinforce the class flavor, whereas right now they are largely detached.

Nope. If I had my way there would be no class skill lists and players would simply choose the skills they wanted. Maybe give them a few specific skills for free with each class like Stealth and Perception for the Rogue, Athletics and Intimidation for the Fighter and Barbarian, Bard would get Performance and Persuasion, Druid would get Nature, Ranger Survival, etc...etc... Or don't force any skills on them and just tell them they get 4 skills each and let them pick. Then give them double proficiency in specific narrow sub-sets of skills and ability checks. Or even double Ability mod instead. That way it doesn't matter if they are trained or not, they are just naturally better. There are a lot of ways they could have went, but didn't.

The reason it is the way it is now is because WotC did not envision skills as very tightly bound to an individual class. That's why backgrounds provide skill proficiency regardless of what class you have. The general case is that adventurers are good at some things, not tightly related to their class, and especially good at specific things based on their class. Wizards are especially good at spells. Knowledge domain clerics are especially good at knowing things (and the skill expertise is just a vehicle to get there). Rogues and bards just get the flexibility to be especially good at whatever the choose (but are rewarded for choosing something that matches their favorite attributes)

If they didn't want them bound to class, then why do we have class skill lists in the first place?

I'm fine with Knowledge Clerics getting double proficiency on a choice of a knowledge skill. I'm fine with the Ranger getting double proficiency on Int and Wis checks about their favored terrain/enemy, in fact I applaud that design decision.

When Rogues are suddenly the best at Arcana and Religion checks because of background choice stacking with Rogue features, I boo that one loudly. It doesn't go with the idea of a deceptive/stealthy/devious character which is what the Rogue archetype is.

wunderkid

2016-04-25, 11:10 AM

When Rogues are suddenly the best at Arcana and Religion checks because of background choice stacking with Rogue features, I boo that one loudly. It doesn't go with the idea of a deceptive/stealthy/devious character which is what the Rogue archetype is.

Well arcana they should definitely be one of the best at.

But that's purely because the designers have made arcana necessary for working out and disarming magical traps.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 11:16 AM

Why do you do this?

You made an error (4-5 max skills, 7 with an "insanely high intelligence."). This is fine - there's nothing wrong with being wrong once in a while about this or that.

I corrected you - the actual figure is 8 + int, so, with an insanely high intelligence a total of 11 or 12.

So why do you continue to downplay your error? I don't mean to be confrontational - I just don't understand why you would mischaracterize and minimize your error from just up the thread. It's not even a big deal!

I don't see the difference, to be honest.

First, I minimized it because as you said, it doesn't really matter. Second the actual math assuming a +5 int mod would be (8+5)*4 = 13 skills at rank 4. If we go with a more reasonable Int mod like +2 it would be (8+2)*4=10 skills at rank 4. If we go with +0 Int mod we end up with 8 skills at rank 4. If the int mod is super high (which I find unlikely) it would be around 13 skills at max rank. If its average then its 8 skills at rank 4, but they might need more than 8 skills so some aren't going to be at max rank. That's also assuming they don't want any cross class skills.

The short of this is that I underestimated it because its been a long time. It doesn't matter so why discuss it and ruin this thread like all the others?

What if I want to play a Thuggish Rogue? Or an Urban Druid/Ranger? Or a Cleric who was a simple soldier, chosen by a god?

Why should I be good at sneaking then? Or at nature? Or religion?

It's fine to have thematic builds, but you should be allowed to have others.

I agree. You should be able to do those things which is why I suggested decoupling skills from class altogether.

Demonic Spoon

2016-04-25, 11:16 AM

When Rogues are suddenly the best at Arcana and Religion checks because of background choice stacking with Rogue features, I boo that one loudly. It doesn't go with the idea of a deceptive/stealthy/devious character which is what the Rogue archetype is.

Rogue is actually a considerably more flexible class than you're giving it credit for. If you wanted to create an Indiana Jones-type character, you would almost certainly want a rogue, and you would also want that rogue to be great at certain kinds of knowledge. The current expertise system allows for that, your suggested changes do not.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 11:19 AM

Rogue is actually a considerably more flexible class than you're giving it credit for. If you wanted to create an Indiana Jones-type character, you would almost certainly want a rogue, and you would also want that rogue to be great at certain kinds of knowledge. The current expertise system allows for that, your suggested changes do not.

You can actually create Indiana Jones out of multiple classes. He might be a Fighter with the right background, he might be a ranger with a fightery bent, he might be a rogue with a few skills and the right background.

None of the things that Indiana Jones does requires being better at skills than other classes, they just require being skilled.

smcmike

2016-04-25, 11:36 AM

First, I minimized it because as you said, it doesn't really matter.

The short of this is that I underestimated it because its been a long time. It doesn't matter so why discuss it and ruin this thread like all the others?

I guess my whole point is that it is annoying to have to correct someone multiple times on the same little detail. Yeah, the detail is ultimately unimportant, but it would be easier to discuss more important things if everyone (myself included) could just accept correction a little more freely, without feeling the need to minimize their errors. That's my last word on the subject.

Sticking with the subject, yeah, you could build Indiana Jones with a variety of classes, but if you just ignore the actual mechanics of the classes and think of them as themes or archetypes, it's pretty clear where Indiana falls. He's not a famous warrior, he's not an outdoorsman, he's an adventurer who figures out traps and finds hidden treasure. That's a rogue.

SharkForce

2016-04-25, 11:44 AM

Demonic Spoon

2016-04-25, 11:59 AM

You can actually create Indiana Jones out of multiple classes. He might be a Fighter with the right background, he might be a ranger with a fightery bent, he might be a rogue with a few skills and the right background.

None of the things that Indiana Jones does requires being better at skills than other classes, they just require being skilled.

They absolutely do. Mere proficiency in skills does not make you all that good at them. It's not until the highest levels that your proficiency alone is a huge bonus to doing something with that skill.

If a skill is character-defining, the character should get more than just proficiency with it.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 12:13 PM

the AD&D 2e fighter/thief multiclass for backstab was a pretty lousy deal. you split your exp two ways, and backstab is the only attack you get in the round... honestly, i'd rather just attack more often all the time (weapon specialization is a class ability of *single classed* fighters in 2nd AD&D). it won't take long before those extra attacks add up to more than backstab

You forget level limits. Thief got the highest limit for most races and you always multiclassed if you weren't human. Also weapon specialization in the 2E PHB says only fighters can specialize. It does not say only single classed fighters. So if you multiclassed as a fighter you could also specialize.

They absolutely do. Mere proficiency in skills does not make you all that good at them. It's not until the highest levels that your proficiency alone is a huge bonus to doing something with that skill.

If a skill is character-defining, the character should get more than just proficiency with it.

I see this as a failing of the skill system as a whole rather than a feature of the Rogue/Bard. In my view a professional will succeed at a moderately hard task most of the time. They will be able to do hard tasks a lot of the time without failing. So to me the entire skill system does not model proficiency very well at all.

In 5e you are trained but not experienced or even good if you are 'proficient'. There is no level above 'proficient' unless you are a Rogue/Bard. Which makes no sense to me. I mean if you had a feat called "Skill Mastery" that gave you double proficiency to two trained skills and let you take 9 on the dice, then I would be completely happy. Those that wanted to be experts could do it, instead you have to literally become a Rogue or Bard to do that. In fact they could even offer that feat for free to Rogues and Bards as an option in exchange for something else like the Bard could swap Jack of all Trades for it, and the rogue could swap out thieves tools proficiency for it, or like everyone else they could take it as a feat.

Demonic Spoon

2016-04-25, 12:17 PM

In 5e you are trained but not experienced or even good if you are 'proficient'. There is no level above 'proficient' unless you are a Rogue/Bard. Which makes no sense to me.

This is blatantly false. There are two other classes that explicitly get double proficiency, and many other classes that get features which aren't quite double proficiency but also matter in this kind of calculation - for example, the barbarian's advantage to strength checks while raging.

I don't think a ton of classes need to be really, really good at specific skills to match their role - most who need it already have it. However, I don't disagree that some that don't have it should (like fighters and athletics/acrobatics).

smcmike

2016-04-25, 12:21 PM

I mean if you had a feat called "Skill Mastery" that gave you double proficiency to two trained skills and let you take 9 on the dice, then I would be completely happy.

This sounds a bit too strong for a single feat, but I agree that there should be an expertise feat. How about a one-skill half feat with related +1 ASI?

Regitnui

2016-04-25, 12:21 PM

Personally, I've stopped thinking of the Rogue as "thief class" and more as "agent" or "skilled specialist".

Legend System (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/LegendSystem) (a sprouting off 3.5) has the rogue be the Skill Monkey as well, so it's hardly a thing unique to 5e.

Pex

2016-04-25, 12:34 PM

Regitnui

2016-04-25, 12:46 PM

I don't mind bard and rogue being better overall in Skills than other classes, but I do mind no one else can "take 10 or 20" anymore. There's no point at which your character becomes just that good to autosucceed at something. You have to rely on DM fiat to say there's no need to roll, and different DMs will have different tolerance levels of when such autosuccesses can happen. It's an issue that has been discussed before. Ye Olde Example is a ranger climbing a greased rope. People were differing on how easy or hard that is, which determines the DC and the significant chance to fail given some arbitrary ranger level > 1. People would counter if the chance of failure bothered you then declare no roll is needed, but that's part of the point. Not every DM would allow a ranger to autosucceed climbing a greased rope.

In my opinion, and I think one of the books mentions this as well; the decision whether to roll or not should boil down to "Are the consequences interesting?" If the ranger climbing the greased rope is just trying to catch up with the party or get back on board a ship, then why roll? If he's trying to do so when there are sharks or in the middle of a firefight, then roll. The decision can also be softened by making failure by less than 5 "success, but" rolls. Like with our ranger in a firefight; Say the player rolls 13 against a DC 15 (don't criticize my numbers), the DM can just as easily say "you make it onto the deck, but you have to haul yourself the last metre, leaving you prone while the fight rages around you."

fishyfishyfishy

2016-04-25, 12:55 PM

You can and you don't need expertise and all the other features that make them good at skills to get that. The infiltrator only needs Proficiency with Thieves' Tools and stealth and maybe the ability to Climb ("You may substitute Dexterity for Strength in Climb checks" would work). The assassin is about dealing lots of damage in the surprise round. That's already covered in the class. Trickster works with or without being super good at skills.

I guess my question is less about skill monkey and more about skill master. I'm fine with the Rogue knowing more skills than other classes. I'm not fine with the Rogue and Bard being best at skills. They should be best at certain specific skills or skill applications, but not best at all skills.

They're only the "best" at the skills they invest in specifically. You're making this statement as though the Rogue and Bard are simply better than every other class at all skills all the time. They aren't. They're good at the skills they select for expertise and maybe a few other skills with high modifiers.

Not what I was saying at all. Also why do people always try to tell everyone to go play another game when they express a dislike for a few features. I love about 70% of 5e. That's plenty enough to make it my primary game.

I don't tell "everyone" this. I just suggest it to people who seem to want something that the system is not designed to simulate. I take it from your statement you hear this a lot? If so I can certainly understand why. You seem to have a lot of gripes with the design of the classes and the system as a whole without any real solutions for them, and neither do you seem to like any explanations or solutions put forth by anyone else.

Nope. If I had my way there would be no class skill lists and players would simply choose the skills they wanted. Maybe give them a few specific skills for free with each class like Stealth and Perception for the Rogue, Athletics and Intimidation for the Fighter and Barbarian, Bard would get Performance and Persuasion, Druid would get Nature, Ranger Survival, etc...etc... Or don't force any skills on them and just tell them they get 4 skills each and let them pick. Then give them double proficiency in specific narrow sub-sets of skills and ability checks. Or even double Ability mod instead. That way it doesn't matter if they are trained or not, they are just naturally better. There are a lot of ways they could have went, but didn't.

If they didn't want them bound to class, then why do we have class skill lists in the first place?

I'm fine with Knowledge Clerics getting double proficiency on a choice of a knowledge skill. I'm fine with the Ranger getting double proficiency on Int and Wis checks about their favored terrain/enemy, in fact I applaud that design decision.

When Rogues are suddenly the best at Arcana and Religion checks because of background choice stacking with Rogue features, I boo that one loudly. It doesn't go with the idea of a deceptive/stealthy/devious character which is what the Rogue archetype is.

Why have any customization at all if you're going to shoehorn every Rogue into the exact same archetype? Expertise in Arcana and Religion is a perfectly viable choice for a Rogue that was formerly an acolyte at a temple of Olidammara, or some other trickster type deity. Or maybe they're a scholar/Indiana jones type character who delves into ancient dungeons in search of lost treasures and they studied the subjects quite intensively.

I would also like to point out that the bolded portion seems to directly contradict everything else you said just above it about not binding skills to classes.

JeffreyGator

2016-04-25, 01:08 PM

Rogues, bards, rangers, knowledge domain clerics, and more I'm probably missing all get double proficiency to certain skills...and even though rogue and bard expertise is flexible, it's best used on something they already have the attributes for - DEX skills for rogue, CHA skills for bard.

The rogue is not really an outlier here. Of course, you could argue that more classes should get these mechanics - I would love to see a fighter with double proficiency to athletics/acrobatics, for example.

don't Purple Dragon Knights double proficiency with persuasion?

When Rogues are suddenly the best at Arcana and Religion checks because of background choice stacking with Rogue features, I boo that one loudly. It doesn't go with the idea of a deceptive/stealthy/devious character which is what the Rogue archetype is.

I actually think MasterMinds learning more about the theory of arcana/religion makes certain sense. And the class feature would only be chosen when it makes sense. An assassin/spy that infiltrated a church. Practioners and theorists don't always line up. ATs could be better than wizards at theory since in practice they have to be much more creative using their spells.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 01:08 PM

This is blatantly false. There are two other classes that explicitly get double proficiency, and many other classes that get features which aren't quite double proficiency but also matter in this kind of calculation - for example, the barbarian's advantage to strength checks while raging.

Advantage is not the same as double proficiency bonus. In fact if you compare the two you'll see a surprising thing:

5th
Expertise + highest stat mod can't fail a check below 12, and has a 10% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC.
Advantage + highest stat mod can't fail a check below 9, and has a 0% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC.
10th
Expertise + highest stat mod can't fail a check below 14, and has a 20% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC.
Advantage + highest stat mod can't fail a check below 10, and has a 0% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC.
20th
Expertise + highest stat mod can't fail a check below 18, and has a 40% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC 30 check.
Advantage + highest stat mod has a 91% chance of getting an 18, and has a 19% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC 30 check.

The two are not close to each other. Expertise is clearly superior. Advantage also models some kind of external advantage that the character has at the task (for instance raging makes the barbarian stronger and tougher)

Other than the Rogue/Bard there are only a few edge cases that get double proficiency. So it is in fact true. If you want to truly excel at any two skills of your choice you must be a Rogue or Bard. Otherwise if you want to excel at a few kinds of knowledge checks, some nature or survival check you can pick those specific classes to do it.

I don't think a ton of classes need to be really, really good at specific skills to match their role - most who need it already have it. However, I don't disagree that some that don't have it should (like fighters and athletics/acrobatics).

Yes, my list above was pretty comprehensive about how I feel about it.

Legend System (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/LegendSystem) (a sprouting off 3.5) has the rogue be the Skill Monkey as well, so it's hardly a thing unique to 5e.

I'm talking 5e here. I can point to any number of game systems (some based on 3.x) that do what I want for a single aspect or feature or rule of the game. Doesn't help when I'm primarily playing 5e though.

Tanarii

2016-04-25, 01:13 PM

IIn no edition to date has the Rogue been leaps and bounds better than other characters at doing things based on skills.

Not sure what you mean by this. Originally, the thief was the only class that could do thieving skills. No other class was better.

Originally the Fighting Man did all that. Then the Thief got a chance to succeed at what the DM up until then made people roll for (or just told them they succeed or fail at). Until the Thief came into being the chances of doing something like their skills were determined by rolling a 1or 2 on 1d6 IIRC. So they actually had a better chance than the Thief until about mid level. Then there were the spells that automatically succeeded at those tasks.You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of how (most) Thief skills worked prior to 3e. Fighting Men, or any other non-thief character, could do anything reasonable. But only thieves could do the truly exceptional things that Thief skills allowed.

Anyone could hide behind something. Only thieves could hide in the very shadows.
Anyone could sneak around. Only thieves could move silently.
Anyone could break a lock open. Only thieves could pick them.
Anyone could find large and generic traps (pit traps, trip wires). Only thieves could find and disable intricate and well hidden traps.
Anyone could climb a tree or cliff. Only thieves could scale sheer surfaces. (This one was made clear by the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide btw.)

Hear Noise was just an improvement in the basic level of skill though. At least in BECMI. And I believe in oD&D and B/X as well, but don't quote me on that.

Edit: Personally, I think a reasonable house-rule is that Rogues can only use Expertise on the Rogue class list, plus Thieves' Tools.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 01:24 PM

They're only the "best" at the skills they invest in specifically. You're making this statement as though the Rogue and Bard are simply better than every other class at all skills all the time. They aren't. They're good at the skills they select for expertise and maybe a few other skills with high modifiers.

Yes, which with backgrounds can be any skill in the game. So they can be better than any other class at the thing the class is built around. If I want to be best at arcana checks with my bookish wizard, I better take a level of Rogue/Bard or I am just not the best. Even if I have some kind of feat or class feature that grants advantage, the Rogue can simply take 9, or once a day just flat out 20+ on it. Not only that the Rogue/Bard could do this to multiple skills meaning they can outdo the Fighter/Barbarian at Athletics, they can outdo the Wizard and Cleric at Arcana and Religion, they can match the Ranger at survival, and do it in any terrain/enemy.

I don't tell "everyone" this. I just suggest it to people who seem to want something that the system is not designed to simulate. I take it from your statement you hear this a lot? If so I can certainly understand why. You seem to have a lot of gripes with the design of the classes and the system as a whole without any real solutions for them, and neither do you seem to like any explanations or solutions put forth by anyone else.

lol, maybe you are thinking of someone else. I listed all the things I like about 5e and I only dislike about 30%. When I post I always suggest ways to improve 5e or house rules that fix problems. In the case of expertise I suggested doubling proficiency on all trained skills for all classes (yes, someone else suggested it first), those with expertise roll an extra die like the luck feat unless they have disadvantage, then they roll normally. I've suggested other things in this very thread.

Why have any customization at all if you're going to shoehorn every Rogue into the exact same archetype? Expertise in Arcana and Religion is a perfectly viable choice for a Rogue that was formerly an acolyte at a temple of Olidammara, or some other trickster type deity. Or maybe they're a scholar/Indiana jones type character who delves into ancient dungeons in search of lost treasures and they studied the subjects quite intensively.

I would also like to point out that the bolded portion seems to directly contradict everything else you said just above it about not binding skills to classes.

I would drop expertise and just say proficiency in those skills, and I would completely agree. Unfortunately what we have here is a Rogue that is better at Arcana and Religion than the high priest at a temple of Olidammara. The problem is not that the Rogue is good at these things, its that the Rogue is head and shoulders better than those that should be masters.

don't Purple Dragon Knights double proficiency with persuasion?

I usually don't discuss anything that has a warning label of 'might break your game', unless its specifically being talked about. However if it does, that's a step in the right direction at least.

djreynolds

2016-04-25, 01:32 PM

The rogue and bard are both fantastic classes. Both get 4 skills to apply expertise to. Very flexible.

5e has freed the rogue, given him extra HP. Other classes can cover down on the iconic skills of the rogue.

Now the rogue can focus on his best feature. Landing Sneak Attacks.

Leith

2016-04-25, 01:41 PM

The issue with removing the skill master aspect of Rogue and Bard is, what do you replace it with? If it feels unrealistic or silly for them to have it, fine. But in term of balance a fighter doesn't need to have Expertise in Athletics 'cause he's got special killing people powers that far outstrip the Rogue. The Rogue needs to have something that makes him both special and balances the class role/abilities against other classes. It doesn't have to be Expertise and Skill Mastery, but you gotta have something.
My advice; if you don't like WoTC's Rogues, house rule 'em. Then post those house rules. Then discuss those house rules. Then go get a sammich.

smcmike

2016-04-25, 01:43 PM

Unfortunately what we have here is a Rogue that is better at Arcana and Religion than the high priest at a temple of Olidammara. The problem is not that the Rogue is good at these things, its that the Rogue is head and shoulders better than those that should be masters.

The rogue that knows more about religion than a high priest is fine with me, actually. Clerics aren't necessarily academics, and knowledge of religion is a global skill - I imagine most priests aren't really all that interested in esoteric knowledge of other religions. And if they are, of course, knowledge clerics get expertise.

The argument is more convincing if you focus on archmages and arcana.

Firechanter

2016-04-25, 01:43 PM

Mini-Rant:
I feel that in 5E, the class Rogue isn't really best at anything.

- it's pretty good at skills -- but the Bard is better.
- it has a decent Sustain, but an offensive Martial class is generally better
- and for that, it has significantly worse AC and HP
- it totally lacks a Nova -- except the Assassin, but that's extremely situational and needs a lot of setup and chance and then it must always be the first strike.
- the AT can dabble in magic a bit, but it has extremely limited access to the spells you _really_ want to have, like Spider Climb, Fly or anything else that would help you get places
Anything else?

Tanarii

2016-04-25, 01:57 PM

- it's pretty good at skills -- but the Bard is better.Not seeing it. Rogues get Expertise earlier, get more or less skills based on subclass (4 vs 3/6 for Bard), two of the three Rogue Archetypes get enhanced skill use specific to their focus that outstrip anything a Bard can do, and at level 11 they get Reliable Talent.

What is it that Bards do better in regards to skills?

Edit: Technically AT also gets enhanced skill use in conjunction with Mage Hand.

Demonic Spoon

2016-04-25, 02:03 PM

Advantage is not the same as double proficiency bonus. In fact if you compare the two you'll see a surprising thing:

5th
Expertise + highest stat mod can't fail a check below 12, and has a 10% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC.
Advantage + highest stat mod can't fail a check below 9, and has a 0% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC.
10th
Expertise + highest stat mod can't fail a check below 14, and has a 20% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC.
Advantage + highest stat mod can't fail a check below 10, and has a 0% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC.
20th
Expertise + highest stat mod can't fail a check below 18, and has a 40% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC 30 check.
Advantage + highest stat mod has a 91% chance of getting an 18, and has a 19% chance of success at a nearly impossible DC 30 check.

The two are not close to each other. Expertise is clearly superior. Advantage also models some kind of external advantage that the character has at the task (for instance raging makes the barbarian stronger and tougher)

Other than the Rogue/Bard there are only a few edge cases that get double proficiency. So it is in fact true. If you want to truly excel at any two skills of your choice you must be a Rogue or Bard. Otherwise if you want to excel at a few kinds of knowledge checks, some nature or survival check you can pick those specific classes to do it.
You're cherrypicking examples to make expertise look better than it is. At the highest levels, expertise is pretty much categorically better than advantage. Before then, however, it depends on your target. Expertise is better for doing nearly-impossible things. However, advantage is better for reliably hitting easier checks. That can be just as important.

Ranger is another full class, and knowledge domain cleric is a subclass of a full class. They are not edge cases.

The rogue that knows more about religion than a high priest is fine with me, actually. Clerics aren't necessarily academics, and knowledge of religion is a global skill - I imagine most priests aren't really all that interested in esoteric knowledge of other religions. And if they are, of course, knowledge clerics get expertise.

The argument is more convincing if you focus on archmages and arcana.

Even then, knowing how to cast magic isn't the same thing as knowing arcane lore. I wouldn't mind if there was a "loremaster" wizard subclass, but I don't think it's intrinsic to being a wizard. There's also the balance argument that full casters already have tons of utility from spellcasting, so they don't need expertise on top of that (bards are forgivable because their spell list is highly specialized outside of Magical Secrets).

Osrogue

2016-04-25, 02:08 PM

You can and you don't need expertise and all the other features that make them good at skills to get that. The infiltrator only needs Proficiency with Thieves' Tools and stealth and maybe the ability to Climb ("You may substitute Dexterity for Strength in Climb checks" would work). The assassin is about dealing lots of damage in the surprise round. That's already covered in the class. Trickster works with or without being super good at skills.

I guess my question is less about skill monkey and more about skill master. I'm fine with the Rogue knowing more skills than other classes. I'm not fine with the Rogue and Bard being best at skills. They should be best at certain specific skills or skill applications, but not best at all skills.

Not what I was saying at all. Also why do people always try to tell everyone to go play another game when they express a dislike for a few features. I love about 70% of 5e. That's plenty enough to make it my primary game.

Nope. If I had my way there would be no class skill lists and players would simply choose the skills they wanted. Maybe give them a few specific skills for free with each class like Stealth and Perception for the Rogue, Athletics and Intimidation for the Fighter and Barbarian, Bard would get Performance and Persuasion, Druid would get Nature, Ranger Survival, etc...etc... Or don't force any skills on them and just tell them they get 4 skills each and let them pick. Then give them double proficiency in specific narrow sub-sets of skills and ability checks. Or even double Ability mod instead. That way it doesn't matter if they are trained or not, they are just naturally better. There are a lot of ways they could have went, but didn't.

If they didn't want them bound to class, then why do we have class skill lists in the first place?

I'm fine with Knowledge Clerics getting double proficiency on a choice of a knowledge skill. I'm fine with the Ranger getting double proficiency on Int and Wis checks about their favored terrain/enemy, in fact I applaud that design decision.

When Rogues are suddenly the best at Arcana and Religion checks because of background choice stacking with Rogue features, I boo that one loudly. It doesn't go with the idea of a deceptive/stealthy/devious character which is what the Rogue archetype is.

Why do you insist that the rogue archetypes define all rogues?

Why can't Lara Croft be a rogue archetype, who would have studied religion and magic, or Nathan Drake, who knows a great deal of history? Why do you think assassins are just damage dealers? Why do you force a stealthy rogue? I want to play a charlatan arcane trickster who uses a bit of magic to enhance his trickery. I want him to not be particularly perceptive or sneaky, but I guess he's automatically stealthy then. There happens to be a rogue class for that, but I won't be taking the skills you think all self-respecting rogues should have.

As for your second point:

If a dex fighter takes skilled as a feat, let's say bonus feat as a human, and takes an criminal background for those thieve's tools, then viola, he's a rogue. If you take away everything that makes a rogue better in its area of expertise than a fighter is, why bother with the class? They are worse at fighting. If they aren't better at skills (not all skills, the four(?) skills they choose to be experts in) what makes them good or balanced?

Saying that rogues are the master of all skills is disingenuous. They are a very flexible class with a lot of options, but they can't be everything at once. But the fact is that a rogue can be anything from an archeologist to a serial killer and everything in between. Rogues in this game pretty much are people who can't or don't face their problems with brute force, but with cunning or guile.

I'm just going to list a few rogues that come to mind.

Lara Croft
Nathan Drake
Jack Sparrow
Han Solo
Mulan
Frodo
Thane
Zevran
Leliana
James Bond
Zorro
Robin Hood
Odysseus

tldr:

"All rogues have this skill!"
Response: way to pigeonhole yourself.

"Every class should have access to any 4 skills they want!"
Response: um, backgrounds are a thing. And how am I different from a fighter now?

JeffreyGator

2016-04-25, 02:21 PM

Advantage is not the same as double proficiency bonus. In fact if you compare the two you'll see a surprising thing:

advantage and double proficiency actually track pretty well. I do change some stat assumption in the following chart - but looking at the whole ranges the lines are close together. (I assume 16 at level 1, 18 @ 4th, 20 @5th and 22 @ 15th yay tomes!)

Hmm this doesn't work nearly as well when I can't link the picture.

Advantage vs Expertise chart (https://docs.google.com/document/d/177S7vrZzEgs4xPIe4zixLRkcaooUK1hatOXPEZVoWIQ/edit?usp=sharing)

Socratov

2016-04-25, 02:47 PM

If I might return to the rogue vs bard stance, they start at the same point: both are classes that take care of themselves by not using brute force but utility, tricks, skills and a dash and smile. Where they start to differ is in the following: the bard is someone who has a tendency to improvise (hence the jack of all trades). it also means that some skills he will rely on above the rest. Stuff he will be actually good at, hence the expertise (albeit less then the rogue). The rogue on the other hand, is a professional. He belongs to a guild, and on a more local level a gang or team. At worst he plays the crowd while pick-pocketing, at best he is part of a team that uses cunning skills, subterfuge, deft hands and a sly smile to get what he wants.

For a bard a great example os Kvothe form the Name of the Wind, reckless, smarter then what is good for him and a braod array of skills. A great example for a rogue is Locke Lamora and his crew: organised, with a plan, many skills, but a few he can always (and I do mean ALWAYS) fall back on (each and every one of the crew has their precise set of skills.

I also think Rogue has a great place in the classes, though I'd love for them to be a wee bit better written. As it stands the assassin ability for the autocrit is vage and extremely Dm dependant going form totally OP on one end to unusable the next. I do love the cunning hands extra action stuff as it makes for a better skirmisher. I also think that assassin and thief should be partly merged and that a new subclass should be introduced: Scout. This would make for a more wildlife rogue or one based around sneak and recon (maybe having some things key off spot and sniping as a way of dealing damage). But that is just my 2 cents.

Regitnui

2016-04-25, 03:02 PM

NewDM, what class would Sherlock Holmes be?

Rogue. Specifically, the Inquisitive archetype from the most recent UA, but that apparently doesn't count.

Not every rogue is Lidda, you know. Samwise Gamgee (LoTR) is a "halfling rogue", if you go by his defeating orc squads by bluffing them and being lucky, but he's a fat gardener who retires happily to be a historian at the end. All of the classes range over a far wider set of potential characters than you seem to give them credit for; a fighter can be a learned general, a battlemage or a mafia enforcer. The warlock can be an agent of darkness, the living seal on an archdemon, or a Jedi. Clerics can be priests, but also the primitive shaman or a surgeon devoted to saving lives.

Backgrounds just make things even more flexible. We're not playing a system where everything's hard-coded anymore. Your class is a suggestion for your character, not the definition. I'm not a changeling bard (lore). I'm Wes, the man with a story for any occasion and an insatiable curiosity. I can tell you three stories about the Queen's youth, that there are giant killer penguins in the Frostfell, and that every play on earth is the same seven stories. If I don't know the answer, I know where to find it. And all of that is more important than what numbers are on my character sheet at the end of the day.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-04-25, 03:05 PM

The very name of the class was changed from Thief to Rogue, so that it would incorporate more archetypes.

The defining feature of a rogue isn't sneak attack, as someone stated, but rather someone more suited to out of combat situations. They can be the typical thief, assassin, street tough, bandit, treasure hunter, charlatan, scout, or spy. They have already been shoehorned into having to be proficient in thieves tools, which dates back to when they were the only class that could do rogue things, as previously mentioned in this thread.

I don't mind expertise... but I think it would be fair to just get rid of it, if everyone thinks it is a point of contention. Replace it with Advantage, and let DMs get rid of ridiculous DCs... a DC 30 would be impossible or right next to it... with a +6 proficiency and a +5 ability bonus you are going to make that happen 10% of the time... and advantage would give you 2 chances to do it, as a opposed to expertise giving you a +30% chance to do it, meaning its a 40% chance to do the impossible.

I think sneak attack should be the sole zone of the assassin archetype, at least how it is in it's present form...no other class can reliably deliver extra damage by knowing how/when/where to hit someone/thing, even though fighters would excel at it. They swing at it more.

To make up for it, give rogues a different combat specialty with their chosen archtypes.
(examples)
Thief - dirty fighting - ways to assist allies and distract enemies (like battle master)
Assassin - Sneak Attack
Swashbuckler - dueling style and 2x attacks at level 6 (like the valor bard)

NewDM

2016-04-25, 03:10 PM

You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of how (most) Thief skills worked prior to 3e. Fighting Men, or any other non-thief character, could do anything reasonable. But only thieves could do the truly exceptional things that Thief skills allowed.

Anyone could hide behind something. Only thieves could hide in the very shadows.
Anyone could sneak around. Only thieves could move silently.
Anyone could break a lock open. Only thieves could pick them.
Anyone could find large and generic traps (pit traps, trip wires). Only thieves could find and disable intricate and well hidden traps.
Anyone could climb a tree or cliff. Only thieves could scale sheer surfaces. (This one was made clear by the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide btw.)

Hear Noise was just an improvement in the basic level of skill though. At least in BECMI. And I believe in oD&D and B/X as well, but don't quote me on that.

Edit: Personally, I think a reasonable house-rule is that Rogues can only use Expertise on the Rogue class list, plus Thieves' Tools.

I'm actually looking at the books now. I have no misunderstanding, except how people used to house rule it way back when. Here let me quote you some lines from the books:

Men and Magic:
"Dwarves...they note slanting passages, traps, shifting walls and new construction in underground settings"

"Strength...Strength will also aid in opening traps and so on."

It repeats what is in the Gray Book below about everything else. Basically there are no Thiefs and there are no rules for doing Thief like stuff. The only rule that applies is "New details can be added and old "laws" altered so as to provide continually new and different situations" and that's in the introduction.

Gray Book:
"Secret passages will be located on the roll of a 1 or a 2 (on a six-sided die) by men, dwarves or halflings. Elves will be able to locate them on a roll of 1–4. At the referee’s option, elves may be allowed the chance to sense any secret door they pass, a 1 or a 2 indicating that they become aware that something is there."

"When characters come to a door they may “listen” to detect any sound within. Note undead never make any sound. A roll of 1 for humans, and 1 or 2 for elves, dwarves, or halflings will detect sound within if there is any to be heard."

"Climbing
To climb the creature moves ahead the number of feet equal to the number of feet of height climbed. The cost of climbing is twice the number of feet climbed plus the number of feet equal to ten times the “Number of Spaces between Turns” requirement, i.e. 60’ (6 spaces) for a giant reptile."

The above books are from the era where players described in detail what their players did and the DM described in detail what they saw and felt. So it was a binary figure out what the DM is thinking/describing and avoid it. No rolls necessary. So a trap was described as 'ash covered vents in the walls and floor' and the player was meant say something like "I cover the vents with metal plates" or "I avoid the vents as best as possible." to get past the trap. It was also the era of the 10' pole used to poke everything in a room.

1E is when thieves were introduced:
"Dwarves...Detect traps involving pits, falling blocks and other stonework 50% probability (d4, score 1-2 or d6, score 1-3)"

"But thieves, as well as characters able to move quietly because of a magical device such as boots of elvenkind have a chance to be absolutely silent when moving. This chance to be absolutely silent is given as a percentage, +/- modifiers, and the character must roll percentile dice to score less than or equal to the percentage chance he or she has to move without sound. Success indicates silent movement and an improved chance to surprise an opponent or slip past it."

So thieves could move 'absolutely silent' other classes just moved silently, in order to get surprise.

"Assume the party of characters, moving silently and invisibly, comes upon a monster."

The above indicates anyone can move silently.

"Traps...Having proper equipment with the party, a cleric for healing, a dwarf for trap detection, and a magic-user to knock open doors and locks go a long way towards reducing the hazard. Observation and clever deduction, as well as proper caution, should negate a significant portion of traps."

In other words you didn't bring a Thief to find traps, you brought a Dwarf. However you were also meant to 'deduct' that there was a trap present.

"There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage. You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player
or the non-player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides."

Nothing in the books say that only Thieves can do those things. Therefore players attempting things like that would follow the above rule and the DM basically sets the chance.

I don't have access to BECMI, but I remember you were supposed to roll a 1d6 and if you got a 1 or 2 you succeeded at what you were trying. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me with a quote from the books please.

2e:
Listening: Players could listen as if they were a 1st level thief. It was based on race though.

Fighters non-weapon proficiencies included mountaineering which included climbing. Other classes could get this for double the cost. The difference between this and Thief climbing was that the Thief didn't need tools.

They also got Set Snares which could be used to detect and avoid traps.

Blacksmithing might be used to bypass locks. (though the description doesn't specifically say that).

Everything else was just an ability check. No where does it say someone other than a Thief cannot attempt to try to do Thief things.

In summary:
0E to 1E: It either didn't exist or it was a racial feature. When Thief skills did exist Races had better chances to succeed until high levels.
2e: Non-Weapon proficiencies or ability checks were used, Thieves got better than everyone else only at high levels.
3.x: Only Rogues could do certain things (like detect magic traps, and disable traps), got lots of skills, but other classes could pay double to get the same skills.

smcmike

2016-04-25, 03:20 PM

I think sneak attack should be the sole zone of the assassin archetype, at least how it is in it's present form...no other class can reliably deliver extra damage by knowing how/when/where to hit someone/thing, even though fighters would excel at it. They swing at it more.

To make up for it, give rogues a different combat specialty with their chosen archtypes.
(examples)
Thief - dirty fighting - ways to assist allies and distract enemies (like battle master)
Assassin - Sneak Attack
Swashbuckler - dueling style and 2x attacks at level 6 (like the valor bard)

This makes so much sense to me. Sneak attack is an awkward ability to fit into a lot of character concepts. Matching it, though, is tricky - you'd need some pretty robust dirty fighting skills to match all those damage dice.

KorvinStarmast

2016-04-25, 03:21 PM

Actually the Thief was only better than other classes at doing those things at high level. For instance in the Gray Book it talks about rolling 1 or 2 on 1d6 which is about 33% chance to find a secret door or trap or listen through a door. Elves had a better chance at finding a secret door by walking past it than a Rogue did (Elves were Fighters or Wizards in those days). The only difference is the Rogue rolled percentile dice instead of 1d6 and could get better at it.
Did you actually play in a Greyhawk/OD&D campaign? I did, and I regret to report that you are somewhat mistaken. Yes, dwarves in general had the find trap racial ability, but were LIMITED in level as Dwarves (fighters) to 6th level in the original game. (Greyhawk relaxed that a bit). The elven racial bonus was pretty cool, but the elves were originally limited to 4/8 fighter magic usesr.

As to hearing noise, the way we used the hear noise die was that you rolled 1d6 and subtracted what was on the Greyhawk table. (IIRC, that is the intention). So if hear noise was normally a 1, you'd year on a 3 or less as a first level thief. And so on. That made any thief better than a non thief elf.

Remove Traps: thief unique, though initial skill was low it went up substantially with level. Remove and Find traps are not the same function at that point.
Move silently: thief unique in terms of improvement per level
Hide in Shadows. Thief unique and as you mention, much better at high level than low.
Pick pockets: thief unique
Climb walls: thief unique.(started at 87% and got better) The "climb sheer walls" was unique to thieves.
Thief at 3rd level: read 80% of languages (so reading treasure maps and such is in a thief's wheel house). When languages mattered (you'd need a high int to know multiple languages) this was kind of handy.
Scroll use and magic item use: unique for a non caster to get this, but as you note it's a higher level ability.

In AD&D 1e, they re did the thief tables again and did a bit more tweaking on the racial bonuses and dex based bonuses to various skills.

Thief as skill monkey was also informed by having, originally, 1d4 HD like the Magic User. Fragile!! Sneak attack or run like heck! In 1e they moved the HD to d6.

Socratov

2016-04-25, 03:23 PM

This makes so much sense to me. Sneak attack is an awkward ability to fit into a lot of character concepts. Matching it, though, is tricky - you'd need some pretty robust dirty fighting skills to match all those damage dice.

especially for a class that has (and IMO should) no second attack and if you make the sneak attack assassin only you will see a lot less of the other archetypes played. That is, unless players suddenly don't want to contribute to combat anymore...

But for that to happen I must first see some flying pigs going 'round...

NewDM

2016-04-25, 03:36 PM

You're cherrypicking examples to make expertise look better than it is. At the highest levels, expertise is pretty much categorically better than advantage. Before then, however, it depends on your target. Expertise is better for doing nearly-impossible things. However, advantage is better for reliably hitting easier checks. That can be just as important.

No. I picked 3 levels that are generally breakpoints. Feel free to do an entire table or graph. I prefer www.anydice.com for calculating ranges. In fact I used http://anydice.com/program/8391 to calculate the various percents and minimums I came up with. Hit the 'at least' button and then change the bonuses on the ends of each line at the top to match the bonuses at any given level and hit calculate each time.

Ranger is another full class, and knowledge domain cleric is a subclass of a full class. They are not edge cases.

They aren't edge cases because they are classes or sub-classes. They are edge cases because they deal with a very specific case for applying double proficiency. Rangers only add it when its about their favored terrain/enemies. Knowledge Clerics only add it when it is a check in their chosen skills which come from only 4 skills. I wouldn't have a problem if both the Bard and Rogue had to pick their expertise from one of 4 skills iconic to that class.

Even then, knowing how to cast magic isn't the same thing as knowing arcane lore. I wouldn't mind if there was a "loremaster" wizard subclass, but I don't think it's intrinsic to being a wizard. There's also the balance argument that full casters already have tons of utility from spellcasting, so they don't need expertise on top of that (bards are forgivable because their spell list is highly specialized outside of Magical Secrets).

Wizards immerse themselves in the book learning end of magic. I can see saying a Rogue might be better than a sorcerer ("it just happens when I concentrate") or warlock("I don't know how it work, my patron just makes it happen", but not a wizard ("I studied this spell for a week before I fully understood the theories enough to cast it effectively"). Especially if the Wizard is trained in Arcana.

Why do you insist that the rogue archetypes define all rogues?

Why can't Lara Croft be a rogue archetype, who would have studied religion and magic, or Nathan Drake, who knows a great deal of history? Why do you think assassins are just damage dealers? Why do you force a stealthy rogue? I want to play a charlatan arcane trickster who uses a bit of magic to enhance his trickery. I want him to not be particularly perceptive or sneaky, but I guess he's automatically stealthy then. There happens to be a rogue class for that, but I won't be taking the skills you think all self-respecting rogues should have.

As for your second point:

If a dex fighter takes skilled as a feat, let's say bonus feat as a human, and takes an criminal background for those thieve's tools, then viola, he's a rogue. If you take away everything that makes a rogue better in its area of expertise than a fighter is, why bother with the class? They are worse at fighting. If they aren't better at skills (not all skills, the four(?) skills they choose to be experts in) what makes them good or balanced?

Saying that rogues are the master of all skills is disingenuous. They are a very flexible class with a lot of options, but they can't be everything at once. But the fact is that a rogue can be anything from an archeologist to a serial killer and everything in between. Rogues in this game pretty much are people who can't or don't face their problems with brute force, but with cunning or guile.

I'm just going to list a few rogues that come to mind.

Lara Croft
Nathan Drake
Jack Sparrow
Han Solo
Mulan
Frodo
Thane
Zevran
Leliana
James Bond
Zorro
Robin Hood
Odysseus

tldr:

"All rogues have this skill!"
Response: way to pigeonhole yourself.

"Every class should have access to any 4 skills they want!"
Response: um, backgrounds are a thing. And how am I different from a fighter now?

All of your examples can be built using Fighter, Ranger, Rogue or Barbarian with the appropriate backgrounds and feat choices.

When you think of a fighter you think good at combat. When you think of the outlander background you think survivalist outdoorsman. Then you realize that you just described Robin Hood. You can do that for every one of those people you named. Just because someone does something clever doesn't mean they are automatically a Rogue.

If we take a look at the Rogue class as it is now their defining trait is Thieves' Tools which are used to open locks and disable traps. That's the baseline Rogue of 5e. That says burglar. If you look at the archetypes you find thief or 'cat burglar', assassin, and arcane trickster. You can twist those to be other things like making a 'tomb raider' out of a thief, but you can do that to most classes.

advantage and double proficiency actually track pretty well. I do change some stat assumption in the following chart - but looking at the whole ranges the lines are close together. (I assume 16 at level 1, 18 @ 4th, 20 @5th and 22 @ 15th yay tomes!)

Hmm this doesn't work nearly as well when I can't link the picture.

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=1415862C366D6464!167382&authkey=!AHIFgfilDBhnAys&v=3&ithint=photo%2cJPG

That's not what the numbers I've seen add up to.

NewDM, what class would Sherlock Holmes be?

Rogue. Specifically, the Inquisitive archetype from the most recent UA, but that apparently doesn't count.

Actually he would be a magicless Wizard with the criminal background. You could also make him out of a Rogue, Ranger (urban), or Fighter all with the criminal background and choosing the perception and investigation skills.

Not every rogue is Lidda, you know. Samwise Gamgee (LoTR) is a "halfling rogue", if you go by his defeating orc squads by bluffing them and being lucky, but he's a fat gardener who retires happily to be a historian at the end. All of the classes range over a far wider set of potential characters than you seem to give them credit for; a fighter can be a learned general, a battlemage or a mafia enforcer. The warlock can be an agent of darkness, the living seal on an archdemon, or a Jedi. Clerics can be priests, but also the primitive shaman or a surgeon devoted to saving lives.

Pffft... Samwise was a straight up fighter which is why the ring didn't turn him invisible, in the book it made him look like a muscular elf going on a rampage. Frodo was a thief which is why it made him invisible.

Backgrounds just make things even more flexible. We're not playing a system where everything's hard-coded anymore. Your class is a suggestion for your character, not the definition. I'm not a changeling bard (lore). I'm Wes, the man with a story for any occasion and an insatiable curiosity. I can tell you three stories about the Queen's youth, that there are giant killer penguins in the Frostfell, and that every play on earth is the same seven stories. If I don't know the answer, I know where to find it. And all of that is more important than what numbers are on my character sheet at the end of the day.

And this has nothing to do with whether Bards and Rogues should be better at skills than everyone else even classes that should be specialized in a skill.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-04-25, 03:36 PM

Well there is contributing to combat... and then there is actually doling out massive amounts of damage.

Assassin is already the most common rogue, that I've seen, and it is mostly a dip for sneak attack damage.

Contributing to combat could be something like pack tactics... allow the thief to obtain advantage against an enemy already engaged and grant them some abilites, like the battle master does (add a superiority die to the damage)... trip attack, disarm, blind, etc...
The assassin already would have sneak attack.

The swashbuckler would get a weapon style(dueling) and a second attack, making them on par with most other, non-fighter combatants.

The arcane trickster and mastermind should both be non-combatants mostly already and have no reason to learn any other other fighting styles or sneak attack... a trickster could get a scaling cantrip. The mastermind can already use help as a bonus action from 30 feet away.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 03:39 PM

Did you actually play in a Greyhawk/OD&D campaign? I did, and I regret to report that you are somewhat mistaken. Yes, dwarves in general had the find trap racial ability, but were LIMITED in level as Dwarves (fighters) to 6th level in the original game. (Greyhawk relaxed that a bit). The elven racial bonus was pretty cool, but the elves were originally limited to 4/8 fighter magic usesr.

As to hearing noise, the way we used the hear noise die was that you rolled 1d6 and subtracted what was on the Greyhawk table. (IIRC, that is the intention). So if hear noise was normally a 1, you'd year on a 3 or less as a first level thief. And so on. That made any thief better than a non thief elf.

Remove Traps: thief unique, though initial skill was low it went up substantially with level. Remove and Find traps are not the same function at that point.
Move silently: thief unique in terms of improvement per level
Hide in Shadows. Thief unique and as you mention, much better at high level than low.
Pick pockets: thief unique
Climb walls: thief unique.(started at 87% and got better) The "climb sheer walls" was unique to thieves.
Thief at 3rd level: read 80% of languages (so reading treasure maps and such is in a thief's wheel house). When languages mattered (you'd need a high int to know multiple languages) this was kind of handy.
Scroll use and magic item use: unique for a non caster to get this, but as you note it's a higher level ability.

In AD&D 1e, they re did the thief tables again and did a bit more tweaking on the racial bonuses and dex based bonuses to various skills.

Thief as skill monkey was also informed by having, originally, 1d4 HD like the Magic User. Fragile!! Sneak attack or run like heck! In 1e they moved the HD to d6.

lol, I literally just quoted the books to you. Argue with the quotes if you can.

SharkForce

2016-04-25, 03:43 PM

Fighting_Ferret

2016-04-25, 03:44 PM

or burn one of those 7 APIs on the skilled feat...

KorvinStarmast

2016-04-25, 03:54 PM

lol, I literally just quoted the books to you. Argue with the quotes if you can. And as I played thieves in both editions, and you didn't, we are about done with your pointless allusions to a Gray Book.

The current version of skill monkey looks like is has to do with how skills have progressed as a game feature from edition to edition. 2e went to some lengths to work in non-weapon proficiencies, and following editions seems to have taken that and run with it. (Players Option in 2e, or 2.5, went into non weapon proficiencies in great detail. )

If you go back to the original swords and sorcery archetype that informed the game, the thief (which became rogue in 2e) had to live by his agility and his wits.
The Gray Mouser.
The Thief of Baghdad.
Sinbad.
Skill monkey fits that original archetype nicely.

Also remember this: in OD&D, the dwarf and the elf had distinctive racial features that were "balanced" (really?) by their being level limited. With Greyhawk and the addition of more classes, whatever balancing was initially envisioned was overcome for simply offering more choices. Gary G's humanocentric world model is, at this point, a memory.

I will again remind you: original thief had 1d4 as HD.
The thief had to rely on his wits and skill. He was fragile!

RickAllison

2016-04-25, 03:55 PM

Since nobody else has mentioned it, maybe there is a reason why Rogues get Expertise at level 1. Not every Wizard who has arcane knowledge or the Arcana proficiency will be an expert, but they can dip one level that shows they have taken the time to progress from knowledgable to expert.

A Wizard X knows more about the practical side of his magic, while the Wizard X-1/Rogue 1 has sacrificed energy spent on becoming an expert on certain matters.

All those figures who were claimed to be Rogues and NewDM said could be built other ways? Yeah, they might be multiclassed with Rogue 1. And honestly, there are few builds that don't qualify for Rogue 1, with plate armor-users and the odd Druid being it.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 03:56 PM

And as I played thieves in both editions, and you didn't, we are about done. The current version of skill monkey has also to do with how skills have progressed as a game feature from edition to edition. 2e went to some lengths to work in non weapon proficiencies, and following editions seems to have taken that and run with it.

If you go back to the original swords and sorcery archetype that informed the game, the rogue had to live by his agility and his wits. The Gray Mouser. The Thief of Baghdad. Sinbad. Skill monkey fits that archetype nicely.

Also remember this: in OD&D, the dwarf and the elf had distinctive racial features that were "balanced" by their being level limited. With Greyhawk and the addition of more classes, whatever balancing was involved was overruled for simply offering more choices.

I will again remind you: original thief had 1d4 as HD. The thief had to rely on his wits and skill. He was fragile!

lol, I am talking about the actual rules of the game. You are talking about whatever heavily house ruled version you played. I'm literally quoting the rules about the chances of climbing walls and finding traps to you.

themaque

2016-04-25, 03:56 PM

Grey book doesn't even have the thief, so honestly, why even bring it up?

1E is when thieves were introduced:
"Dwarves...Detect traps involving pits, falling blocks and other stonework 50% probability (d4, score 1-2 or d6, score 1-3)"

"But thieves, as well as characters able to move quietly because of a magical device such as boots of elvenkind have a chance to be absolutely silent when moving. This chance to be absolutely silent is given as a percentage, +/- modifiers, and the character must roll percentile dice to score less than or equal to the percentage chance he or she has to move without sound. Success indicates silent movement and an improved chance to surprise an opponent or slip past it."

So thieves could move 'absolutely silent' other classes just moved silently, in order to get surprise.

"Assume the party of characters, moving silently and invisibly, comes upon a monster."

The above indicates anyone can move silently.

"Traps...Having proper equipment with the party, a cleric for healing, a dwarf for trap detection, and a magic-user to knock open doors and locks go a long way towards reducing the hazard. Observation and clever deduction, as well as proper caution, should negate a significant portion of traps."

In other words you didn't bring a Thief to find traps, you brought a Dwarf. However you were also meant to 'deduct' that there was a trap present.

The dwarf in question only detected SPECIFIC traps in SPECIFIC scenarios at a 50% rate? Considering how many poison dart traps i've seen in my lifetime that doesn't feel me with very much confidence.

Yeah anyone can move silently, but only the thief can move with ABSOLUTE MAGIC LEVEL silence. Characters still make noise and can be detected, by this example a thief shouldn't be.

"There will be times in which the rules do not cover a specific action that a player will attempt. In such situations, instead of being forced to make a decision, take the option to allow the dice to control the situation. This can the player dice to see if he or she can make that percentage. You can weigh the dice in any way so as to give the advantage to either the player
or the non-player character, whichever seems more correct and logical to you while being fair to both sides."

Nothing in the books say that only Thieves can do those things. Therefore players attempting things like that would follow the above rule and the DM basically sets the chance.

It says that when there is not a rule covering these things. But there IS a rule covering that stuff... the thief abilities. Is there something in the books saying I CAN'T give my sword magi powers with my dreams?

2e:
Listening: Players could listen as if they were a 1st level thief. It was based on race though.

so a really terrible role that will never get better.

Fighters non-weapon proficiencies included mountaineering which included climbing. Other classes could get this for double the cost. The difference between this and Thief climbing was that the Thief didn't need tools.

that's actually a pretty big difference.

Blacksmithing might be used to bypass locks. (though the description doesn't specifically say that).

So maybe if you house ruled it, which is something you just poopoo'ed earlier.

In summary:
0E to 1E: It either didn't exist or it was a racial feature. When Thief skills did exist Races had better chances to succeed until high levels.

If they didn't exist, there is no point in even bringing it up. irrelevant. In 1E I don't think you proved them being all that much more useful or better.

2e: Non-Weapon proficiencies or ability checks were used, Thieves got better than everyone else only at high levels.

or pretty quickly.

3.x: Only Rogues could do certain things (like detect magic traps, and disable traps), got lots of skills, but other classes could pay double to get the same skills.

So the rouge could easily do nearly anything while others had to really scrimp scrape and sacrifice to just be as good. And now everyone is just as good easily at base but rogues can be awesome at their speciality

I'm sorry you don't like the system, but I personally don't see the problem. The Rogue has been the "Skilled Guy" for almost longer than I've been alive. This isn't a NEW development in this edition.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 03:57 PM

the rule about 2e weapon specialization being only for single-classed fighters is hidden away in the proficiencies chapter. i know there are at least 2 different printings of the PHB with different page numbers, but in mine it is on page 73, last line of the "Weapon Specialization" subheading. i *believe* mine is the more recent printing. but i could be wrong.

fighter/thief does not get weapon specialization in 2nd AD&D.

and no, it wasn't always a good idea to multiclass just because you weren't human in 2nd AD&D (and i'm not just talking about half-elf bards, either). being a level behind sucked for a number of classes. unless you knew for sure you were going to reach really high levels. even then, it was really painful for spellcasters; being typically a full level behind was not fun.

anyways, enough of that sidetrack...

rogues are fine. the niche they should have fits more closely with skills than anything else, and they need to have *some* niche. you're getting way too fixated on what the class name is. like i said, if you want an exceptionally skilled fighter, just dip rogue.

Please quote an actual passage.

Edit: I found it. You are in fact correct, and I cede the point.

Actually when you multiclassed in 2e and before you split your xp among the classes so if you had 3 classes you were 3 levels behind everyone, but each class had its own xp table and if you were a fighter/rogue, you might be right about even with a Wizard with the same xp (I don't recall exactly). Most people played to high levels in the early editions or at least planned/tried to. Some classes couldn't go past level 10 in some classes, but most could go pretty high in Thief which is why it was a good idea to multiclass.

KorvinStarmast

2016-04-25, 04:02 PM

lol, I am talking about the actual rules of the game. You are talking about whatever heavily house ruled version you played.
Nope, you really don't get it. At all.
But beyond that, you seem to be unable to read the table in Greyhawk.
Look at how the die is rolled to hear. 1d6
1 for normal detection.
1-2 for an elf
The notation in the table is "-2" for a thief. So if you are an elf, thief, and you roll a 4, you heard it. If you ere a human thief, and you rolled a 3, you heard it. If you were a human fighter, and you rolled that 3, you didn't.

The rogue as skill monkey grew out of the original class and it's morphed as the editions came and morphed.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 04:07 PM

Nope, you really don't get it. At all.
But beyond that, you seem to be unable to read the table in Greyhawk.
Look at how the die is rolled to hear. 1d6
1 for normal detection.
1-2 for an elf
The notation in the table is "-2" for a thief. So if you are an elf, thief, and you roll a 4, you heard it. If you ere a human thief, and you rolled a 3, you heard it. If you were a human fighter, and you rolled that 3, you didn't.

The rogue as skill monkey grew out of the original class and it's morphed as the editions came and morphed.

I don't have the Greyhawk book. I have the original Men and Magic book and the Gray Book which looks like a compilation of the original books. Which give rules for the DM to determine it on their own. I'm also talking about original D&D.

Pex

2016-04-25, 04:08 PM

In my opinion, and I think one of the books mentions this as well; the decision whether to roll or not should boil down to "Are the consequences interesting?" If the ranger climbing the greased rope is just trying to catch up with the party or get back on board a ship, then why roll? If he's trying to do so when there are sharks or in the middle of a firefight, then roll. The decision can also be softened by making failure by less than 5 "success, but" rolls. Like with our ranger in a firefight; Say the player rolls 13 against a DC 15 (don't criticize my numbers), the DM can just as easily say "you make it onto the deck, but you have to haul yourself the last metre, leaving you prone while the fight rages around you."

There's the rub. Someone else can have a different opinion. Given two slippery ropes exactly the same in every way, why should the ranger have to roll just because sharks are below rope #2? How does the sharks below affect the ability to climb a rope? The same can be said of orcs firing arrows from another ship. Now I can certainly understand the ranger couldn't count his Dex towards his AC or maybe the orcs attack with advantage instead since the ranger can dodge/swing the rope with his Dex, but how does the act of orcs firing arrows all of a sudden mean the ranger cannot just climb the rope? You're not necessarily wrong in saying the ranger needs to roll, but neither is someone else saying he doesn't need to roll because the sharks are flavor text and the orcs attack with advantage. It depends on who is the DM.

To be fair, if it was Pathfinder the ranger would have to roll if the orcs are attacking because you can't Take 10 in combat. Rogue class ability, and I think some feats allow for that depending on feat for particular skills. However, the DC is 10, 5 for being a rope and +5 DC for being slippery. If the ranger has a +9 modifier he autosucceeds. Say 14 Strength and because climb is a class skill, that's +5 right there. He needs 4 ranks. Therefore, starting at 4th level the ranger can always climb a slippery rope even when being fired upon by arrows. That's fine by me. I don't need autosuccess at level 1, just eventually and preferably not at too high a level the campaign would be over by then.

KorvinStarmast

2016-04-25, 04:14 PM

I don't have the Greyhawk book. I have the original Men and Magic book and the Gray Book which looks like a compilation of the original books. Which give rules for the DM to determine it on their own. I'm also talking about original D&D. As am I, since that is what I played in High School. Here's a clue for you: you don't know what you're talking about, and that's OK. The game has moved on and it has grown in a lot of new and very interesting directions. It has had the benefit of dozens, heck, hundreds of new minds and idea pumped into it over the years. The generally good idea the team at TSR had has grown legs ... like a centipede.

I am not sure when the term "skill monkey" arrived in the lexicon, but it's a good description of the niche a thief fit into during its introduction.

Again, and again, the original thief had to be clever and quick: 1d4 HD per level. Greyhawk. that's where the thief was introduced. Before the Greyhawk supplement (the first to be issued after the initial three books were printed) was issued there weren't any thieves.

By most reckoning, Greyhawk became the standard OD&D about as soon as it hit the streets ... it was that popular.

Tanarii

2016-04-25, 04:28 PM

I'm actually looking at the books now. I have no misunderstanding, except how people used to house rule it way back when. Here let me quote you some lines from the books:All your quotes back up what I was saying, and show how you're misunderstanding. Except for possibly Dwarves, which were either reduced in power or clarified. (I suspect the former). And Hear Noise.

"When characters come to a door they may “listen” to detect any sound within. Note undead never make any sound. A roll of 1 for humans, and 1 or 2 for elves, dwarves, or halflings will detect sound within if there is any to be heard."Yep, Hear Noise was the exception to thieves can do the impossible on a % chance, whereas normal characters just do the normal. It was just a greater chance for thieves.

"Climbing
To climb the creature moves ahead the number of feet equal to the number of feet of height climbed. The cost of climbing is twice the number of feet climbed plus the number of feet equal to ten times the “Number of Spaces between Turns” requirement, i.e. 60’ (6 spaces) for a giant reptile."Yes. But Thieves, when they came about, could climb sheer surfaces.

The above books are from the era where players described in detail what their players did and the DM described in detail what they saw and felt. So it was a binary figure out what the DM is thinking/describing and avoid it. No rolls necessary. So a trap was described as 'ash covered vents in the walls and floor' and the player was meant say something like "I cover the vents with metal plates" or "I avoid the vents as best as possible." to get past the trap. It was also the era of the 10' pole used to poke everything in a room.. And thieves, when they came along, could do ALL of that stuff (that wasn't a racial bonus), plus on a % chance, do the nearly impossible above and beyond it.

"But thieves, as well as characters able to move quietly because of a magical device such as boots of elvenkind have a chance to be absolutely silent when moving. This chance to be absolutely silent is given as a percentage, +/- modifiers, and the character must roll percentile dice to score less than or equal to the percentage chance he or she has to move without sound. Success indicates silent movement and an improved chance to surprise an opponent or slip past it."

So thieves could move 'absolutely silent' other classes just moved silently, in order to get surprise.A specific quote for a magical item, but it backs up what I'm saying. Only thieves, or characters using magic, could go above and beyond moving quietly. They could move absolutely silently.

Nothing in the books say that only Thieves can do those things. Therefore players attempting things like that would follow the above rule and the DM basically sets the chance.People could do normal stuff before theives came along. When thieves came along, they were very clearly given the exceptional ability to have a chance to do the nearly impossible. A small chance.

Of course, the most common mistake, and the reason Thieves were seen as somewhat useless by people, is they made the mistake of assuming the thief % chance to do stuff eliminated the normal non-exceptional ability to do stuff from non-thieves. And then had thieves have only a very small chance of doing the normal non-exceptional stuff at low levels. That effectively made thieves useless, as well as robbing lots of other characters of the intrinsic ability to do basic adventuring functions.

5e mimics this quite well with Expertise. Normal characters can, with proficiency and high natural talent, accomplish very hard. Rogues with Expertise and natural talent can accomplish the nearly impossible. Obviously it's not quite that simple equation, because you've variables in natural talent, proficiency bonus (ie level), and if you have time to do the task, its on going, or no time (ie assume a 20 vs passive vs roll a check), which all effect what's going on. But it's roughly equivalent. Edit: The other thing 5e does to mimic this is it clearly states in the DMG that many normal routine things shouldn't require any check at all to do.

JeffreyGator

2016-04-25, 04:30 PM

No. I picked 3 levels that are generally breakpoints. Feel free to do an entire table or graph. I prefer www.anydice.com for calculating ranges. In fact I used http://anydice.com/program/8391 to calculate the various percents and minimums I came up with. Hit the 'at least' button and then change the bonuses on the ends of each line at the top to match the bonuses at any given level and hit calculate each time.

(Snip)

That's not what the numbers I've seen add up to.

I gave up on making the image work. Here's the link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/177S7vrZzEgs4xPIe4zixLRkcaooUK1hatOXPEZVoWIQ/edit?usp=sharing)to the chart as a google doc.

The chart supports the contention that advantage is better for reliability with lower targets (medium and hard tasks below level 10) and expertise is needed for Nearly impossible tasks.

KorvinStarmast

2016-04-25, 04:33 PM

Of course, the most common mistake, and the reason Thieves were seen as somewhat useless by people, is they made the mistake of assuming the thief % chance to do stuff eliminated the normal non-exceptional ability to do stuff from non-thieves, and then gave a very small chance of doing the normal non-exceptional ability to do stuff to low level thieves. That effectively made thieves useless. Darn, I guess we didn't have any fun actually playing thieves then. :smallbiggrin: Useless? Not hardly. Fragile? Yeah.

JoeJ

2016-04-25, 04:35 PM

Tanarii

2016-04-25, 04:39 PM

Darn, I guess we didn't have any fun actually playing thieves then. :smallbiggrin: Useless? Not hardly. Fragile? Yeah.Sorry, clarity needed. Made thieves skills essentially useless. It reduced them from "small chance to do the exceptional" to "small chance to do the normal / everyday stuff".

It'd be like requiring an Acrobatics roll to get off a bar-stool. Or, more to the point, requiring a Perception or Investigation check to see a trunk hidden under the bed when you tell the DM "I look under the bed". Except 1st level characters actually have a 50/50 or better shot to pass those checks in 5e lol

NewDM

2016-04-25, 04:42 PM

I gave up on making the image work. Here's the link (https://docs.google.com/document/d/177S7vrZzEgs4xPIe4zixLRkcaooUK1hatOXPEZVoWIQ/edit?usp=sharing)to the chart as a google doc.

The chart supports the contention that advantage is better for reliability with lower targets (medium and hard tasks below level 10) and expertise is needed for Nearly impossible tasks.

Can you provide the numbers behind the chart. Its a little hard to read. Expertise leaves low DC checks to be super easy or automatic. For instance with max ability mod + expertise:

Level-Minimum DC auto-succeed
1-7
2-7
3-7
4-8 (Ability Score +1 mod)
5-10 (Proficiency Increases +1)
6-10
7-10
8-11 (Ability Score +1 mod)
9-13 (Proficiency Increases +1)
10-13
11-13
12-13
13-15 (Proficiency Increases +1)
14-15
15-15
16-15
17-17 (Proficiency Increases +1)
18-17
19-17
20-17

By level 9 with expertise they are already just about auto-succeeding on moderate checks.

Sigreid

2016-04-25, 04:42 PM

I think the answer to the original question is that in D&D Rogue no longer necessarily means party thief. It's become a catch all for whoever holds their own through exceptional skills rather than repeatedly and violently attacking things or using magic. Scholar, thief, diplomat, Black Widow, Hawkeye, whatever.

As far as the expertise, I think it's a good fit for Rogue, and am inclined to think it's too much for the Bard. I understand the bard is jack of all trades, but I don't personally think putting a class in that gets to play with everyone's toys was a good move.

Serket

2016-04-25, 05:17 PM

What you'll find is that the Bard actually got more skills and thus should be the skill monkey of 5e.

You could make a pretty solid argument for them already being, considering they get that untrained bonus thing and expertise.

Then of course there's the whole expertise thing. In no edition to date has the Rogue been leaps and bounds better than other characters at doing things based on skills.

So why did they do this? Why didn't they make 'skill monkey' a Class Option(sub-class)? Why didn't they make it a feat or three?

Expertise is a patch for a skill system that doesn't by default let individuals be competent.

Rogues do things where you only get one chance - fail stealth? You blew the mission. Fail thieves tools? You blew the mission. Didn't spot the alarm trap? You blew the mission. If they operated with the same mechanics the skill system uses by default, they would fail so many of their career-appropriate challenges that there would be no point attempting them given the usual high stakes. The sneaky lockpicking role doesn't work if sneaking and lockpicking aren't reliable enough. Hence, expertise is slapped on so they can be just about reliable enough.

Personally, I'd favour a skill system where everyone gets to be competent.

So why did they pick rogue?

History and skill tree design. A burglar, made within the skill list as it stands, needs three reliable skills - stealth, perception, thieves tools. A pickpocket need stealth and sleight of hand. Other sorts of thieves need deception, or forgery, or disguise to be reliable. In order to construct a character who can manage one or two petty criminal jobs and avoid being captured long enough to switch to adventuring, rogues need expertise. Hence to support that sort of concept, with this skill list and this skill system, rogues need expertise at roughly the amount they currently get.

Reducing the list of skills by unifying narrow skills into broader ones (say, putting sleight, thieves tools, and forgery all under one label or something) would reduce the amount of expertises rogues needed to function. So if you were redesigning the system with the same chassis and wanted to hand out thematic expertise to everyone in roughly equal measure, that would be a way to do it.

The fact that rogues can take expertise in non-thematic things like two random knowledges is a side-effect. Personally I'd have limited them to class skills (or, you know, used a completely different system), but that's by the by.

Tanarii

2016-04-25, 05:25 PM

Expertise is a patch for a skill system that doesn't by default let individuals be competent.

Rogues do things where you only get one chance - fail stealth? You blew the mission. Fail thieves tools? You blew the mission. Didn't spot the alarm trap? You blew the mission. If they operated with the same mechanics the skill system uses by default, they would fail so many of their career-appropriate challenges that there would be no point attempting them given the usual high stakes. The sneaky lockpicking role doesn't work if sneaking and lockpicking aren't reliable enough. Hence, expertise is slapped on so they can be just about reliable enough.

Personally, I'd favour a skill system where everyone gets to be competent.You're conflating an incorrect assessment of what is "competent" with what's necessary to not blow difficult missions.

All PCs are competent. They can do most things without checks. In addition, they can typically handle some things that call for a check, things that have a significant chance of failure, with anything from 50/50 (no skill vs Easy or skill/talent vs Medium) to less chance if more difficult, or higher if more talented or higher level.

Meanwhile Thieves can do the really difficult stuff with some degree of success. The stuff anyone else should fail. The stuff that would and should cause a tricky "mission" to fail for anyone else that's merely competent. They are more than competent. They are experts.

If your DM is handing out checks like candy, and assigning DCs poorly, then I can see you might end up with the impression that characters are incompetent under the skill system. Just as thieves used to be mistakenly viewed as incompetent at things at low level in (and before) 1e. Because DMs would make them do % checks for non-exceptional things under their intended to be used for exceptional things skills.

JeffreyGator

2016-04-25, 05:28 PM

Can you provide the numbers behind the chart. Its a little hard to read. Expertise leaves low DC checks to be super easy or automatic. For instance with max ability mod + expertise:

I updated my linked (https://docs.google.com/document/d/177S7vrZzEgs4xPIe4zixLRkcaooUK1hatOXPEZVoWIQ/edit?usp=sharing)document.

My numbers raising match your chart with ability +1 raises at 4,8,15.

McNinja

2016-04-25, 05:32 PM

The have a lot of skill points, but they had to obey the class and cross class maximums that all classes had. So give them extra skills sure, but why are they getting all kinds of skill related class features in their base class? If anything the Bard should get all that and the Rogue should just get more skills. You realize this is the definition of skill monkey, right? Rogues are skill monkeys because they have a diverse list of skill they are good at, as opposed to other classes which either get fewer skill points or fewer skills they're proficient with. Not only that, but rogues in 5e get expertise in a few skills, which is a huge boon to them and their team and further solidifies their station as "the guy who can do a lot of things pretty well and two things absurdly well."

NewDM

2016-04-25, 05:40 PM

You could make a pretty solid argument for them already being, considering they get that untrained bonus thing and expertise.

Expertise is a patch for a skill system that doesn't by default let individuals be competent.

Rogues do things where you only get one chance - fail stealth? You blew the mission. Fail thieves tools? You blew the mission. Didn't spot the alarm trap? You blew the mission. If they operated with the same mechanics the skill system uses by default, they would fail so many of their career-appropriate challenges that there would be no point attempting them given the usual high stakes. The sneaky lockpicking role doesn't work if sneaking and lockpicking aren't reliable enough. Hence, expertise is slapped on so they can be just about reliable enough.

Personally, I'd favour a skill system where everyone gets to be competent.

History and skill tree design. A burglar, made within the skill list as it stands, needs three reliable skills - stealth, perception, thieves tools. A pickpocket need stealth and sleight of hand. Other sorts of thieves need deception, or forgery, or disguise to be reliable. In order to construct a character who can manage one or two petty criminal jobs and avoid being captured long enough to switch to adventuring, rogues need expertise. Hence to support that sort of concept, with this skill list and this skill system, rogues need expertise at roughly the amount they currently get.

Reducing the list of skills by unifying narrow skills into broader ones (say, putting sleight, thieves tools, and forgery all under one label or something) would reduce the amount of expertises rogues needed to function. So if you were redesigning the system with the same chassis and wanted to hand out thematic expertise to everyone in roughly equal measure, that would be a way to do it.

The fact that rogues can take expertise in non-thematic things like two random knowledges is a side-effect. Personally I'd have limited them to class skills (or, you know, used a completely different system), but that's by the by.

I'm afraid that you are correct and it was a patch to cover a badly designed skill system. They really should have limited it to Thieves' Tools + one other Rogue class skill or two Rogue class skills.

I updated my linked (https://docs.google.com/document/d/177S7vrZzEgs4xPIe4zixLRkcaooUK1hatOXPEZVoWIQ/edit?usp=sharing)document.

My numbers raising match your chart with ability +1 raises at 4,8,15.

If your numbers are correct, then your assessment is correct. Which still backs my point. They do different things.

In my custom designed system I think one of the first things I'm doing is increase the bounds of Bounded accuracy. Proficiency will go up at the rate of 1 point per level or 1 point per 2 levels. The skill check DCs will remain the same.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 05:42 PM

You realize this is the definition of skill monkey, right? Rogues are skill monkeys because they have a diverse list of skill they are good at, as opposed to other classes which either get fewer skill points or fewer skills they're proficient with. Not only that, but rogues in 5e get expertise in a few skills, which is a huge boon to them and their team and further solidifies their station as "the guy who can do a lot of things pretty well and two things absurdly well."

Sure. I changed my phrasing a few posts up to "I can see why a rogue is a skill monkey, but why is it an expert on top of that?"

I only have a problem with "... two things absurdly well."

JeffreyGator

2016-04-25, 06:18 PM

If your numbers are correct, then your assessment is correct. Which still backs my point. They do different things.

In my custom designed system I think one of the first things I'm doing is increase the bounds of Bounded accuracy. Proficiency will go up at the rate of 1 point per level or 1 point per 2 levels. The skill check DCs will remain the same.

:smallsmile:

Proficiency increasing 1/1 runs into the problems of 3.x which was too much.

Tiered of Unskilled, +5 skilled from 4E was too little

I would think about 1/3 levels before 1/2 levels in gradually opening up bounded accuracy. And then possibly changing expertise to half proficiency rounded up.

so you get this list:

Level Prof JoT Expert
1 2 1 3
2 2 1 3
3 2 1 3
4 3 2 5
5 3 2 5
6 3 2 5
7 4 2 6
8 4 2 6
9 4 2 6
10 5 3 8
11 5 3 8
12 5 3 8
13 6 3 9
14 6 3 9
15 6 3 9
16 7 4 11
17 7 4 11
18 7 4 11
19 8 4 12
20 8 4 12

Serket

2016-04-25, 06:46 PM

You're conflating an incorrect assessment of what is "competent" with what's necessary to not blow difficult missions.

Well there's an immediate language misunderstanding here. :smallsmile: When I say "competent" in this context I mean "competent at the things we are attempting to do in game". I don't really care if my character is totally awesome off-screen. When the dice hit the table, she needs to succeed (at the things she is supposed to be good at) reasonably often, or she isn't competent.

All PCs are competent.

To be fair, this is just another way of looking at the problem. If we're all "competent" then none of us are particularly better at anything than the rest are. If the clumsy human with no proficiency is only 35% more likely to fail than my character at my best skill, then how good is my character, really?

Maybe a better way to phrase it is that I like clear divisions between skill sets, and while 5th ed's class abilities do that, the skill system does not seem to.

By way of extension to my first paragraph in this post: When the dice hit the table, my character needs to succeed (at the things she is supposed to be good at) reasonably often, or she isn't competent. And the characters who are not supposed to be good need to fail, obviously more frequently, or they all become competent and her skillset devalued.

(I don't mind if everyone builds stealth characters and we all stealth it up, that's fine. I mind that my stealth check is not much better than the person who isn't trying)

Meanwhile Thieves can do the really difficult stuff with some degree of success. The stuff anyone else should fail. The stuff that would and should cause a tricky "mission" to fail for anyone else that's merely competent. They are more than competent. They are experts.

Those are nice words. I like them. I wish it worked like that.

But, when I roll stealth, I'd like the difference between my "expert" and "someone who doesn't know what they're doing" to be significant enough that I don't regularly fail checks that "non-experts" succeed at. At level 1 the difference between "naturally gifted" and "not" is up to nine points, but the difference between "expert" and "non-proficient" is only four points. Even at level eight, that's only changed to six. I think "expert" is mislabelled. Expertise in my mind evokes reliable skill.

If the GM has to keep fiat-ing so that I succeed, or keep altering the DCs so things are easier for my "expert", then I appreciate their effort to keep me happy. But it seems to me that there should be no need for them to do either.

Draco4472

2016-04-25, 06:51 PM

Giant2005

2016-04-25, 06:55 PM

At level 1 the difference between "naturally gifted" and "not" is up to nine points, but the difference between "expert" and "non-proficient" is only four points. Even at level eight, that's only changed to six. I think "expert" is mislabelled. Expertise in my mind evokes reliable skill.

If the GM has to keep fiat-ing so that I succeed, or keep altering the DCs so things are easier for my "expert", then I appreciate their effort to keep me happy. But it seems to me that there should be no need for them to do either.

I think Expertise is mislabeled too, it just sounds better with that label than a more true label.
Experise represents higher education whereas proficiency represents high school education.
I think your issue is that you want to have your character perform as if he were a foremost expert in his field. He can do that, just not at level 1 - it is an unnatural thing for someone to gain that level of competency straight out of college. Typically it requires college combined with years of experience, much the same as your character requires expertise combined with being a high level.

NewDM

2016-04-25, 06:57 PM

:smallsmile:

Proficiency increasing 1/1 runs into the problems of 3.x which was too much.

Tiered of Unskilled, +5 skilled from 4E was too little

I would think about 1/3 levels before 1/2 levels in gradually opening up bounded accuracy. And then possibly changing expertise to half proficiency rounded up.

so you get this list:

Level Prof JoT Expert
1 2 1 3
2 2 1 3
3 2 1 3
4 3 2 5
5 3 2 5
6 3 2 5
7 4 2 6
8 4 2 6
9 4 2 6
10 5 3 8
11 5 3 8
12 5 3 8
13 6 3 9
14 6 3 9
15 6 3 9
16 7 4 11
17 7 4 11
18 7 4 11
19 8 4 12
20 8 4 12

Well I've found that the double proficiency bonus works really well to model characters that are proficient in a skill. It means they can reliably do easy tasks and can do moderate tasks most of the time. Hard tasks they can do but they fail more often than not. Throwing in advantage (Lucky feat style) makes them much more reliable but a nearly impossible task is still a nearly impossible task. Which is why I said 1 point every 2 levels.

Here is what that would look like:

Level Prof JoT
1 2 1
2 2 1
3 3 2
4 3 2
5 4 2
6 4 2
7 5 3
8 5 3
9 6 3
10 6 3
11 7 4
12 7 4
13 8 4
14 8 4
15 9 5
16 9 5
17 10 5
18 10 5
19 12 6
20 12 6

So max bonus is 17 at level 20 for a character with +5 in the relevant ability score. They would auto succeed on easy and moderate tasks, which is what I'd expect a 'proficient' character to do that has a lot of experience. They would succeed on a hard task 90% of the time. A very hard tasks about 65% the time and a nearly impossible task about 40% of the time. Remember this is at max level with the highest possible ability score in the game. I might bump it down and start with +1 instead of +2 proficiency bonus though. That way max is +10 proficiency which would be +15 max. Meaning 85%/60%/35%.

Shaofoo

2016-04-25, 07:11 PM

Well there's an immediate language misunderstanding here. :smallsmile: When I say "competent" in this context I mean "competent at the things we are attempting to do in game". I don't really care if my character is totally awesome off-screen. When the dice hit the table, she needs to succeed (at the things she is supposed to be good at) reasonably often, or she isn't competent.

By way of extension to my first paragraph in this post: When the dice hit the table, my character needs to succeed (at the things she is supposed to be good at) reasonably often, or she isn't competent. And the characters who are not supposed to be good need to fail, obviously more frequently, or they all become competent and her skillset devalued.

How much is reasonably often to you? Of course when the dice falls and you fail we would wish the odds were better but sometimes the dreaded 1 just rolls up, would you accept failure even then? How about a 2 or 3 or 4? Or a 9? Even a 55% chance is still in your favor.

Those are nice words. I like them. I wish it worked like that.

But, when I roll stealth, I'd like the difference between my "expert" and "someone who doesn't know what they're doing" to be significant enough that I don't regularly fail checks that "non-experts" succeed at. At level 1 the difference between "naturally gifted" and "not" is up to nine points, but the difference between "expert" and "non-proficient" is only four points. Even at level eight, that's only changed to six.

To be fair your analysis accounts that both expert and non expert are at the epitome of their stat, the non-proficient is still the humanoid pinnacle in whatever stat the skill keys off. Even if the 20 Dex guy isn't proficient in sneaking around I would expect him to still be good at it or the supra intelligent person know things that are not of his expertise. Give those that are at the pinnacle of their abilities some recognition.

I think "expert" is mislabelled. Expertise in my mind evokes reliable skill.

Funny you should say that because the game actually defines Reliable. Reliable Talent skill is a Rogue skill that lets you treat all proficient rolls that are 1-9 as a 10.

If the GM has to keep fiat-ing so that I succeed, or keep altering the DCs so things are easier for my "expert", then I appreciate their effort to keep me happy. But it seems to me that there should be no need for them to do either.

The game says that rolls should only happen when there is a degree of failure, there is the emphasis of letting characters do things rather than making them roll for it.

Tanarii

2016-04-25, 07:17 PM

To be fair, this is just another way of looking at the problem. If we're all "competent" then none of us are particularly better at anything than the rest are. If the clumsy human with no proficiency is only 35% more likely to fail than my character at my best skill, then how good is my character, really?

Maybe a better way to phrase it is that I like clear divisions between skill sets, and while 5th ed's class abilities do that, the skill system does not seem to.

But, when I roll stealth, I'd like the difference between my "expert" and "someone who doesn't know what they're doing" to be significant enough that I don't regularly fail checks that "non-experts" succeed at. At level 1 the difference between "naturally gifted" and "not" is up to nine points, but the difference between "expert" and "non-proficient" is only four points. Even at level eight, that's only changed to six. I think "expert" is mislabelled. Expertise in my mind evokes reliable skill.Okay all these parts I'm quoting make it clearer. There's certainly a camp of players and DMs that wish the floor for PCs being competent was lower, so that those that are "skilled" stand out more. 5e's bounded accuracy system squashes the numbers between base level hero PC, and exceptionally skilled PC, so they are closer together so as to raise the base level of competency of ALL PCs. That seems to rub a lot of people the wrong way for some reason.

The system is designed so that a level 1 hero is generally no more than a 90% worse chance of success than the most heroic expert. (-1 min to +17 max). Or to put it another way, about the same as the size of the die roll. Personally I'm down with that level of difference.

Christian

2016-04-25, 09:16 PM

"Assume the party of characters, moving silently and invisibly, comes upon a monster."

The above indicates anyone can move silently.

And invisibly! Don't forget that part!

That's the thing I miss the most from 1st Edition, I think. How any character, regardless of class, race, or level, could move around silently and invisibly so they could take monsters by surprise. That's why some of those old adventure modules look like 'killer dungeons' when we look back at them today--you don't realize that the party was falling on those unsuspecting monsters like a squad of Batmen suddenly appearing from the shadows.

Actually, come to think of it, that passage may have been using a hypothetical situation where the party was using something like a silence 15' radius spell and an invisibility 10' radius spell to sneak up on something in order to illustrate the surprise rules. Yeah, that probably makes more sense. Forget I said anything. I was never here. [/ninja]

SharkForce

2016-04-25, 09:52 PM

+4 stealth as compared to an untrained person is actually pretty big.

consider, for example, sneaking past a person who is not exceptionally trained, with a wisdom of 10. we'll give our rogue and our theoretical unproficient guy 16 dex.

the theoretical unproficient guy sneaks past on a 7 or better. he has a 70% chance of success, 30% chance of failure.

the rogue sneaks past on a 3 or better. he has a 90% chance of success, 10% chance of failure. he succeeds almost 150% as often, and fails one third as often. that's a pretty big difference; on average, this rogue can sneak past 3 times as many places watched by "average" people (for example, a regular merchant or their spouse) before getting caught.

now, remember, this is a level 1 rogue, not exactly the guy you're going to hire to rob high security vaults or anything. if we make it a trained guard, the DC to sneak becomes 12, the rogue gets past on a 5+ while the unproficient guy gets past on a 9+ which means the rogue is twice as likely to succeed, half as likely to fail. still a pretty big difference. on average, this guy can get past twice as many guard stations before getting caught.

a +4 on a d20 can be a very large swing against typical save DCs. sure, it isn't a huge help against some things. but against the sorts of things you'd expect a level 1 rogue to be able to sneak past, +4 is a pretty big deal. the other guy still has a chance, but the rogue really genuinely is much better at it.

ZenBear

2016-04-25, 10:11 PM

Shaofoo

2016-04-25, 10:22 PM

The issue I have with Rogues being "skill monkeys" ie Expertise is that they are not bound to "Rogue" skills. Rogues can be better Athletes than Fighters, better trackers than Rangers, more knowledgeable about Arcana than Wizards, or Religion than Clerics, or Nature than Druids. Barring multiclass, which is an optional rule and an opportunity cost.

To be fair, max stat and proficiency is only one point worse than expertise and no stat bonus and that is only at the highest level, usually stat and proficiency will beat out pure expertise till the later levels.

Rogues can be better at all skills but they also require a stat investment to be the absolute best. Rogues can be better at a skill but they can't be the best at all the skills, definitely not skills across various stats bar some awesome stat rolls.

They can only have 4 expertise skills, I don't think that most Rogues will want to pick up any skill that doesn't compliment their abilities and if they do then they are at best slightly better than someone who is proficient.

ZenBear

2016-04-25, 10:38 PM

To be fair, max stat and proficiency is only one point worse than expertise and no stat bonus and that is only at the highest level, usually stat and proficiency will beat out pure expertise till the later levels.

Rogues can be better at all skills but they also require a stat investment to be the absolute best. Rogues can be better at a skill but they can't be the best at all the skills, definitely not skills across various stats bar some awesome stat rolls.

They can only have 4 expertise skills, I don't think that most Rogues will want to pick up any skill that doesn't compliment their abilities and if they do then they are at best slightly better than someone who is proficient.

At best they are +6 better than someone who is proficient. You can build a STR Rogue with Athletics Expertise and be the best grappler around (esp if you go Arcane Trickster for Enlarge). Or again go Arcane Trickster and max INT for +6 better Arcana than your Wizard buddy (and you're more likley to land your save-or-sucks w/ Magical Ambush). That +6 makes a huge difference, and even at early levels +2 matters.

SharkForce

2016-04-25, 11:01 PM

The issue I have with Rogues being "skill monkeys" ie Expertise is that they are not bound to "Rogue" skills. Rogues can be better Athletes than Fighters, better trackers than Rangers, more knowledgeable about Arcana than Wizards, or Religion than Clerics, or Nature than Druids. Barring multiclass, which is an optional rule and an opportunity cost.

sure, they're a versatile class.

that's to be expected when you could reasonably represent many different types of characters with them. a rogue *could* be extremely knowledgeable about arcana... if they've studied the theory of magic as part of who the character is. that isn't "sneaky mcstabberson, typical rogue" that is better at arcana than anyone else around... that's the guy who has spent years reading musty tomes, digging up all kinds of mystical artifacts, getting past protective spells, encountering enchanted pools, etc.

Shaofoo

2016-04-25, 11:03 PM

At best they are +6 better than someone who is proficient. You can build a STR Rogue with Athletics Expertise and be the best grappler around (esp if you go Arcane Trickster for Enlarge). Or again go Arcane Trickster and max INT for +6 better Arcana than your Wizard buddy (and you're more likley to land your save-or-sucks w/ Magical Ambush). That +6 makes a huge difference, and even at early levels +2 matters.

But then that is still my point, you are maxing out Str or Int to the detriment of your other stats.

There is very little reason for a Rogue to build Str, from a skill perspective Str is just above Con as worst stat ever for skill purposes. He can be the best grappler but he can't really take advantage of the increased Strength like a Fighter or Barbarian can, not to mention that he isn't as durable as either class so he risks a lot trying to tangle himself with someone else.

Also the Rogue can't learn Arcana on its own, it is not a class skill to be proficient in. The only way to get Arcana is spend a feat to get Skilled or choose the Sage background. Feel free to max out your Int because you are an Arcane Trickster but you'd actually need to go out of your way to be good at Arcana as a Rogue.

Sure Rogues can become best at certain skills but it ain't a free lunch for certain skills, especially when your class features don't mesh well with your skill choices.

JeffreyGator

2016-04-25, 11:03 PM

In short, rogues get more skills, and more feats. Thus can be better skill monkeys by level 20.

Lore Bards get an extra three skill and expertise in an extra two. 6 of any skill, 4 expertise. The tendency for half-elf with 2 more proficiencies to be chosen for lore bards emphasizes this.

I would rate Lore Bard >= Rogues > Other Bards > all other classes as skill monkeys.

RickAllison

2016-04-25, 11:28 PM

Lore Bards get an extra three skill and expertise in an extra two. 6 of any skill, 4 expertise. The tendency for half-elf with 2 more proficiencies to be chosen for lore bards emphasizes this.

I would rate Lore Bard >= Rogues > Other Bards > all other classes as skill monkeys.

Lore Bards make better skill monkeys (through Bardic Inspiration stuff), and Valors might still be good, but Rogues are the more reliable skill users. Bards are the "Go big or go home" skill users, while Rogues are the "Do it right the first time and you won't have to do it again" type.

Knaight

2016-04-25, 11:35 PM

Funny you should say that because the game actually defines Reliable. Reliable Talent skill is a Rogue skill that lets you treat all proficient rolls that are 1-9 as a 10.
That the game uses a real word in it's jargon doesn't somehow mean that the non-jargon version can no longer be used when discussing a game.

sure, they're a versatile class.

that's to be expected when you could reasonably represent many different types of characters with them. a rogue *could* be extremely knowledgeable about arcana... if they've studied the theory of magic as part of who the character is. that isn't "sneaky mcstabberson, typical rogue" that is better at arcana than anyone else around... that's the guy who has spent years reading musty tomes, digging up all kinds of mystical artifacts, getting past protective spells, encountering enchanted pools, etc.
The problem isn't that those characters are available, it's that the equally competent characters like the highly athletic warrior, the ranger or druid who knows nature extremely well, or the wizard who has mastered the arcane aren't available without multiclassing. It's a case where the class design restricted character options fairly heavily (which is the typical downside of class designs), but then didn't do a particularly good job with niche protection, setting definition, or any of the other things that classes are good for.

Demonic Spoon

2016-04-25, 11:44 PM

The issue I have with Rogues being "skill monkeys" ie Expertise is that they are not bound to "Rogue" skills. Rogues can be better Athletes than Fighters, better trackers than Rangers, more knowledgeable about Arcana than Wizards, or Religion than Clerics, or Nature than Druids. Barring multiclass, which is an optional rule and an opportunity cost.

The problem of niche protection has to do with the lack of class features on the Fighter/Ranger side which emphasize the niche rather than any problem with rogues. And I don't actually think it's a problem that wizards, clerics, and druids aren't the undisputed masters of Arcana, Religion, and Nature - full casters don't need the added versatility, at least not without giving up something else (like other domain features for knowledge clerics).

JoeJ

2016-04-26, 12:07 AM

Also the Rogue can't learn Arcana on its own, it is not a class skill to be proficient in. The only way to get Arcana is spend a feat to get Skilled or choose the Sage background. Feel free to max out your Int because you are an Arcane Trickster but you'd actually need to go out of your way to be good at Arcana as a Rogue.

Actually, they can do it with any background works just by replacing one of the two skill proficiencies with Arcana.

Saeviomage

2016-04-26, 12:20 AM

This is particularly grating with wizards and arcana.

I think perhaps the best solution is to simply give every character 1 expertise of their choice in a skill that they know OR 1 extra skill. It stops the "only 3 classes can be top dog at a skill" syndrome, allows level 1 characters to be competent and lets people shore up a skill that doesn't have synergy with a stat.

JoeJ

2016-04-26, 12:58 AM

This is particularly grating with wizards and arcana.

Why is it any more irritating than any other combination of class + stereotypical skill?

georgie_leech

2016-04-26, 01:17 AM

Why is it any more irritating than any other combination of class + stereotypical skill?

The fluff of Wizards points to them having an in depth knowledge and constant study of their magic. While a Cleric might not have a devoted study to all religions, a Druid might be more concerned with being a part of Nature than with knowing every detail, or a Barbarian relying on brute strength when grappling over learning advanced technique, the Wizard is presented as an expert of all things Arcane.

Mind you, it's possible to justify this anyway: the bulk of a wizard's studies could be in practical effects and refinement of technique, along with frequent use of reference material, all done according to the way their Master taught them. In contrast with another (our expertise Rogue) who has a more thorough if less directly applicable knowledge that covers a broad variety of magical theories encompassing multiple schools of thought.

Regitnui

2016-04-26, 01:21 AM

Pffft... Samwise was a straight up fighter which is why the ring didn't turn him invisible, in the book it made him look like a muscular elf going on a rampage. Frodo was a thief which is why it made him invisible.

Er... Sam never wore the Ring. He held it, but never wore it. I just checked the book. In fact, it makes him look quite like a rogue to me. I can say you're unequivocally wrong on that statement.

There's the rub. Someone else can have a different opinion. Given two slippery ropes exactly the same in every way, why should the ranger have to roll just because sharks are below rope #2? How does the sharks below affect the ability to climb a rope? The same can be said of orcs firing arrows from another ship. Now I can certainly understand the ranger couldn't count his Dex towards his AC or maybe the orcs attack with advantage instead since the ranger can dodge/swing the rope with his Dex, but how does the act of orcs firing arrows all of a sudden mean the ranger cannot just climb the rope? You're not necessarily wrong in saying the ranger needs to roll, but neither is someone else saying he doesn't need to roll because the sharks are flavor text and the orcs attack with advantage. It depends on who is the DM.

It's not that the ranger suddenly can't climb the rope. It's that he/she is now doing so under pressure. And as I said, failure on the check isn't necessarily failing to climb the rope, but failing to do so properly or getting wounded on the way up.

JoeJ

2016-04-26, 02:42 AM

The fluff of Wizards points to them having an in depth knowledge and constant study of their magic. While a Cleric might not have a devoted study to all religions, a Druid might be more concerned with being a part of Nature than with knowing every detail, or a Barbarian relying on brute strength when grappling over learning advanced technique, the Wizard is presented as an expert of all things Arcane.

The mechanics don't support that, though. Wizards don't manipulate magic on the fly, that's the sorcerer's thing. Wizards just cast the spells they know without alteration. They're not masters of the arcane arts, they're just magical script kiddies.

Knaight

2016-04-26, 03:04 AM

Why is it any more irritating than any other combination of class + stereotypical skill?

The big thing is how well it lines up with the actual skill system. If there was a Fight skill (to use for attack rolls and similar), then the rogue's Expertise letting them have a big advantage in Fight over the fighter would be just as bad. If there were a dedicated Ride skill and a Cavalier class, that rogues could ride better than a cavalier would be just as bad. There's no other case where the lineup is quite as perfect as for the wizard, with the possible exception of Druid and Nature.

Regitnui

2016-04-26, 03:05 AM

The mechanics don't support that, though. Wizards don't manipulate magic on the fly, that's the sorcerer's thing. Wizards just cast the spells they know without alteration. They're not masters of the arcane arts, they're just magical script kiddies.

To paraphrase one of my favourite wizards; "I a magic nerd. When I want to relax from doing magic, i go research magic."

Shaofoo

2016-04-26, 05:03 AM

Actually, they can do it with any background works just by replacing one of the two skill proficiencies with Arcana.

While you are right my point is that you still need an extra source to get Arcana, there is no way for a Rogue to get Arcana by itself unlike a Wizard that can get Arcana by virtue of being a Wizard. It might be trivial to change skills proficiency but you must make a conscious effort to do so.

NewDM

2016-04-26, 06:08 AM

But then that is still my point, you are maxing out Str or Int to the detriment of your other stats.

There is very little reason for a Rogue to build Str, from a skill perspective Str is just above Con as worst stat ever for skill purposes. He can be the best grappler but he can't really take advantage of the increased Strength like a Fighter or Barbarian can, not to mention that he isn't as durable as either class so he risks a lot trying to tangle himself with someone else.

Also the Rogue can't learn Arcana on its own, it is not a class skill to be proficient in. The only way to get Arcana is spend a feat to get Skilled or choose the Sage background. Feel free to max out your Int because you are an Arcane Trickster but you'd actually need to go out of your way to be good at Arcana as a Rogue.

Sure Rogues can become best at certain skills but it ain't a free lunch for certain skills, especially when your class features don't mesh well with your skill choices.

Players get to choose which stats they have, you can't run around telling them not to choose that kind of stuff. They aren't playing wrong if they max Strength or Intelligence and then grab the appropriate skills and give them expertise.

Er... Sam never wore the Ring. He held it, but never wore it. I just checked the book. In fact, it makes him look quite like a rogue to me. I can say you're unequivocally wrong on that statement.

It's not that the ranger suddenly can't climb the rope. It's that he/she is now doing so under pressure. And as I said, failure on the check isn't necessarily failing to climb the rope, but failing to do so properly or getting wounded on the way up.

You are correct, he never wore the ring, but he was a 'ring bearer' and had its effects:

"His thought turned to the Ring, but there was no comfort there, only dread and danger. No sooner had he come in sight of Mount Doom, burning far away, than he was aware of a change in his burden. As it drew near the great furnaces where, in the deeps of time, it had been shaped and forged, the Ring's power grew, and it became more fell, untameable except by some mighty will. As Sam stood there, even though the Ring was not on him but hanging by its chain about his neck, he felt himself enlarged, as if he were robed in a huge distorted shadow of himself, a vast and ominous threat halted upon the walls of Mordor. He felt that he had from now on only two choices: to forbear the Ring, though it would torment him; or to claim it, and challenge the Power that sat in its dark hold beyond the valley of shadows. Already the Ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason. Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dur. And then all the clouds rolled away, and the white sun shone, and at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit. He had only to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be.

In that hour of trial it was his love of his master that helped most to hold him firm; but also deep down in him lived still unconquered his plain hobbit-sense: he knew in the core of his heart that he was not large enough to bear such a burden, even if such visions were not a mere cheat to betray him. The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command.

'And anyway all these notions are only a trick, he said to himself."

The bolded totally sounds like a Rogue.

Zalabim

2016-04-26, 06:19 AM

The point of a unified system is that saving throws, attack rolls, and ability checks use the same modifiers and the same scale of DCs. I don't see as many complaints about fighters having trouble hitting AC 30, or monks having trouble passing DC 30 saving throws. If your standard ability check DC is outpacing the standard saving throw DC and standard AC, you're making ability checks harder than the system assumes.

The point of bounded accuracy is that easy means easy, hard means hard, and the exceptional kind of events that stories get told about can happen. Sometimes your first plan doesn't work and you scrape through with a quick-witted lie or simply a lucky coincidence. It's up to the DM to not run skills as failure = game over.

There's the rub. Someone else can have a different opinion. Given two slippery ropes exactly the same in every way, why should the ranger have to roll just because sharks are below rope #2? How does the sharks below affect the ability to climb a rope? The same can be said of orcs firing arrows from another ship. Now I can certainly understand the ranger couldn't count his Dex towards his AC or maybe the orcs attack with advantage instead since the ranger can dodge/swing the rope with his Dex, but how does the act of orcs firing arrows all of a sudden mean the ranger cannot just climb the rope? You're not necessarily wrong in saying the ranger needs to roll, but neither is someone else saying he doesn't need to roll because the sharks are flavor text and the orcs attack with advantage. It depends on who is the DM.

To be fair, if it was Pathfinder the ranger would have to roll if the orcs are attacking because you can't Take 10 in combat. Rogue class ability, and I think some feats allow for that depending on feat for particular skills. However, the DC is 10, 5 for being a rope and +5 DC for being slippery. If the ranger has a +9 modifier he autosucceeds. Say 14 Strength and because climb is a class skill, that's +5 right there. He needs 4 ranks. Therefore, starting at 4th level the ranger can always climb a slippery rope even when being fired upon by arrows. That's fine by me. I don't need autosuccess at level 1, just eventually and preferably not at too high a level the campaign would be over by then.

Pathfinder's climb rules are notoriously bad, but unknotted rope is DC 15, greased so DC 20. It only comes out to DC 10 if it's against a wall, so it depends a lot on the size and shape of the boat. Knotted rope against a wall and greased would be DC 5. This also hasn't accounted for armor check penalty. I distinctly recall my cleric falling off the rope into the Sunless Citadel in my first game. The important thing is to always carry knotted rope and don't set foot on a sailboat for any reason.

The big thing is how well it lines up with the actual skill system. If there was a Fight skill (to use for attack rolls and similar), then the rogue's Expertise letting them have a big advantage in Fight over the fighter would be just as bad. If there were a dedicated Ride skill and a Cavalier class, that rogues could ride better than a cavalier would be just as bad. There's no other case where the lineup is quite as perfect as for the wizard, with the possible exception of Druid and Nature.

I don't see how this follows. The arcana skill isn't used to cast spells. Where it does get used makes perfect sense for certain rogues to care about.

"His thought turned to the Ring, but there was no comfort there, only dread and danger. No sooner had he come in sight of Mount Doom, burning far away, than he was aware of a change in his burden. As it drew near the great furnaces where, in the deeps of time, it had been shaped and forged, the Ring's power grew, and it became more fell, untameable except by some mighty will. As Sam stood there, even though the Ring was not on him but hanging by its chain about his neck, he felt himself enlarged, as if he were robed in a huge distorted shadow of himself, a vast and ominous threat halted upon the walls of Mordor. He felt that he had from now on only two choices: to forbear the Ring, though it would torment him; or to claim it, and challenge the Power that sat in its dark hold beyond the valley of shadows. Already the Ring tempted him, gnawing at his will and reason. Wild fantasies arose in his mind; and he saw Samwise the Strong, Hero of the Age, striding with a flaming sword across the darkened land, and armies flocking to his call as he marched to the overthrow of Barad-dur. And then all the clouds rolled away, and the white sun shone, and at his command the vale of Gorgoroth became a garden of flowers and trees and brought forth fruit. He had only to put on the Ring and claim it for his own, and all this could be.

In that hour of trial it was his love of his master that helped most to hold him firm; but also deep down in him lived still unconquered his plain hobbit-sense: he knew in the core of his heart that he was not large enough to bear such a burden, even if such visions were not a mere cheat to betray him. The one small garden of a free gardener was all his need and due, not a garden swollen to a realm; his own hands to use, not the hands of others to command.

'And anyway all these notions are only a trick, he said to himself."

The bolded totally sounds like a Rogue.

Bolded totally sounds like a gardener.

NewDM

2016-04-26, 06:38 AM

Bolded totally sounds like a gardener.

Yep:
Samwise Gamgee
Level 1
Class: Fighter
Background: Farmer

Zalabim

2016-04-26, 07:27 AM

I thought the three other hobbits were the retainers from Frodo's alternate Noble background feature. So Sam is just a gardener with no PC class.

Regitnui

2016-04-26, 08:15 AM

CNagy

2016-04-26, 08:30 AM

I think people should stop referring to the Bard as a "Jack of All Trades." This latest incarnation is a full-caster, hardly a Jack of magic.

But if we say that label still fits, the phrase is "Jack of All Trades, Master of None." If the Bard is the Jack of Skills, who is the Ace? The Rogue, from who an element was drawn to create the Bard concept. For the purposes of this argument, I'm valuing "casual pass Easy, Medium, Hard skills all the time" over Inspiration. YMMV.

Alternatively, you can see it as a form of symmetry; there are two classes with unrestricted Expertise--one martial and one magical.

But my personal opinion is that this argument is kind of silly. 5E is its own edition and I'm perfectly happy that it left a lot of old baggage at the curb. The only traditional thing that it needed to bring with it was the environment of play--and playing D&D 5E feels like playing AD&D 2E to me, before my group was seduced by the Dark Side of the Player's Option line of books.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-04-26, 08:35 AM

We aren't referring to the Bard as a jack of all trades... we are referring to their level 2 ability of the same name, that grants them half proficiency in skills that they don't have proficiency in.

Having a class that is supposed to be ok at everything is fine, but to then go ahead and give them 3 more proficiencies and 4 expertise slots, hardly qualifies that features name.

NewDM

2016-04-26, 09:00 AM

NewDM; he didn't wear the Ring. That was a vision, not an effect of the Ring on him. The Ring makes people invisible (people other than Sauron, anyway). We saw it on Bilbo, Frodo, and even Gollum. The Ring's intelligence is capable of taking people over, but can't grant them power. Essentially, that was a conflict between a cursed item and its carrier, with Sam making his Wisdom save. It doesn't prove his class any more than my fantasies of a hot redhead with glasses make me a husband. Going by the evidence elsewhere in that chapter, Sam;

-Stealthily reconnoiters the tower.
-Bluffs a group of orc.
-And sneak attacks an orc to save Frodo.

That's more a Rogue than a fighter.

lol. The ring enhances the power of the user. This is backed up by every time it was offered to someone else. Go look at when it was offered to Gandolf and the Elf chick. In this case it was tempting him with epic fighter abilities. He did in fact wear the ring:

"Without any clear purpose he drew out the Ring and put it on again. Immediately he felt the great burden of its weight, and felt afresh, but now more strong and urgent than ever, the malice of the Eye of Mordor, searching, trying to pierce the shadows that it had made for its own defence, but which now hindered it in its unquiet and doubt. As before, Sam found that his hearing was sharpened, but that to his sight the things of this world seemed thin and vague."

and

"He took off the Ring, moved it may be by some deep premonition of danger, though to himself he thought only that he wished to see more clearly. `Better have a look at the worst,' he muttered. `No good blundering about in a fog!"

So he put the ring on and the ring gained power because it was near mount doom. Then:

"Leaping out of a dark opening at the right, it ran towards him. It was no more than six paces from him when, lifting its head, it saw him; and Sam could hear its gasping breath and see the glare in its bloodshot eyes. It stopped short aghast. For what it saw was not a small frightened hobbit trying to hold a steady sword: it saw a great silent shape, cloaked in a grey shadow, looming against the wavering light behind; in one hand it held a sword, the very light of which was a bitter pain, the other was clutched at its breast, but held concealed some nameless menace of power and doom."

So it saw a 'great silent shape'. Sam did this by clutching the ring and gaining physical contact with it.

Bilbo was a Bard who had the ability to stealth (in game terms), Frodo was a Rogue, Gollum was a Rogue. Sam was a fighter.

The entire cast moves silently through the Mines of Moria, I guess Gandalf, the Dwarves, Legolas and the RANGER Strider took some Rogue levels by that measure. Stealth can be attempted by anyone.

He didn't bluff an Orcs the ring enhanced his natural fighter class features. Any stealth he does can be explained by his heritage as a Hobbit (Halfling for copyright reasons).

"He was no longer holding the Ring, but it was there, a hidden power, a cowing menace to the slaves of Mordor; and in his hand was Sting, and its light smote the eyes of the orc like the glitter of cruel stars in the terrible elf-countries, the dream of which was a cold fear to all his kind. And Shagrat could not both fight and keep hold of his treasure. He stopped, growling, baring his fangs. Then once more, orc-fashion, he leapt aside, and as Sam sprang at him, using the heavy bundle as both shield and weapon, he thrust it hard into his enemy's face. Sam staggered, and before he could recover, Shagrat darted past and down the stairs"

He didn't bluff anyone. He got distracted by Shagrat who disengaged and ran off.

"With a cry Sam leapt across the floor, Sting in hand. The orc wheeled round, but before it could make a move Sam slashed its whip-hand from its arm."

Sorry not a sneak attack. He yelled and wasn't hidden (just behind the Orc) this is what Surprised is for. He surprised the orc who was aware of him before he hit. The orc didn't get to act until after Sam.

JoeJ

2016-04-26, 09:02 AM

While you are right my point is that you still need an extra source to get Arcana, there is no way for a Rogue to get Arcana by itself unlike a Wizard that can get Arcana by virtue of being a Wizard. It might be trivial to change skills proficiency but you must make a conscious effort to do so.

No, you don't need an extra source. A rogue can simply choose Arcana just like a wizard. Why does it matter whether it comes from their class or their background? Either way, the player still has to choose it.

Tanarii

2016-04-26, 09:38 AM

No, you don't need an extra source. A rogue can simply choose Arcana just like a wizard. Why does it matter whether it comes from their class or their background? Either way, the player still has to choose it.
Because changing backgrounds requires DM approval. Selecting it from your class doesn't.

And very few races grant a free skill to overlap with a background proficiency, allowing a free pick of any skill. Elves with a background that grants Perception, and Half-orcs with a background that grants Intimidate. That's it.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-04-26, 09:44 AM

Not to be contrary... just adding in 2 more cases.

Variant Human - allows any 1 skill of the players choice
Half Elf - allows any 2 of the players choice

Tanarii

2016-04-26, 10:00 AM

Variant Human - allows any 1 skill of the players choice
Half Elf - allows any 2 of the players choicegood call.

There are definitely wYs to do it. And that's good, not bad. It's just not necessarily 'any PC can take any skill' without some specific combinations, or a more lenient DM.

JoeJ

2016-04-26, 10:02 AM

Because changing backgrounds requires DM approval. Selecting it from your class doesn't.

They both require DM approval. Or neither does. There's nothing in the language of backgrounds that makes them in different in that regard than classes.

Shaofoo

2016-04-26, 10:11 AM

No, you don't need an extra source. A rogue can simply choose Arcana just like a wizard. Why does it matter whether it comes from their class or their background? Either way, the player still has to choose it.

To me we are talking about the Rogue class, if we must put in backgrounds this is beyond the Rogue class. The player must make a conscious effort to be good at Arcana by choosing a particular background based on the skills he wants and not because of anything else. From what I can see a Rogue is locked out of the Folk Hero, Hermit and Sage backgrounds if he wishes to choose any skill.

It is a minor thing but it is a restriction that a class that can pick Arcana does not have to deal with at all.

To be fair as well, being expertise in Arcana is just as good as the Sage's background benefits of knowing where the answer to most everything is if they can't figure it out by themselves, it applies to all lore, not just lore that you are good at knowing.

JoeJ

2016-04-26, 10:23 AM

To me we are talking about the Rogue class, if we must put in backgrounds this is beyond the Rogue class. The player must make a conscious effort to be good at Arcana by choosing a particular background based on the skills he wants and not because of anything else. From what I can see a Rogue is locked out of the Folk Hero, Hermit and Sage backgrounds if he wishes to choose any skill.

It is a minor thing but it is a restriction that a class that can pick Arcana does not have to deal with at all.

To be fair as well, being expertise in Arcana is just as good as the Sage's background benefits of knowing where the answer to most everything is if they can't figure it out by themselves, it applies to all lore, not just lore that you are good at knowing.

It's not possible to play a class: you have to play a character. Any character can start with proficiency in Arcana if they choose to. Some characters get it from their class, some from their race, and some from their background, but any character who wants it can have it.

You don't have to pick certain backgrounds to get the proficiencies you want. You take the background that best fits your character concept, and customize by trading out one of the listed skills for something else. That's not a variant rule, nor does it require DM approval (no more DM approval than any other part of character creation anyway).

Shaofoo

2016-04-26, 10:37 AM

It's not possible to play a class: you have to play a character. Any character can start with proficiency in Arcana if they choose to. Some characters get it from their class, some from their race, and some from their background, but any character who wants it can have it.

Well not every character, there are combinations of race, class and background that does not lead to letting you gain any proficiency.

Like I said if you choose a Rogue and a not half elf or Variant Human but also are a Folk Hero then you can't choose Arcana because there is no way to choose two similar skills to choose into any skill. It can lead to you having to sacrifice a character concept but this is an extreme case, more often than not you will be able to do it.

But I think what you say holds the biggest truth of them all, we play characters.

RickAllison

2016-04-26, 10:54 AM

Well not every character, there are combinations of race, class and background that does not lead to letting you gain any proficiency.

Like I said if you choose a Rogue and a not half elf or Variant Human but also are a Folk Hero then you can't choose Arcana because there is no way to choose two similar skills to choose into any skill. It can lead to you having to sacrifice a character concept but this is an extreme case, more often than not you will be able to do it.

But I think what you say holds the biggest truth of them all, we play characters.

You are very wrong there. Customizing a background is not a variant rule and does not need DM permission. Prohibiting background customization would actually be a house-rule.

No, the only part of customizing a background that does require DM permission is if the player doesn't feel like any features fit the background and wishes for a custom one. It's on page 126, as a rule, not a variant rule. It gives you one feature, any two skills, any two tools or languages, and equipment.

Selecting the Folk Hero background is as easy and RAW-abiding as saying "I want to take Arcana instead of Survival." Great, the Folk Hero now has Arcana.

JoeJ

2016-04-26, 11:03 AM

Shaofoo

2016-04-26, 11:04 AM

Well I guess I was wrong then.

NewDM

2016-04-26, 11:11 AM

Well I guess I was wrong then.

Can I put that quote in my signature?

Regitnui

2016-04-26, 11:13 AM

NewDM, you're clearly misinterpreting the text and the established canon, but it's really not worth correcting you twice. Anyway, it's off topic.

Why is the rogue the 'skill monkey'? Simply answered, because the class has been for at least two previous editions.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-04-26, 11:18 AM

NewDM, there is no need to kick dirt in the face of those that admit they were wrong. They may be wrong on one point today and right in many others tomorrow. There are no winners and losers, just those with open minds vs closed minds.

I say to Shaofoo, well done to openly admit taking a wrong stance based on your personal observations, and give you all the kudos in the world to do so in a public forum on the internet. Here's to admitting that changing your mind is a valid option when others present contradicting facts.

RickAllison

2016-04-26, 11:21 AM

Well I guess I was wrong then.

Easy mistake :smallsmile: the backgrounds cover things well enough and the custom backgrounds would be accepted easily as a variant rule, so it's a part of the text that rarely comes up.

Serket

2016-04-26, 11:57 AM

(edited because I thought this was my second reply. D'oh)

The "do we like 5e skills" thing has been done to death and is a tangent, so maybe we should drop it? I mean, we got here by me answering the OPs question with "rogues need it (expertise) to function", which is either obviously true or at least not something anyone has disputed yet.

The tangent of the skills system is pretty simple to sum up, even though it's led to a million long threads: I don't like it because "proficiency" doesn't feel especially valuable, and "expertise" feels like a "proficiency" ought to in my mind. And that, is a question of game feel and therefore very subjective. I know there are people who love 5e's skills feel and I'm not saying they're wrong to.

How much is reasonably often to you? Of course when the dice falls and you fail we would wish the odds were better but sometimes the dreaded 1 just rolls up, would you accept failure even then? How about a 2 or 3 or 4? Or a 9? Even a 55% chance is still in your favor.

Good question, relating to design, which is relevant to my interests.

I used to play WH40K. When I started, Eldar (space elves) had guns that hit on a 4 on a D6, but they had targetters (equipment) that gave them +1. The advertising for them was elvish - get in, do the job, get out; one shot, one kill; right troops in the right place and you will win. All that precision sort of thing, like an army of rogues. And they hit on a 3 on a d6 and it felt right.
They had move-shoot-move pretty often, too, and I can't believe it's only just occurred to me why Cunning Expertise feels so familiar. :smallsmile:

A later edition removed the targetters. Now most of their guns hit on a 4, on a D6. And the advertising didn't change, but the army felt different. I really don't want to have a conversation about point costs, and it's more than a decade too late for me to care about balance; the point is the feel changed because they were merely average.

Now, D6 is very granular. But there were other elite armies hitting on 3's, and non-elite armies hitting on 4's, and they had some troops on 3's and some (including most of the big guns) on 4's. And the feel was different.
A one point difference on a D6 is roughly a three point difference on a D20. But when you've got a much smaller number of rolls to succeed, the statistical superiority isn't as obvious. So probably more than +3, I would guess.

I'm told the designers for 4th ed had a metric of required reliability to make something feel good, while being risky enough to feel like an achievement. IIRC (and there's a good chance I don't) it was 60%. If skills have to be chained together to complete complex tasks then that needs to be higher.

To be fair your analysis accounts that both expert and non expert are at the epitome of their stat, the non-proficient is still the humanoid pinnacle in whatever stat the skill keys off.

That depends what the percentage means. IIRC I was using percentage as the absolute chance increase. I should have specified.

Even if the 20 Dex guy isn't proficient in sneaking around I would expect him to still be good at it

Feel-wise I don't even mind that. The untrained but gifted person, or the trained but ungifted person, having a better than average day? Yeah, okay.

It's things like the untrained int mod 1 half-orc cleric rolling a 19 and therefore getting some information about an ancient elven treasure, when the two arcana-trained int-based elves both rolled <5 and therefore got nothing (and neither did the human wizard). I can't justify not giving the guy a roll, because we got one. Our superior skill was represented in the numbers, which is fine... it's just also more random than I'd like.

D20's are swingy. You don't get many chances. I don't like it. And yes, I know it's not going to change, and yes, I'm aware other people do like it, so I suppose there's not much point talking about it. Unless you're designing a system?

Funny you should say that because the game actually defines Reliable. Reliable Talent skill is a Rogue skill that lets you treat all proficient rolls that are 1-9 as a 10.

I know. And I like that, in that I want it for my rogue skills. I also hate it, in that it seems to imply all good artisans are actually L11 rogues. Although to be fair, that would explain medieval guild politics. :smallsmile: /stereotyping

The game says that rolls should only happen when there is a degree of failure, there is the emphasis of letting characters do things rather than making them roll for it.

I know. And I hate that. I mean, I hate it a lot. It means basically that rather than having a model of the world and knowing (with maths!) what my character can do, I have to make guesses about the gameworld based on the GMs interpretation of what is reasonable, which will be given to me only if I ask for it or it becomes relevant.
I hate trying to guess what the GM will consider reasonable. I'm good at maths, and really bad at reading minds.

And again, I know some people love that, and that it's not going to change, and so on.

+4 stealth as compared to an untrained person is actually pretty big. consider, for example (and snip said example)

It's good to be reliable at sneaking past people with neither observational skills nor any inherent talent. From my perspective, though, (the incredibly subjective) game feel is about succeeding at the things I'll need to do in game.

Example: If a burglary involves sneaking (+7, 80% vs passive 12), and spotting a simple bell-ringing trap (+5, 80% vs DC10), and picking a lock (+5, 80% vs DC10), then the chance of pulling off the job without complications is now down to just over half 51.2%. Sure, my character's chance on any one roll is good! But when you have to make multiple rolls, it starts looking unpleasantly chancy.
(Example uses Dex 16 Wis 12, with expertise in stealth and perception.)
If someone said up front "50% chance you pull it off, 50% chance of failure with consequences"... would you do it? I probably wouldn't. Rogue skill uses tend to come in batches with success being dependant on most or all items, tend to have important consequences for failure, and (if you're playing the rogue and took those skills) are a big deal.

And sure, the GM could say "yeah, you succeed" or "yeah, you notice the trap", but for me that seems like a cop-out. If the system has numbers and we're ignoring them because they contradict the fiction, then from my perspective the numbers are wrong.

I know this is all irrelevant: some people like 5e's skill system, and I'm not saying they're wrong for doing so. It just happens I don't.

SharkForce

2016-04-26, 12:33 PM

what's your point? a first level fighter who goes up against a couple of giant rats isn't going to consistently win the fight, and that's the fighter's area of specialty.

level 1 characters are simply not very awesome at doing the things they do in D&D. fighters are not the masters of war who can walk into a group of 20 kobolds and just start sending body parts flying. rogues are not the masters of subterfuge capable of sneaking into a bank and stealing whatever they want. a fighter can *probably* handle a couple of kobolds, but will struggle with 4 or 5. a rogue can *probably* steal a coin purse from a person walking down the street, but will struggle with breaking into a wealthy merchant's business while the night guard is there.

(also, picking a lock doesn't really have negative consequences for failure unless you have already been spotted, and it is entirely possible, even probable considering the rogue can double-dash, that the consequences of failure will be more along the lines of "i didn't get what i wanted" rather than "i got caught and went to jail or died").

Pex

2016-04-26, 12:33 PM

If your DM is handing out checks like candy, and assigning DCs poorly, then I can see you might end up with the impression that characters are incompetent under the skill system. Just as thieves used to be mistakenly viewed as incompetent at things at low level in (and before) 1e. Because DMs would make them do % checks for non-exceptional things under their intended to be used for exceptional things skills.

That's bound to happen when there aren't tables of benchmarks or something similar to advise specific DCs to define what doesn't need a roll, what is easy, what is hard, etc.

Pathfinder's climb rules are notoriously bad, but unknotted rope is DC 15, greased so DC 20. It only comes out to DC 10 if it's against a wall, so it depends a lot on the size and shape of the boat. Knotted rope against a wall and greased would be DC 5. This also hasn't accounted for armor check penalty. I distinctly recall my cleric falling off the rope into the Sunless Citadel in my first game. The important thing is to always carry knotted rope and don't set foot on a sailboat for any reason.

Ok. I see I was looking at the knotted rope block. Point stands that at some point it's possible in Pathfinder for a ranger to autosucceed climb a slippery rope while getting shot at with arrows. In 5E it's never possible unless a DM says so. That difference is a bother to me. I like knowing my character is just that good regardless of who is DM. In 5E that can relatively be only possible if I play a rogue or bard, which is what I've stated I'm not liking but am ok with rogue and bard being better at skills overall. Define "better" as having more proficient skills and more autosuccesses possible. I just would have preferred that for whatever class I play the character could be just that good to autosucceed at something important to the character in terms of skill use. Again, that's only possibly depending on who is the DM and his tolerance level of allowing for that. (Examples only: Wizards autosucceeding on Knowledge Arcana checks, Fighters autosucceeding Athletic checks to climb.)

Tanarii

2016-04-26, 01:41 PM

They both require DM approval. Or neither does. There's nothing in the language of backgrounds that makes them in different in that regard than classes.

You are very wrong there. Customizing a background is not a variant rule and does not need DM permission. Prohibiting background customization would actually be a house-rule.

No, the only part of customizing a background that does require DM permission is if the player doesn't feel like any features fit the background and wishes for a custom one. It's on page 126, as a rule, not a variant rule. It gives you one feature, any two skills, any two tools or languages, and equipment.

Selecting the Folk Hero background is as easy and RAW-abiding as saying "I want to take Arcana instead of Survival." Great, the Folk Hero now has Arcana.

When you create your character you can always swap background skills for others you like better. It's right there in the rules on p. 125 under "Customizing a Background".
Right you are. For some reason I thought the language in the PHB / Basic document said that customizing was with the DMs approval. It's not.

Well I guess I was wrong then.Yeah, me too.

Tanarii

2016-04-26, 01:42 PM

That's bound to happen when there aren't tables of benchmarks or something similar to advise specific DCs to define what doesn't need a roll, what is easy, what is hard, etc.Unless the DM, y'know, reads the DMG. It's clear about not using checks for things that don't need them, and sets benchmarks in the range of DC 10 to DC 20 for things that do need checks.

That's not even including the common adventuring things that have specific DCs. Foraging, tracking, social interactions, sample traps, just to name a few off the top of my head.

Knaight

2016-04-26, 02:04 PM

That's bound to happen when there aren't tables of benchmarks or something similar to advise specific DCs to define what doesn't need a roll, what is easy, what is hard, etc.

That's funny, because in all of the numerous games I've played without benchmarks, it happens extremely infrequently. That's not even slightly consistent with "bound to happen".

JoeJ

2016-04-26, 02:06 PM

Yeah, me too.

No biggie. It happens to everyone.

longshotist

2016-04-26, 02:18 PM

If you look through D&Ds history you'll find that each class was good at different things. The Fighting Man(Fighter) was good at physical athletic style challenges (running, jumping, lifting things, enduring things). The Wizard was good at mental challenges (reading magical scripts recalling lore, knowing lots of languages), the Cleric was good at medical challenges (healing spells, high wisdom), and the rogue was good at thievery(climb walls, open locks, find and remove traps, stealth, forgery).

What you'll find is that the Bard actually got more skills and thus should be the skill monkey of 5e.

Then of course there's the whole expertise thing. In no edition to date has the Rogue been leaps and bounds better than other characters at doing things based on skills. In 3.x they couldn't go over the max that all other characters could go. In earlier editions they had abysmal chances to do things at low levels and at only at the maximum level did they start reliably being able to do their skills.

So why did they do this? Why didn't they make 'skill monkey' a Class Option(sub-class)? Why didn't they make it a feat or three?

They could have easily made it a Class Option for each class.

For fighter they could have called it 'explorer' and granted 4 extra trained skills, Expertise in 2-3 skills, never below 9, and auto 20 at 20th. Other classes would work in a similar way.

So why did they pick rogue?

not trying to be snarky but, the most basic answer to your question is probably that, during development and testing, they decided it was a good idea and moved forward in that direction. If i had to take a stab at why, it is probably because over time what has evolved into the current "rogue" class is the idea of a specialist who, barring devotion to skill with arms or armor, divine guidance, arcane knowledge, etc. has instead focused their aptitude towards mastery over various skills.

Somewhere in this thread is an example of how a rogue might wind up better at arcana than a bookish wizard. The wizard, as part of their overall magical training, has naturally studied arcana, like an engineer with a master's degree who entered the work force with. A rogue would be more like someone with a Ph. D in arcana, whose studies have gone beyond practical application. What's the problem?

TL;DR They picked rogue because during development they made that decision, and that's what we have to play with.

Tanarii

2016-04-26, 02:24 PM

not trying to be snarky but, the most basic answer to your question is probably that, during development and testing, they decided it was a good idea and moved forward in that direction. If i had to take a stab at why, it is probably because over time what has evolved into the current "rogue" class is the idea of a specialist who, barring devotion to skill with arms or armor, divine guidance, arcane knowledge, etc. has instead focused their aptitude towards mastery over various skills.thats not what Rogues evolved into. It's what Thieves classically were.

Something the developers, especially Mearls, very intentionally tried to bring back in 5e, is the classical D&D feel. While still retaining a lot of the good innovations of 3e and 4e, such as (in this specific case) skills. One of those things that was a classical feel was thieves (now rogues) being the expert at adventuring tasks, far beyond the capabilities of the other classes. (Edit: scratch "far beyond". Obviously that's hyperbole when we're talking about +10% - +30%. I'll just stick with "beyond the capabilities of other classes" :smallwink: )

Since "skills" are now the method for resolving common adventuring tasks, Rogues get to be an expert at them. As do Bards, and to a lesser degree Rangers, which is also classical for both of their classes. (In Bard's case because they were dual classes thieves.)

mephnick

2016-04-26, 02:50 PM

How would you guys feel about granting every character advantage on one/two skills? Maybe at 3 and 10 like Expertise, while Bard and Rogue simply get the Expertise mechanic instead of advantage as their class feature. Expertise is still much better in the long run, but allows each character to keep up in their favourite skill(s) until very high levels.

The only problem I have with it is that advantage is better than Expertise at low levels, but if Rogue/Bard get two Expertise skills and other characters only get 1 Advantage skill it might be ok. Hurting to Rogue's speciality too much?

Tanarii

2016-04-26, 02:56 PM

No biggie. It happens to everyone.Yep. In this case it's probably because I really despise free reign of custom backgrounds. It means every character can take any two skills, and two tools/languages, and any feature in any combination. That does a good job of snowing under class archetypes, as well as the flavor associated with backgrounds. Otoh it certainly helps flatten the field for skills & tools.

But mostly, it's important to admit when I'm wrong even though I don't like something. :smallwink:

Serket

2016-04-26, 03:22 PM

what's your point? a first level fighter who goes up against a couple of giant rats isn't going to consistently win the fight, and that's the fighter's area of specialty.

level 1 characters are simply not very awesome at doing the things they do in D&D.

That is edition-dependant.

If I make a rogue in pathfinder, I've got 8+int mod skill points, each of which can activate a class skill bonus. I've probably taken dex 18, so my class skill based on dex (stealth, sleight, disable device among them) will be at a +8 modifier. And the DCs at that level will be in the same range as 5e's. So my starting character would be a bit better off on the rolls. 5e gives me +7 on my best two (with point buy), PF gives me up to about +13 if I reeeeeaaaally stretch it, quite a few on +8, and quite a few more on +4+ability mod (and with random extra bonuses from tools, traits, racial traits, feats, and what have you).

I mean, I'm not trying to advertise PF or say that it's better - it has it's own significant problems. I'm just saying that there's at least one D&D environment where level one characters have significantly less variability in their application of skills.

So it's not "this is how it is", it's "this is how this edition has done it".

DanyBallon

2016-04-26, 05:26 PM

I mean, I'm not trying to advertise PF or say that it's better - it has it's own significant problems. I'm just saying that there's at least one D&D environment where level one characters have significantly less variability in their application of skills.

So it's not "this is how it is", it's "this is how this edition has done it".

There's one single edition of D&D where a 1st level character are not very awesome at what they do.
We can be safe to assume that in general through out D&D history, 1st level character aren't particularly awesome in their field, and that Pathfinder's characters are an exception.

Pex

2016-04-26, 06:37 PM

Unless the DM, y'know, reads the DMG. It's clear about not using checks for things that don't need them, and sets benchmarks in the range of DC 10 to DC 20 for things that do need checks.

That's not even including the common adventuring things that have specific DCs. Foraging, tracking, social interactions, sample traps, just to name a few off the top of my head.

The point is different DMs have different opinions on what those things are that don't need rolls, what's easy, what's hard, etc, but that's getting off topic of this thread.

That's funny, because in all of the numerous games I've played without benchmarks, it happens extremely infrequently. That's not even slightly consistent with "bound to happen".

Bound as in likely to happen not always happen.

Tanarii

2016-04-26, 06:47 PM

The point is different DMs have different opinions on what those things are that don't need rolls, what's easy, what's hard, etc, but that's getting off topic of this thread.I understood your point. My point was that the DMG makes clear statements that should prevent rolls from being handed out like candy, which was my original statement. They may be handed out more or less in a given campaign, and that may or may not be a problem depending on how much specificity you prefer as a player. But I think "handed out like candy" pretty clearly means too much, regardless of preference. :smallamused:

But I agree, the details of various preferences for specificity is fairly off topic.

NewDM

2016-04-26, 07:03 PM

I know this is all irrelevant: some people like 5e's skill system, and I'm not saying they're wrong for doing so. It just happens I don't.

They actually hinted that they might make a 5.5e at some point. I think its at the start of an errata article.

thats not what Rogues evolved into. It's what Thieves classically were.

Actually Thieves had a few very specific skills that they were really horrible at until very high levels (In modern parlance: Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Find/Disable Traps, Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Climb Walls). They could 'backstab' once per encounter. They also got to use spell scrolls at high levels. There was a sub-class that was good at poisoning creatures. That is what Thieves classically were.

If we were to make a classic Thief in 5e it would simply get proficiency in Stealth, Perception (to find traps), Thieves' Tools, Sleight of Hand (to pick pockets), and Athletics (when climbing). Their sneak attack would actually get nerfed to a weaker version of the assassin's feature and only work on surprised opponents. A high level feature would be to use spell scrolls. In fact it might not even get proficiency in perception, sleight of hand, and athletics. It might just grant advantage to perception checks to find traps, pick pockets, and climbing.

Most of what people are claiming is essential has come from 3.x.

Something the developers, especially Mearls, very intentionally tried to bring back in 5e, is the classical D&D feel. While still retaining a lot of the good innovations of 3e and 4e, such as (in this specific case) skills. One of those things that was a classical feel was thieves (now rogues) being the expert at adventuring tasks, far beyond the capabilities of the other classes. (Edit: scratch "far beyond". Obviously that's hyperbole when we're talking about +10% - +30%. I'll just stick with "beyond the capabilities of other classes" :smallwink: )

Again, those tasks were very specific right up to 3.x. In 2e other characters had chances (and sometimes better) to accomplish some of the same tasks. If we follow this logic, Rogues in 5e would simply have proficiency in a short list of skills.

Since "skills" are now the method for resolving common adventuring tasks, Rogues get to be an expert at them. As do Bards, and to a lesser degree Rangers, which is also classical for both of their classes. (In Bard's case because they were dual classes thieves.)

See above. The logic doesn't track.

How would you guys feel about granting every character advantage on one/two skills? Maybe at 3 and 10 like Expertise, while Bard and Rogue simply get the Expertise mechanic instead of advantage as their class feature. Expertise is still much better in the long run, but allows each character to keep up in their favourite skill(s) until very high levels.

The only problem I have with it is that advantage is better than Expertise at low levels, but if Rogue/Bard get two Expertise skills and other characters only get 1 Advantage skill it might be ok. Hurting to Rogue's speciality too much?

I'd just give them expertise. With all the other skill based features the Rogue gets, they won't get jealous.

That is edition-dependant.

If I make a rogue in pathfinder, I've got 8+int mod skill points, each of which can activate a class skill bonus. I've probably taken dex 18, so my class skill based on dex (stealth, sleight, disable device among them) will be at a +8 modifier. And the DCs at that level will be in the same range as 5e's. So my starting character would be a bit better off on the rolls. 5e gives me +7 on my best two (with point buy), PF gives me up to about +13 if I reeeeeaaaally stretch it, quite a few on +8, and quite a few more on +4+ability mod (and with random extra bonuses from tools, traits, racial traits, feats, and what have you).

I mean, I'm not trying to advertise PF or say that it's better - it has it's own significant problems. I'm just saying that there's at least one D&D environment where level one characters have significantly less variability in their application of skills.

So it's not "this is how it is", it's "this is how this edition has done it".

You can also do this in 4e too.

There's one single edition of D&D where a 1st level character are not very awesome at what they do.
We can be safe to assume that in general through out D&D history, 1st level character aren't particularly awesome in their field, and that Pathfinder's characters are an exception.

Pathfinder isn't D&D. Its an Open Game License game and cannot be associated with D&D.

Tanarii

2016-04-26, 08:19 PM

Actually Thieves had a few very specific skills that they were really horrible at until very high levels (In modern parlance: Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Find/Disable Traps, Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Climb Walls). They could 'backstab' once per encounter. They also got to use spell scrolls at high levels. There was a sub-class that was good at poisoning creatures. That is what Thieves classically were.And again, you've missed the point that all those, except Hearn Noise, were something above and beyond what any character could do.

Just as modern rogues are able to do stuff above and beyond, potentially the nearly impossible, of what any other character can do. At first by a small chance of success, but later by an amount that potentially allows it on a regular basis.

Expertise already represents what Thief skills did in Ad&D and before, provided you take it I the appropriate skills.

Edit: I absolutely agree it was a specific sub-set of all current skills. That's why I said earlier that I consider it a reasonable house-rule to restrict Rogues to taking Expertise in Rogue skills. Maybe allow expertise in Arcana to Aracane Tricksters with their second pick.

Knaight

2016-04-26, 11:13 PM

Pathfinder isn't D&D. Its an Open Game License game and cannot be associated with D&D.

When the only distinguishing characteristic is the name, there's a solid case to be made (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test) that it's D&D. Yes, it technically doesn't have the brand label on it, and yes, it is technically subtly different. On the other hand, even the vast majority of D&D players consider it a de-facto D&D edition, and it definitely looks like one to the rest of us.

It's also an OGL game. That's a category that includes things entirely unrelated to D&D (Fudge switched to the OGL instead of a previous shared common license, and that's just one example), things that use a few mechanics but are majorly different (Mutants and Masterminds stands out here), and then a whole bunch of D&D clones that are renamed (Pathfinder, a big chunk of OSR titles).

BiblioRook

2016-04-26, 11:35 PM

Regitnui

2016-04-27, 12:50 AM

Pathfinder is considered D&D 3.75 by a lot of people. I still wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole though, because it seems to try and fix 3.5's problems by adding more numbers. Which is a lot like trying to preserve ocean species by adding more water. Doesn't make it bad though, and I'd certainly be happy to slot it into the D&D edition timeline between 3.5 and 4e.

djreynolds

2016-04-27, 01:50 AM

When we say skill monkey, I think we are saying that hey rogue you focus on all the dexterity and stealth based stuff. And bard you focus on social and charisma stuff.

You don't have to, but its akin to saying hey fighter you focus on heavy armor and melee weapons because you are the strongest.

BiblioRook

2016-04-27, 02:14 AM

djreynolds

2016-04-27, 03:18 AM

So what? You take two versatile skill-based classes and make them both... less versatile? What does that achieve? I still fail to see why having a wider skill option (for ether class) is a problem and how changing that would do anything but unnecessarily pigeonhole them.

To go with your Fighter example, it's like saying Fighters could focus on melee weapons all they wish, but not ranged weapons. I mean, you can still use ranged weapons, but you would never be as good with them as you are with melee weapons because they just aren't a Fighter thing.

But what is a skill monkey? Most rogues I assume will take dex and int or chr as a second stat. How much much skill monkeying is there?

For me, I see the bard as more of the skill monkey or jack of all trades... and the rogue a specialist. Whether that is infiltration, burglary, assassination, etc. The charisma skills can help with getting into places past guards, bribing, etc.

Its a good topic to discuss, I always like for a PC in the party to have something that makes them feel like the go to guy in that, whether its healing, fighting, skills, or even fireballs.

BiblioRook

2016-04-27, 04:37 AM

Just because you don't understand why a Rogue would want to specialize in non-Dex stuff like Insight or Intimidation doesn't seem like a good excuse to want to take the option away when it's already available. I never liked the preconceived notion that a Rogue is just some sort of thief or nefarious character, that's for the player to decide not the mechanics.

Anyways, what makes a musician more of a natural skill monkey rather then a rogue? Though not really arguing that the Rogue is naturally superior ether, but both are well within their right to be skill savvy even if for different reasons. Not that the Rogue really is a jack-of-all-trades. He has the potential to excel at most skills but he ultimately does chose specifics. Things a Rogue can or would do are hardly limited to things based on physical skill, after all most then probably any other class the Rogue has to be prepared for anything, but a Bard I tend to have a hard time seeing developing significant skill in things outside skills social based. There can be your Rogue's specialization but for no reason should that choice be taken away because, again, that's for the player to decide not the mechanics. Likewise while I can see a Bard picking up an inkling of know-how in things utterly unrelated to him, but a jack-of-all-trades also tends to be a master of none, which to me makes me think of a Bard as a far less go-to guy for most skills outside his specific sphere. The removal of trained/untrained then makes the Bard's 'minor skill at everything' moot then as every class is now a 'jack-of-all-trades'.

djreynolds

2016-04-27, 05:10 AM

I always have a concept first. And then I try to create that. My last rogue was strength based thug with a little fighter for heavy armor, could've snagged a feat. I wanted to make that roman soldier in Gladiator in the beginning stabbing the big warrior in the back with his gladius.

Let the cleric disable the trap, so he can heal himself.

5E has definitely freed up classes. I like a wizard doing the investigation of a room, it seems in character. A cleric with a high perception seems to fit the bill, little angels telling you to watch out. A paladin with medicine skill seems cool, I'm really good at laying on hands.

But often people will associate rogues with stealth and larceny and bards with great one-liners.

But often in a team aspect, you try to maximize your chances of success by grouping skills with said ability to one class. Hey cleric here is your medicine, insight, and perception and your religion skill, which you will fail because you have an 8 in intelligence.

Its min/maxing a team, and often a rogue is given these roles. But others can take these roles over. A cleric with maxed wisdom, guidance cantrip, could at least be really good as perceiving traps.

That said, a valor bard/swashbuckler sounds really cool. Really good at one-liners.

PoeticDwarf

2016-04-27, 05:21 AM

NewDM

2016-04-27, 06:49 AM

I'm not going to read thought 6 pages, so sorry (not sorry) if this was already mentioned... But why not both? Bards and Rogues are both great skill monkeys, why is that a bad thing and that only Bards can be the true skill monkeys?

Back in 3.5 (and probably the other editions as well, I just don't have the experience to back that up) the classes mostly seemed built on three archetypes: Warrior, Caster (which could then split into Divine and Arcane), and Expert. The classes were then make as one or two of these things, Bards and Rogues being Caster/Expert and Warrior/Expert.
A big problem I see with insisting only Bards can be skill monkeys is versatility. What if you like skills but don't like being a caster?

They need to create an entirely separate class and name it Skill Monkey (or maybe Explorer) and give them all the skill boosts. Then the Rogue can be the deceptive class and the Bard can be the charismatic class.

So what? You take two versatile skill-based classes and make them both... less versatile? What does that achieve? I still fail to see why having a wider skill option (for ether class) is a problem and how changing that would do anything but unnecessarily pigeonhole them.

To go with your Fighter example, it's like saying Fighters could focus on melee weapons all they wish, but not ranged weapons. I mean, you can still use ranged weapons, but you would never be as good with them as you are with melee weapons because they just aren't a Fighter thing.

Why are they versatile in the first place? If they followed the traditions of previous editions they would simply give them proficiency in Stealth, Thieves' Tools, Perception (or investigation whichever is used to find traps), Acrobatics, and Deception. Then give it a few treats like able to climb without equipment at full speed, and advantage on Sleight of Hand when pick pocketing. Then you have a traditional Rogue or Thief from every edition but 3.x.

Even in 3.x they didn't have a massive skill list outside the things a Rogue was supposed to be good at. They had Appraise, Balance, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Decipher Script, Diplomacy, Disable Device, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Gather Information, Hide, Innuendo, Intimidate, Intuit Direction, Jump, Listen, Move Silently, Open Lock, Perform, Pick Pocket, Profession, Read Lips, Search, Sense Motive, Spot, Swim, Tumble, Use Magic Device, and Use Rope.

At first glance that list looks impressive, but many of those skills simply don't exist and others have converted to kits that you get with a background and yet more have been merged into a single skill. On top of that they would be half as good as other classes on things like Arcana even if they dumped all their points into it because of the cross-class skill rule. When we convert that to 5e we end up with: Acrobatics, Deception, Athletics (Climb and Jump only), Persuasion, Thieves' Tools, Disguise Kit (background), Investigate, Stealth, Intimidate, Perception (for finding traps), Perform, Sleight of Hand (pick pocket only), and Insight. The ones where they get only one type of use would probably be a class feature that grants advantage or some kind of bonus for it such as expertise others are given by backgrounds. So we really end up with: Acrobatics, Deception, Persuasion, Thieves' Tools, Investigate, Stealth, Intimidate, Perform, and Insight.

So when everyone says the Rogue in 3.x was the master at skills, the facts just don't back that up. They had a lot of skills, but most of them never saw play, and others were very narrowly used.

So the Rogue that would be a master at Arcana, Religion, or other non-class skills simply didn't exist in previous editions. In 3.x the Rogue couldn't be any better at their class skills than anyone else unless they chose one optional feature at level 10 instead of an extra feat or the ability to take only half damage on a failed save or other powerful option. This is why I believe the skill monkey rogue should be a Class Option (sub-class) instead of baked into the base class.

Just because you don't understand why a Rogue would want to specialize in non-Dex stuff like Insight or Intimidation doesn't seem like a good excuse to want to take the option away when it's already available. I never liked the preconceived notion that a Rogue is just some sort of thief or nefarious character, that's for the player to decide not the mechanics.

Anyways, what makes a musician more of a natural skill monkey rather then a rogue? Though not really arguing that the Rogue is naturally superior ether, but both are well within their right to be skill savvy even if for different reasons. Not that the Rogue really is a jack-of-all-trades. He has the potential to excel at most skills but he ultimately does chose specifics. Things a Rogue can or would do are hardly limited to things based on physical skill, after all most then probably any other class the Rogue has to be prepared for anything, but a Bard I tend to have a hard time seeing developing significant skill in things outside skills social based. There can be your Rogue's specialization but for no reason should that choice be taken away because, again, that's for the player to decide not the mechanics. Likewise while I can see a Bard picking up an inkling of know-how in things utterly unrelated to him, but a jack-of-all-trades also tends to be a master of none, which to me makes me think of a Bard as a far less go-to guy for most skills outside his specific sphere. The removal of trained/untrained then makes the Bard's 'minor skill at everything' moot then as every class is now a 'jack-of-all-trades'.

I understand exactly why people would want to use the rogue to specialize in non Rogue like skills. Its mainly because they can't do it with any other class. For instance if any class got expertise in any two skills, why would you play a rogue to specialize in a skill? Most people wouldn't. If they wanted a dex based two weapon character that was an expert at acrobatics they could pick Fighter or Ranger if they got expertise. If they wanted to be a master of history and arcane knowledge they could choose to be a Warlock, Sorcerer, or Wizard as long as they could have expertise along with it.

In my opinion the Rogue class needs to be rebuilt and the skill based things need to be locked to Rogue skills and expertise needs to be given to each class. Then you can add in a feat that grants 2 more proficient skills or kits and grants expertise on any two skills or kits you choose. If you really must have a skill monkey class, then add a Rogue Archetype like this:

Rogue Archetype: Skill Monkey
When you take this archetype at 3rd level you gain 3 more proficient skills of your choice from any skill on any classes skill list. In addition you can choose 2 skills. When you use your chosen skills you can add double your proficiency bonus to the checks with those skills. At 13th level you can choose two more skills.

At 9th level when you make a skill check in a proficient skill and roll below 9 on the dice (before bonuses and penalties) you may treat the dice roll as a 9.

At 13th level You can use your Rogue bonus action to perform any of your skills that would normally require an action.

At 17th level You can use your Rogue bonus action to give yourself advantage on any skill check.

There you go. A skill monkey Rogue Archetype. No need to put that stuff in the base class.

DanyBallon

2016-04-27, 07:19 AM

Over D&D history, in order to please the players, the developpers have been removing restrictions one after an other (level limits, and class restrictions for races, xp cost for crafting, xp penalties for multiclassing, alignment are less significative and no classes have alignment restriction, etc.)
In 5e the decide to not limit classes to a few selected skills related to the most common stereotype by allowing backgrounds that provide skills and by not limiting class features. I don't think its a bad thing, in that it allow players to build the character they have in mind using different options.

If you want to restrict rogue expertise to "rogue skills" only (and bard expertise to "bard skills" only), you can always houserule it. It's not because you don't like 30% of 5e that WoTC must absolutely change the game to suits your preferences, there are many out there that are fine with the rules as is and for the few rules they dislike they can always houserule them (note that there ain't any concensus about which rules are mostly disliked ... and internet is not a good indicator as only the more vocals express themselves while the silent majority either deal with it or decide to play something else)

Regitnui

2016-04-27, 08:08 AM

If you want to restrict rogue expertise to "rogue skills" only (and bard expertise to "bard skills" only), you can always houserule it.

What would be considered a 'rogue skill' or a 'bard skill'? I can justify every skill on the 5e list for a bard/rogue.

Athletics - Easy. Many performances are athletic in nature. Dance first off. As for a rogue, I can certainly see the bounty hunter or inquisitive rogue in a chase scene.

Acrobatics - Again, physical performance such as dance, and second-storey men specialize in climbing to steal from mansions.

Sleight of Hand - Magic tricks and pickpocketing.

Stealth - Less a bard skill, but a classic rogue skill.

Arcana - How many stories are there of mighty wizards? A bard can pick up a few things, and how is an Arcane Trickster not supposed to have this skill?

History - Bards tell stories, and rogues like valuable relics.

Investigation - How to find the story/valuable relic 101.

Nature - Again, stories, and not every rogue is a city-slicker; we have bandits!

Religion - While myths and legends covers this for the bard, the many gods of luck and thievery would like to say hi.

Animal Handling - Some people perform with animals, do they not? Bandits also have to be able to handle horses and whatever other mounts they steal.

Insight - Read the audience or your mark.

Medicine - Maybe the only one you can't rely on an archetype to explain.

Perception - An artist is supposed to hold a mirror up to life. Rogues also are known to 'case the joint' or figure out traps.

Survival - Bandits! Bandits Bandits! Also, a travelling bard.

Deception - Both of these classes have need to lie on occasion.

Intimidation - Alternatively, they can threaten people.

Performance - The core bard skill from 3.5. Also, if your DM's creative, an alternative to deception.

Persuasion - The third sister of the "I want to get what I want" triplets.

DanyBallon

2016-04-27, 08:34 AM

What would be considered a 'rogue skill' or a 'bard skill'? I can justify every skill on the 5e list for a bard/rogue.

Athletics - Easy. Many performances are athletic in nature. Dance first off. As for a rogue, I can certainly see the bounty hunter or inquisitive rogue in a chase scene.

Acrobatics - Again, physical performance such as dance, and second-storey men specialize in climbing to steal from mansions.

Sleight of Hand - Magic tricks and pickpocketing.

Stealth - Less a bard skill, but a classic rogue skill.

Arcana - How many stories are there of mighty wizards? A bard can pick up a few things, and how is an Arcane Trickster not supposed to have this skill?

History - Bards tell stories, and rogues like valuable relics.

Investigation - How to find the story/valuable relic 101.

Nature - Again, stories, and not every rogue is a city-slicker; we have bandits!

Religion - While myths and legends covers this for the bard, the many gods of luck and thievery would like to say hi.

Animal Handling - Some people perform with animals, do they not? Bandits also have to be able to handle horses and whatever other mounts they steal.

Insight - Read the audience or your mark.

Medicine - Maybe the only one you can't rely on an archetype to explain.

Perception - An artist is supposed to hold a mirror up to life. Rogues also are known to 'case the joint' or figure out traps.

Survival - Bandits! Bandits Bandits! Also, a travelling bard.

Deception - Both of these classes have need to lie on occasion.

Intimidation - Alternatively, they can threaten people.

Performance - The core bard skill from 3.5. Also, if your DM's creative, an alternative to deception.

Persuasion - The third sister of the "I want to get what I want" triplets.

No need to convince me, I agree with you :smallwink:

One could argue that traditionnaly "rogue skills" where stealth (hide, move silently), thieves' tool (pick lock, remove trap), perception (hear sounds), investigation (search).

Tanarii

2016-04-27, 09:39 AM

What would be considered a 'rogue skill' or a 'bard skill'? I can justify every skill on the 5e list for a bard/rogue.Rogue skills are the Rogue class skill list, and Bard skills are the Bard class skill list. The latter being all skills, the former a subset of them. Justifying has nothing to do with it.

BiblioRook

2016-04-27, 01:21 PM

Then the Rogue can be the deceptive class and the Bard can be the charismatic class.
So the deceptive Rogue can focus on Persuasion and be Charisma based, and then the charismatic Bard can focus on Persuasion and be Charisma biased...too? Wait, what are you trying to change again?

Why are they versatile in the first place?
Because from a mechanical standpoint having not one but two skill based classes is convenient for covering bases, but from a flavor standpoint it's because Rogues improvise. Rogues are the ones that would go above and beyond their wheelhouse to achieve a desired result, or when you throw deception into it suddenly every skill is Rogue relevant because they need to know as much as they can to keep up the facade. Rogues are more then sneaky thieves, they are also the spies, the information brokers, the con-men. Information is key to all of those and that sort of information is represented by skills.

I understand exactly why people would want to use the rogue to specialize in non Rogue like skills. Its mainly because they can't do it with any other class.
Funny, in the past more then anything else it was the Bard class I always see argued as irrelevant. 'What's the point of doing 'a bit of everything' when anything you can do as a Bard you can do better as another class?'.
You seem to be so amendment against Rogues being skill monkeys but I never saw you address why Bards should. To repeat myself from a previous post, I tend to have a hard time seeing Bards developing significant skill in things outside skills social based. I mean, what use does a wondering musician have for Stealth or Intimidation or Medicine? If you want to argue that Rogues have no business learning most of the skills in the game for character reasons I would want that to be applied to Bards too who to me have even less reason to learn some of these things.

What would be considered a 'rogue skill' or a 'bard skill'? I can justify every skill on the 5e list for a bard/rogue.

No offense, but I think most of these are really poorly argued, but since I'm calling you out on it and because, frankly, I have nothing better to do right now I might as well show how I would interprate the skills between the two classes too.

Athletics - Though it feels slightly uncharacteristic to me, much stronger for Rogues then Bards. To Rogues climbing and getting high places is something that the job (or more seriously, one's life) would depend on. Less so for Bards, a Bard is a cushy gig most of the time that doesn't really require the need of over-excursion.

Acrobatics - Strong for both if for simuler but different reasons. While the Bard would use the skills to entertain a Rogue would use those same skills on a job much like Athletics.

Sleight of Hand - Magic tricks and pickpocketing. Can't really say anything different here. Strong for both.

Stealth - Clearly strong for Rogues but I would say weak for Bards. The point of a Bard is to be seen after all.

Arcana - In my opinion the same goes for most all the Knowledgey skills, it's the job of both the Bard and the Rogue to know things if (again) for simuler but different reasons. Good for both; Bards for obvious reasons (they need to know what they are doing while casting) but even ff Arcane Trickster wasn't a thing I would say good for Rogues because magic traps are definitely a thing and just who is going to be the one responsible for dealing with those, hmm?

History - More Knowledge. Bards are attracted to lore where Rogues just thrive on information.

Investigation - Strong for both but for different reasons. With Bards this just falls casually inside their social ball-park where Rogues just specialize in finding things, information included (as above). Some of my favorite Rogues weren't criminals but rather detectives.

Nature - Probably the weakest of the Knowledgey skills honestly, see Survival.

Religion - Much like History, but special point for the Rogues considering many of those 'dungeons' they are adventuring in used to be temples at one point and it's usually worth knowing what you are getting into.

Animal Handling - Weak for both, but for once I would consider slightly stronger for Bards then Rogues if only because I know of more then a few acts that use animals in them.

Insight - Very strong for both. Bards are supposed to be empathetic and this is literally the skill for that sort of thing. Strong for Rogues too but for a completely different reason, like Perception the Rogue knows the tricks of deception and knows how to spot them.

Medicine - Very weak, but if I absolutely had to make an argument? The whole reason sneak attacks work in the first place is because Rogues know just where to hit, it would be hard to pull that off with at least some basic knowledge of anatomy.

Perception - It's hard to really not justify this for any class, but I would argue for Rogues more then any other (aside from Rangers, but especially Bards). Considering the focus of Rogues to be deceitful they would naturally know how to look for the same tricks being used against them. Not to mention the simple task of looking for loot which is usually the Rogue's ball-park traditionally.

Survival - This one is weak for both outside that both are 'adventurers' and move around a lot even when not adventurers, but still weak.

Deception - No comment, this one is obvious. Although for all the skill minimization I'm surprised this wasn't just made part of Persuasion. I honestly actually thought it was until I started working on this list, I had to double check.

Intimidation - Rogues can be smarmy sweet-talkers or they can be thugs, this is a skill more for the latter (though I always thought as a skill the fact that it was Charisma based always made it irrelevant, but that's a different discussion). This one is weak in Bards favors other then 'Bards should be good at Charisma things', what kind of spoony Bard goes around throwing his weight around? The goal of a Bard is usually to get everyone to like you, this is a skill specifically designed to make you hated.

Performance - No brainier for Bards, but one I could argue in unnecessary for a Rogue outside of enhancing a disguise.

Persuasion - This one is probably undisputed, Rogues and Bards both are known for having silvertongues. The best kind of lie is one that's true?

NewDM

2016-04-27, 01:44 PM

So the deceptive Rogue can focus on Persuasion and be Charisma based, and then the charismatic Bard can focus on Persuasion and be Charisma biased...too? Wait, what are you trying to change again?

Actually the Rogue would use the Deception and/or Intimidation skill to get what they want. The Bard would use Performance, and/or Persuasion to get what they want. See persuasion is about argu...discussing with someone why they should do something with facts, reason, and information. Deception is all about the logical fallacies and Intimidation is about the scare tactics. For instance:

Rogue Deception: "We should check out the Cult of the Dragon Queen tavern, I hear they have some nice waitresses, and they don't water down their ale." (Having never heard of it or been there).

Rogue Intimidation: "If we don't go to the Cult of the Dragon Queen tavern, I'm going to slip away in the shadows next time you need me to open a lock while you have 50 goblins at your back."

Bard Performance: Sings a ditty replacing the name of the Cult of the Dragon Queen for the generic tavern they sing about.

Bard Persuasion: "Seeing as this is the closest tavern within a mile and its getting late in the day, we're all hungry. We should stop at the Cult of the Dragon Queen tavern and inn. Come on, how bad could it be?"

Because from a mechanical standpoint having not one but two skill based classes is convenient for covering bases, but from a flavor standpoint it's because Rogues improvise. Rogues are the ones that would go above and beyond their wheelhouse to achieve a desired result, or when you throw deception into it suddenly every skill is Rogue relevant because they need to know as much as they can to keep up the facade. Rogues are more then sneaky thieves, they are also the spies, the information brokers, the con-men. Information is key to all of those and that sort of information is represented by skills.

Why not have all classes be exceptionally skilled? All classes improvise, especially fighters. Every class would go above and beyond to achieve their goals, most of these are character traits and not class traits. Bards, Sorcerers, and Warlocks all have deception as a class skill and anyone can pick it up from a background, again what makes the Rogue so special? All the things you list at the end sound like background choices:
Spy, Information Broker, and Con-Man. In fact I think spy is a background.

Funny, in the past more then anything else it was the Bard class I always see argued as irrelevant. 'What's the point of doing 'a bit of everything' when anything you can do as a Bard you can do better as another class?'.
You seem to be so adamant against Rogues being skill monkeys but I never saw you address why Bards should. To repeat myself from a previous post, I tend to have a hard time seeing Bards developing significant skill in things outside skills social based. I mean, what use does a wondering musician have for Stealth or Intimidation or Medicine? If you want to argue that Rogues have no business learning most of the skills in the game for character reasons I would want that to be applied to Bards too who to me have even less reason to learn some of these things.

Bards are known as 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Its kind of their thing from the earliest game where they had fighter proficiencies, thief skills, and cleric and magic-user spells, they were worse at all of them than dedicated classes, but could do them competently. However I would agree that if we can get the Rogue back to being a deceptive thief/assassin/trickster then we could also get the Bard back to being a socialite with an instrument.

Tanarii

2016-04-27, 01:52 PM

Bards are known as 'jack of all trades, master of none'. Its kind of their thing from the earliest game where they had fighter proficiencies, thief skills, and cleric and magic-user spells, they were worse at all of them than dedicated classes, but could do them competently.Minor quibble, Bards got Druid spells.

NewDM

2016-04-27, 01:55 PM

Minor quibble, Bards got Druid spells.

lol. Druids were a Cleric sub-class.

Tanarii

2016-04-27, 02:01 PM

lol. Druids were a Cleric sub-class.Their spell list was considerably different though.

And to be fair, the Strategic Review Bard, which came before the AD&D 1e Bard, used Magic-user spells.

BiblioRook

2016-04-27, 02:19 PM

However I would agree that if we can get the Rogue back to being a deceptive thief/assassin/trickster then we could also get the Bard back to being a socialite with an instrument.

So again, instead of having two versatile skill-based classes you are trying to argue that we should limit the versatility of both? I don't know why that's something anyone would want other then to limit game-play just to satisfy your own specific vision on how certain classes should perform.

Regitnui

2016-04-27, 03:02 PM

KorvinStarmast

2016-04-27, 03:05 PM

Why is the Rogue the 'skill monkey'?
Because the other monkeys went on strike, claiming animal cruelty.

NewDM

2016-04-28, 03:30 AM

So again, instead of having two versatile skill-based classes you are trying to argue that we should limit the versatility of both? I don't know why that's something anyone would want other then to limit game-play just to satisfy your own specific vision on how certain classes should perform.

If you want skill versatility they can make a feat for it:

Skill Master
You are exceptionally good at skills and have become a master. You gain the following benefits:

You gain 2 additional trained skills.
Choose 2 skills you have proficiency in. When you use those skills you can add double your proficiency bonus to them.

You may take this feat up to 3 times. The second time you take it, in addition to gaining 2 new skills and double proficiency on 2 skills you are proficient with, you gain the following benefit: When you roll lower than a 9 on the d20 when making a skill check with one of your proficient skills, you can count it as a 9.
The 3rd time you gain: Once per long rest you may take 20 instead of rolling when using a proficient skill check.
(Alternatively you can break this into 3 feats)

Oh look, I summed the entire Rogues skill based features into a single feat.

Classes should be classes. A 'skill monkey' is not a class. It is especially not a Rogue or Bard. In all editions the rogue is the sneaky deceptive character either a thief or a conman. You could use outside features like feats and backgrounds to make the Rogue into other things, but it was never native to the class itself (barring the thug in 4e).

djreynolds

2016-04-28, 03:52 AM

The game has changed. The rogue was a class that had leather armor, a lower THAC0, and still needed strength to hit and still didn't get the warriors extra boost for a higher strength. But they did have a back stab, that increased with level by %. And they had to work hard to land it. And they were given the skills of a thief. To steal, open locks, get by traps, and hide, etc.

But what is the point, I forgot. All multiclassing aside. Yes, the bard in 5E is a great class. You can really make a unique character who be just about anything, that's the point of the bard.

But all minmaxing and optimization aside, why are you playing a bard? Its all about concept. You can be a musician to a smooth politician to an inspirational general, even a Han Solo scoundrel (he is a valor bard IMO). And perhaps you can be all 4, or evolve and change.

The rogue though is still the guy with the knife in the dark, his back stab is just as lethal as it ever was and he has the chops and skills to ensure he lands it. No one is immune to his sneak attack.

That's the rogue or thief I remember. The guy in black leather armor, with strength and dex, climbing a rope, skulking around in the dark, dodging traps, sneaking past guards, listening at doors for quiet conversations, spotting the tripwire, picking the lock, and slicing someone's throat.

But now we see there can be a multitude of rogues out there. Some are thugs and enforcers, some are just pricey item cat burglars, and some are even investigators and are good. You have 5 good archetypes, and the new swashbuckler brings a new thread to what a rogue can be and the mastermind is cool.

A bard can be all of this, but he lacks in the end the sneak attack and to me that is the rogue's signature move.

themaque

2016-04-28, 04:12 AM

Classes should be classes. A 'skill monkey' is not a class. It is especially not a Rogue or Bard. In all editions the rogue is the sneaky deceptive character either a thief or a conman. You could use outside features like feats and backgrounds to make the Rogue into other things, but it was never native to the class itself (barring the thug in 4e).

Actually, didn't 2nd ed have a fair amount of kits that really rounded out the Thief into being MORE than just a thief?

3rd, admittedly, really solidified the thief, now rogue, as the skill monkey and opened it up to a variety of different concepts outside one narrow view.

So... yeah, NOT all editions.

From my perspective you have a very narrow view of this class.

Regitnui

2016-04-28, 04:24 AM

Actually, didn't 2nd ed have a fair amount of kits that really rounded out the Thief into being MORE than just a thief?

3rd, admittedly, really solidified the thief, now rogue, as the skill monkey and opened it up to a variety of different concepts outside one narrow view.

So... yeah, NOT all editions.

From my perspective you have a very narrow view of this class.

He does appear to have a narrow definition of a lot of things. I'm sure he just disagreed with me about Samwise Gamgee being a viable rogue character because it would undermine his view of the rogue-as-thief. Moist von Lipwig, postmaster, head of the royal mint and stationmaster (i think) of Ankh-Morpork is fairly clearly a Mastermind Rogue, though he's not the typical stealthy acrobat the rogue seems to be pigeonholed into.

Another strangely-classed yet appropriate character is Captain Sam Times of the Ankh-Morpork Watch. He's head of law enforcement, a noble, an effective diplomat and (by D&D standards) a barbarian! Discworld is great for finding the familiar archetypes of fantasy stretched into new, interesting shapes.

NewDM

2016-04-28, 07:10 AM

Actually, didn't 2nd ed have a fair amount of kits that really rounded out the Thief into being MORE than just a thief?

3rd, admittedly, really solidified the thief, now rogue, as the skill monkey and opened it up to a variety of different concepts outside one narrow view.

So... yeah, NOT all editions.

From my perspective you have a very narrow view of this class.

Kits weren't core. 3rd edition also had True Naming, blood magic, spell points, and a billion other variants. We don't see any of them in core 5e.

At best you can say 3e gave it the 'skill monkey' view through kits which were optional, just like 2e's skills and powers book that gave powers to all classes and expanded the ability scores into 12 additional sub-scores. So if we go with skill monkey, why doesn't 5e do all that other stuff?

From my view you have a very broad view of this class that is counter to traditional D&D.

Edit: What most people seem to forget is that any named character you can think of can be made multiple ways with multiple classes. Everyone that keeps naming off names of characters that have a few rogue like characteristics then try to cram all their characteristics under the Rogue are making a mistake. You can do that with most classes. There are very few archetypes that fit just one class.

mgshamster

2016-04-28, 07:19 AM

Kits weren't core.

Neither was the 2e Player's Options: Skills & Powers book you were using earlier in this thread to give non-fighter classes weapon specialization. But you didn't have an issue with that as a non-core optional book when using it to defend your own arguments.

Tanarii

2016-04-28, 07:46 AM

From my perspective you have a very narrow view of this class.Sums up this thread for me. Plus a lack of historical understanding of the archetype.

Regitnui

2016-04-28, 07:46 AM

Kits weren't core. 3rd edition also had True Naming, blood magic, spell points, and a billion other variants. We don't see any of them in core 5e.

At best you can say 3e gave it the 'skill monkey' view through kits which were optional, just like 2e's skills and powers book that gave powers to all classes and expanded the ability scores into 12 additional sub-scores. So if we go with skill monkey, why doesn't 5e do all that other stuff?

From my view you have a very broad view of this class that is counter to traditional D&D.

Edit: What most people seem to forget is that any named character you can think of can be made multiple ways with multiple classes. Everyone that keeps naming off names of characters that have a few rogue like characteristics then try to cram all their characteristics under the Rogue are making a mistake. You can do that with most classes. There are very few archetypes that fit just one class.

OK, never mind the fact that Moist von Lipwig is a confidence trickster that's about to get hanged as his first appearance. That's not at all like your definition of a rogue. In fact, let's stop bringing in examples of creative class usage at all, so that we can really argue solely about the one preconceived notion of the rogue as sneaky, deceptive thief with no other skills at all. /sarcasm.

Under the above, extremely tight, not-at-all-serious preconditions, NewDM, you may be right. That one, specific, uncreative, clichéd, and by-the-numbers 10-year-old's perception of a rogue is not a skill monkey. It's a valid interpretation of a loose set of fluff suggestions.

Now I'll go back to designing my rogue (swashbuckler) pirate queen, and reading about a rogue (mastermind) who's simultaneously running three different branches of government service in the Discworld's equivalent of London.

Neither was the 2e Player's Options: Skills & Powers book you were using earlier in this thread to give non-fighter classes weapon specialization. But you didn't have an issue with that as a non-core optional book when using it to defend your own arguments.

Just to clarify here. Core is the PHB, DMG and MM of the edition, correct? The absolute bare minimum needed to play the game by the rules. Otherwise, we might have people coming along and using the inconsistencies of the editions before 3.0 to claim "any book I had back then was core and you can't disprove that" and we'll get bogged down in semantics.

Socratov

2016-04-28, 08:00 AM

OK, never mind the fact that Moist von Lipwig is a confidence trickster that's about to get hanged as his first appearance. That's not at all like your definition of a rogue. In fact, let's stop bringing in examples of creative class usage at all, so that we can really argue solely about the one preconceived notion of the rogue as sneaky, deceptive thief with no other skills at all. /sarcasm.

Under the above, extremely tight, not-at-all-serious preconditions, NewDM, you may be right. That one, specific, uncreative, clichéd, and by-the-numbers 10-year-old's perception of a rogue is not a skill monkey. It's a valid interpretation of a loose set of fluff suggestions.

Now I'll go back to designing my rogue (swashbuckler) pirate queen, and reading about a rogue (mastermind) who's simultaneously running three different branches of government service in the Discworld's equivalent of London.

don't forget about your garderner rogue who helps someone to get form his home to one of the places you'd least want to go, A rogue thief who helps a dwarven friend recalim his ancestral home, a rogue mastermind with his rogue assassin friend who first royally screws teh underworld of the city he's born in, then screws a polotician's deal with pirates and third completely changes the way politics has ever worked while dealing with his true love who works for the opposite party

Just to clarify here. Core is the PHB, DMG and MM of the edition, correct? The absolute bare minimum needed to play the game by the rules. Otherwise, we might have people coming along and using the inconsistencies of the editions before 3.0 to claim "any book I had back then was core and you can't disprove that" and we'll get bogged down in semantics.
you forgot the D20 SRD and the Expanded Psionics Handbook for 3.5 at least.

Regitnui

2016-04-28, 08:15 AM

don't forget about your garderner rogue who helps someone to get form his home to one of the places you'd least want to go, A rogue thief who helps a dwarven friend recalim his ancestral home, a rogue mastermind with his rogue assassin friend who first royally screws teh underworld of the city he's born in, then screws a polotician's deal with pirates and third completely changes the way politics has ever worked while dealing with his true love who works for the opposite party

Sorry, which characters are those? The first is Samwise Gamgee, but the rest?

Also, I can't tell how serious you are with the spelling and grammar there...

you forgot the D20 SRD and the Expanded Psionics Handbook for 3.5 at least.

I didn't. The PHB, MM, and DMG are commonly considered the core books (as far as I'm aware). Psionics is cool, but not core. The SRD is a document put out by WotC for licensed products and homebrew designers. It's not core D&D, it's bits of core D&D. If it was introduced in a splatbook or outside the main three, it's an add-on. Like the Warlock in 3.5 isn't core, but it is in 5e, you see?

mgshamster

2016-04-28, 08:16 AM

Just to clarify here. Core is the PHB, DMG and MM of the edition, correct? The absolute bare minimum needed to play the game by the rules. Otherwise, we might have people coming along and using the inconsistencies of the editions before 3.0 to claim "any book I had back then was core and you can't disprove that" and we'll get bogged down in semantics.

That's correct, by NewDM standards:

Since nothing but PHB, DMG, and MM were core, the DM could allow or disallow other books at whim.

That comment was originally about 3e; he was trying to claim that anyone but an idiot could memorize all of the rules for 3e in under a year, and I questioned the notion of memorizing the 40+ books of 3e. He clarified to say the Core Books. Which is a bit more reasonable. However, we can't claim that only those 3 are the core books for one edition and not make the same claim for another edition. If we're defining the "core books" as just those three, it has to be true for all editions of D&D - the bare minimum to play the game. Anything else is subject to DM approval.

As a side note, did 3e have kits? I thought that was a strict 2e thing. NewDM seems to think that kits were from 3e:

At best you can say 3e gave it the 'skill monkey' view through kits which were optional, just like 2e's skills and powers book that gave powers to all classes and expanded the ability scores into 12 additional sub-scores.

But I don't recall any of 3e using kits. Those were 2e supplements.

NewDM

2016-04-28, 08:16 AM

Neither was the 2e Player's Options: Skills & Powers book you were using earlier in this thread to give non-fighter classes weapon specialization. But you didn't have an issue with that as a non-core optional book when using it to defend your own arguments.

I didn't use Skill and Powers or mention it. I was mistaken about weapon specialization being for multi-class fighters as core. I ceded the point (as in total surrender in a strategic sense). Move on please.

OK, never mind the fact that Moist von Lipwig is a confidence trickster that's about to get hanged as his first appearance. That's not at all like your definition of a rogue. In fact, let's stop bringing in examples of creative class usage at all, so that we can really argue solely about the one preconceived notion of the rogue as sneaky, deceptive thief with no other skills at all. /sarcasm.

Or we can accept the fact that most characters described in this thread can be built as Fighters with the Criminal background, and realize that the class is only defined in previous editions as the 'cat burglar thief' or 'assassin'. Once we do that we can have a common ground to work from. For instance very few of the characters described scale walls with no equipment, or find and then remove/disable traps, open locks, or pick pocket people.

Under the above, extremely tight, not-at-all-serious preconditions, NewDM, you may be right. That one, specific, uncreative, clichéd, and by-the-numbers 10-year-old's perception of a rogue is not a skill monkey. It's a valid interpretation of a loose set of fluff suggestions.

I can't untangle the insults in this part of your post to get to the point sorry.

Now I'll go back to designing my rogue (swashbuckler) pirate queen, and reading about a rogue (mastermind) who's simultaneously running three different branches of government service in the Discworld's equivalent of London.

You can go do whatever you want. You could make superman as a wizard if you so wanted. The basic idea of the class remains unchanged. What you describe above can be done with Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, or even Bard.

Just to clarify here. Core is the PHB, DMG and MM of the edition, correct? The absolute bare minimum needed to play the game by the rules. Otherwise, we might have people coming along and using the inconsistencies of the editions before 3.0 to claim "any book I had back then was core and you can't disprove that" and we'll get bogged down in semantics.

Core is what is specified as core by each edition. 4e for instance all books are core right up until Essentials (which is when they changed their stance, IIRC). For most editions it is the PHB, DMG, and MM.

don't forget about your garderner rogue who helps someone to get form his home to one of the places you'd least want to go, A rogue thief who helps a dwarven friend recalim his ancestral home, a rogue mastermind with his rogue assassin friend who first royally screws teh underworld of the city he's born in, then screws a polotician's deal with pirates and third completely changes the way politics has ever worked while dealing with his true love who works for the opposite party
you forgot the D20 SRD and the Expanded Psionics Handbook for 3.5 at least.

You mean the Fighter with the Farmer background with Halfling stealth traits? You mean the Halfling Ranger with the magic stealth ring? I have no clue who you are talking about in the third example.

D20 SRD isn't core 3.x D&D, neither is the Psionics Handbook for 3.5.

Edit: For those that think the Kits in 3.x made the Rogue into the skill monkey, there were kits for all the other classes that did the same.

NewDM

2016-04-28, 08:19 AM

That's correct, by NewDM standards:

That comment was originally about 3e; he was trying to claim that anyone but an idiot could memorize all of the rules for 3e in under a year, and I questioned the notion of memorizing the 40+ books of 3e. He clarified to say the Core Books. Which is a bit more reasonable. However, we can't claim that only those 3 are the core books for one edition and not make the same claim for another edition. If we're defining the "core books" as just those three, it has to be true for all editions of D&D - the bare minimum to play the game. Anything else is subject to DM approval.

As a side note, did 3e have kits? I thought that was a strict 2e thing. NewDM seems to think that kits were from 3e:

But I don't recall any of 3e using kits. Those were 2e supplements.

I don't 'seem' to think anything. Another poster brought up 3e kits. I simply said that it wasn't core.

smcmike

2016-04-28, 08:27 AM

Socratov

2016-04-28, 08:59 AM

snip

You mean the Fighter with the Farmer background with Halfling stealth traits? You mean the Halfling Ranger with the magic stealth ring? I have no clue who you are talking about in the third example.
because he came from a fighting background or has received any fighting/weapon/armour training?

D20 SRD isn't core 3.x D&D, neither is the Psionics Handbook for 3.5.

snip
psionics and the SRD are core. along the PHB, DMG and MM1. Psionics handbook was first for 3e, but when 3.5 rolled around (gheh) it was folded into expanded psionics handbook.

Sorry, which characters are those? The first is Samwise Gamgee, but the rest?

Also, I can't tell how serious you are with the spelling and grammar there...

I didn't. The PHB, MM, and DMG are commonly considered the core books (as far as I'm aware). Psionics is cool, but not core. The SRD is a document put out by WotC for licensed products and homebrew designers. It's not core D&D, it's bits of core D&D. If it was introduced in a splatbook or outside the main three, it's an add-on. Like the Warlock in 3.5 isn't core, but it is in 5e, you see?
In order, Samwise Gamgee, our most favourite of gardeners, Bilbo Baggins, best played by Martin Freeman (both by JRR Tolkien, respecively LotR and The Hobbit), Moist Von Lipwig, one of my favourite con-men in fantasy history (Terry Pratchett, going Postal, Making Money and then some?), Locke lamora, another of my most favourite of con men in fantasy history and his trusted friend and bodyguard Jean Tannen, though admittantly he scould also be a fighter even if he is classically trained a rogue (both from Scott Lynch's works: Lies of Locke Lamora, Red seas under red skies and the Republic of Thieves).

NewDM

2016-04-28, 09:16 AM

There were no kits in 3.5.

On the subject of fictional characters, there is no precise fit, but most of the characters cited are most naturally rogues. You can point out things that rogues can do that the characters do not, but I could do the same for literally every class. I'm quite certain Moist is not proficient in heavy armor.

Sam Vimes definitely needs barbarian levels, but I would suggest he would be best represented multiclass barbarian/rogue. He uses a lot of skills.

Why not just a Barbarian with the criminal background?

Most characters cited just have stealth, persuasion, or a few other skills that they use. None of them use the special features of the rogue from any edition. They are just 'skilled', which means any class with the right background and the skilled feat would suffice.

because he came from a fighting background or has received any fighting/weapon/armour training?
psionics and the SRD are core. along the PHB, DMG and MM1. Psionics handbook was first for 3e, but when 3.5 rolled around (gheh) it was folded into expanded psionics handbook.

And where did he receive his Rogue training? All I see are the natural stealthiness of the Halfling race. I never see him pick a lock, pick a pocket, find or disable a trap, I don't see him be deceptive or even persuasive to anyone but his friend. He clearly doesn't have any skills, therefore he MUST be a fighter.

In 3e Psionics were core, in 3.x they were not. You had to get DM permission to play with them, and the OGL SRD is not even D&D. Its a sub-set of the rules released to be used by anyone, but not be associated with the D&D brand name. It is not 'core' D&D.

In order, Samwise Gamgee, our most favourite of gardeners, Bilbo Baggins, best played by Martin Freeman (both by JRR Tolkien, respecively LotR and The Hobbit), Moist Von Lipwig, one of my favourite con-men in fantasy history (Terry Pratchett, going Postal, Making Money and then some?), Locke lamora, another of my most favourite of con men in fantasy history and his trusted friend and bodyguard Jean Tannen, though admittantly he scould also be a fighter even if he is classically trained a rogue (both from Scott Lynch's works: Lies of Locke Lamora, Red seas under red skies and the Republic of Thieves).

And? Sam is clearly a fighter with Farmer background and halfling stealth traits. Bilbo is a bard as shown by his poetry and music. The others I am not familiar with but they could probably easily be Bards, or any class with high charisma along with the right skill choices or the Skilled feat.

The question you have to ask yourself is: Do they use a feature that is Rogue only like Sneak Attack, and Thieves' Cant. Do they move super fast and evasively like the Rogues' Cunning action,Uncanny Dodge, or Evasion. Do they have a preternatural sense of when enemies or danger is near? are their minds strong against persuasion or charm? Those are the defining traits of the base class Rogue.

You can further ask if they have features of the sub-class. Are they able to open locks or pick pocket very fast? Do they skitter up walls with no assistance from climbing gear at normal walking speed? Are they so stealthy as to be unnoticeable when they take the time to do it? Are they so fast they attack twice for every one time their opponents attack?

If most of these questions are no, then its not a Rogue. It could easily be any number of class, race, background, and feat combinations.

smcmike

2016-04-28, 09:23 AM

Why not just a Barbarian with the criminal background?

This is possible too, though urchin is more likely. He was never a real criminal.

And where did he receive his Rogue training? All I see are the natural stealthiness of the Halfling race. I never see him pick a lock, pick a pocket, find or disable a trap, I don't see him be deceptive or even persuasive to anyone but his friend. He clearly doesn't have any skills, therefore he MUST be a fighter.

And? Sam is clearly a fighter with Farmer background and halfling stealth traits. Bilbo is a bard as shown by his poetry and music. The others I am not familiar with but they could probably easily be Bards, or any class with high charisma along with the right skill choices or the Skilled feat.

The question you have to ask yourself is: Do they use a feature that is Rogue only like Sneak Attack, and Thieves' Cant. Do they move super fast and evasively like the Rogues' Cunning action,Uncanny Dodge, or Evasion. Do they have a preternatural sense of when enemies or danger is near? are their minds strong against persuasion or charm? Those are the defining traits of the base class Rogue.

You can further ask if they have features of the sub-class. Are they able to open locks or pick pocket very fast? Do they skitter up walls with no assistance from climbing gear at normal walking speed? Are they so stealthy as to be unnoticeable when they take the time to do it? Are they so fast they attack twice for every one time their opponents attack?

If most of these questions are no, then its not a Rogue. It could easily be any number of class, race, background, and feat combinations.

As I said above you can use this same reasoning to eliminate every class. It is therefore not useful.

Regitnui

2016-04-28, 09:48 AM

Sam Vimes is best represented in-game via Human Barbarian with the Urchin background. I'm not going to choose feats, and I suppose he might need a few more skills than the raw barbarian, but it's definitely the best class.

NewDM, are you familiar with this game? You don't look for mechanics, you look for traits. Samwise doesn't pick a lock, but he does ambush an orc for a critical first strike. He doesn't talk ladies out of their valuables, but he does persuade Frodo to keep going and even to take off the Ring at several points. If you want a halfling fighter, go with Merry, who actually did fight in the Ride of the Rohirrim and took on the Lich King head on.

No literary character is going to use a Cunning Action. They're going to walk. You'll never see Aragon throw a superiority dice, or Gandalf with a spellbook. Their traits define which mechanics to use for a character build. 5e does top-down building, from concept to sheet, better than the other editions. None of us are going to Eragon's character sheet and checking his stats. We're modelling a character (Half-Elf Fighter (Arcane Knight)) on his traits and actions from the books.

And the best part is, there's no right answer. You can't bully everyone else into accepting your opinion, you can only put forward your perception and see who agrees.

Oh, and by the way? Nobody 'cedes' in reality. They apologize.

NewDM

2016-04-28, 09:49 AM

This is possible too, though urchin is more likely. He was never a real criminal.

As I said above you can use this same reasoning to eliminate every class. It is therefore not useful.

No, it just proves that characters in fiction and movies should not be pigeon holed to a specific class unless they literally do what that class does. For instance Leon in that assassin show that's really old is literally a Rogue Assassin. he does just about everything the Rogue(Assassin) class does. He climbs (in one scene he's hanging upside down with a knife to a guys throat), he is stealthy, he sneak attacks (he is a sniper). He does it all.

smcmike

2016-04-28, 09:56 AM

No, it just proves that characters in fiction and movies should not be pigeon holed to a specific class unless they literally do what that class does. For instance Leon in that assassin show that's really old is literally a Rogue Assassin. he does just about everything the Rogue(Assassin) class does. He climbs (in one scene he's hanging upside down with a knife to a guys throat), he is stealthy, he sneak attacks (he is a sniper). He does it all.

And yet you keep trying to pigeonhole characters as fighters.... If you reject the game, don't play it.

Regitnui

2016-04-28, 09:59 AM

And yet you keep trying to pigeonhole characters as fighters.... If you reject the game, don't play it.

I think that's because he sees fighters as the 'blank slate'. He went on quite the thread about fighters being lame somewhere else.

NewDM

2016-04-28, 10:03 AM

I was actually making a point. Any class can be those characters with the right skill choices, because they don't display class traits, they are just using skills.

Regitnui

2016-04-28, 10:11 AM

Utility Party Member: The Rogue has traditionally been the party's skill monkey, thanks to receiving, depending on the edition, the most skill points per level or the most non-combat skill boosts.

A bit of evidence that the rogue being the skilled member of the party isn't new.

Theoboldi

2016-04-28, 10:14 AM

A bit of evidence that the rogue being the skilled member of the party isn't new.

To be fair, and without taking any sides in this discussion, an article on TVTropes isn't exactly hard evidence.

Regitnui

2016-04-28, 10:22 AM

To be fair, and without taking any sides in this discussion, an article on TVTropes isn't exactly hard evidence.

Ranks the same as wikipedia in literary (broad definition here) subjects in my opinion. Stories are made of component pieces, and the internet hive-mind is probably the easiest way to track it all.

OldTrees1

2016-04-28, 10:31 AM

I was actually making a point. Any class can be those characters with the right skill choices, because they don't display class traits, they are just using skills.

In what manner would you distinguish between character from literature using a skillmonkey class feature(a class trait) and "just using skills"?

NewDM

2016-04-28, 10:38 AM

In what manner would you distinguish between character from literature using a skillmonkey class feature(a class trait) and "just using skills"?

That's the thing. If all they do is equivalent to D&D skills they aren't a class. In order to do a skill monkey thing they'd have to display a huge variety of skills, but even then that might just mean the character took the Skilled feat a few times.

Regitnui

2016-04-28, 10:49 AM

That's the thing. If all they do is equivalent to D&D skills they aren't a class. In order to do a skill monkey thing they'd have to display a huge variety of skills, but even then that might just mean the character took the Skilled feat a few times.

So any class could be the skillmonkey. Why fuss over the rogue getting the archetype baked in?

Although, If we take this to its conclusion, why have class features at all? Everything could be feats taken at each level! Legend RPG does something similar, with "feat trees" called tracks. Three/four tracks make a class, and bam, you're sorted.

You know, NewDM, you might like Legend better than 5e. Here's (http://www.ruleofcool.com/) a link to the download.

Fighting_Ferret

2016-04-28, 11:17 AM

Well since this discussion has gone way off course...

You could argue that the problem with pigeon-holing any literary character into D&D is inherently going to fail due to the strict limitations of the D&D system and its adherence to classical archetypes.

The argument about the rogue being the skill monkey begs the question of why the need for such a role at all? Any background can be created that grants whatever proficiencies you like, so then ask, why classes at all? I mean all a class is, is a loose grouping of stuff that reflects a stereotypical fantasy trope. The Archetypes in 5e further allow you to customize your chosen trope, albeit in a very general sense.

The section on rogue tells you what the designers consider a stereotypical rogue to be...the fact that WotC put the thief archetype in the free pdf shows what they think a rogue is... The mechanics involved are there to give some flavor and balance. A system with a free floating option of choice for skills and abilities would be the best to sum up a real (or imaginative) person, but that takes time to really think about a character, more so than slapping down a defined class choice with a premade background.

NewDM

2016-04-28, 11:43 AM

Regitnui

2016-04-28, 12:01 PM

Yes, we can go overboard and extrapolate that backgrounds and classes are wrong and then from there we can extrapolate that TTRPGs in general are bad. Or we can realize that the role of Skill Monkey is no longer necessary because any class can get the skills they want to build the character they want either through backgrounds and feats. Then the Rogue can be what is has always been: a deceptive cat burglar or assassin.

The rogue is the guy who always has the trick up his sleeve. That sounds like a skill monkey to me. But you clearly cannot be persuaded, so I'll just leave it at that.

Do we need a topic about top-down D&D character building, Playgrounders and NewDM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyFriendsAndZoidberg)?

Democratus

2016-04-28, 12:02 PM

Then the Rogue can be what is has always been: a deceptive cat burglar or assassin.

It hasn't always been that.

NewDM

2016-04-28, 12:06 PM

It hasn't always been that.

When has it not?

Democratus

2016-04-28, 12:13 PM

When has it not?

The very last time I played one it wasn't.

smcmike

2016-04-28, 12:18 PM

Yes, we can go overboard and extrapolate that backgrounds and classes are wrong and then from there we can extrapolate that TTRPGs in general are bad. Or we can realize that the role of Skill Monkey is no longer necessary because any class can get the skills they want to build the character they want either through backgrounds and feats. Then the Rogue can be what is has always been: a deceptive cat burglar or assassin.

Any class can get fighting abilities through feats. Are fighters irrelevant? Actually, don't answer that.

Any class can get spells through feats. Are mages and clerics irrelevant?

Serket

2016-04-28, 01:29 PM

The argument about the rogue being the skill monkey begs the question of why the need for such a role at all? Any background can be created that grants whatever proficiencies you like, so then ask, why classes at all? I mean all a class is, is a loose grouping of stuff that reflects a stereotypical fantasy trope.

Generally, the purpose of a class system is to make archetype selection easy and to silo powers so different archetypes have different moments to shine. It's a spotlight-sharing mechanic, to some extent.

If a class system ends up having so many options that the line from concept/archetype through to class levels isn't really obvious, then it's probably got to the point where it would be simpler and better (for the players) not as a class system. See 3.x/pf. 5e isn't at that stage - it'll take more classes and archetypes to get there.

Of course, that's theory. In the context of a game, that is sold to people, who have pre-existing concepts of what the thing they like should be like, a game that is targeted at people who already have such concepts needs to some extent to meet said concepts. D&D without classes probably wouldn't appeal to many of the people who would actually buy a new D&D. So you have 5e, which is the The Force Awakens of rpgs. From the perspective of high-profile game makers with an expensive IP, a change/risk like that would be untenable.
(note, I liked The Force Awakens)

Fighting_Ferret

2016-04-28, 01:54 PM

@Serket I am in agreement with you. I was merely exploring the complexity of characters in both real life, history, and fiction and how using the class system of 5e to describe them is impossible.

5e is designed to be quick and easy. I really like the comparison to the Force Awakens as well. Noting wrong with it... it sums up nicely the problems with having to come up with something that appeals to people that have had decades of expectations associated with it.

Most people leave out what the actual flavor of the class is without reading what the actual text says it is... There are other rogues than the thief and assassin, but note that those are 2 of the archetypes that made it to print. Indeed out of all of the rogue archetypes that are official... only one of them makes sense to have the default rogue ability of sneak attack, which is the assassin.

RickAllison

2016-04-28, 07:42 PM

Fighting Ferret, the sneak attack can be thought of in many more ways than the assassin's backstab. The Thief might be pulling sleight of hand tricks or the AT a magical blurb to get in a fire attack. The Mastermind and Inquisitive bring up a Holmes-style rogue, one who gets his dire attack through out-thinking his opponent. The Swashbuckler has his dire attack through expert dueling skills.

Do note that while all of them have good reasons why they can use the Sneak Attack, only the SB and Assassin (the ones who it makes the most sense for) actually get anything that combos with it. While all the archetypes can use it, only the Assassin does it best.

djreynolds

2016-04-30, 05:17 AM

NewDM

2016-05-01, 08:24 AM

Every rogue or thief, has always had the same bag of tricks and features. Stealth, dealing with traps and locks, getting into places where they shouldn't be, whether verbally or physically, and back stab/sneak attack.

So what's changed. He isn't a ranger, but can function as a reliable scout. He's not a bard, but can cover down as the face of a party. He can wear armor and tank. But any class can do this now, perhaps not expertly but with competence.

But only the rogue can sneak attack. That is the defining trait. A mastermind is still a rogue who can still hurt you. And the rogue should focus on that, whether it is through disguise, or skills, or magic, or persuasion.

Whether it is your primary focus, or your plan B, the sneak attack is your class feature that continues to scale. If you want to be spy, or thief, or con artist, or sniper, or skirmisher. Its all about your concept coupled with how will you employ that sneak attack.

Otherwise just dip rogue for 2 levels for his skill bonuses and call it a day and get expertise and cunning action.

My mountain dwarf rogue, was a nasty melee combatant. The dangerous guy the guard stumbles on as he breaking into the treasure room and didn't live to regret it.

When making a rogue, think "dangerous". You're sneak attack is always there, no rest needed. Every turn, extra damage.

Yes, in early editions they had specific skills: Hiding in Shadows, Moving Silently, Climbing Walls, Picking Locks, Finding and Removing Traps, backstabbing. At high levels they could read any language or use spell scrolls. If they were an Assassin sub-class they could poison people.

In 3.x some of those skills got merged and the Rogue was given many more tangential skills and could take more with feats or just spend points to cross-class to be half as good as someone who had the skill as a class skill. It even got a feature to take 10 if the player chose it at level 10.

In 4e, they got a choice of trained skills in a list that is very similar to the 5e list. They also got skill powers that were special utility powers they could activate if they were trained in a skill, some of those allowed them to take 10 or get a large bonus.

In 5e, due to backgrounds, they can literally master any skill in the game better than any other class, to the point of auto-succeeding once a day and never rolling below a 9 on the d20. They have double the bonuses of any other class in 4 skills (other than Bard in 2 skills).

Hopefully in 5.5e they will give a form of expertise to all classes, put it in a feat, and restrict expertise to class skills and call out that Background skills and skills gained with feats cannot be used. Then the Rogue can get back to being what the Rogue is: a deceptive sneak attacker.

Zalabim

2016-05-01, 08:37 AM

NewDM

2016-05-01, 11:11 AM

This has been bugging me for days. It's 10. Reliable Talent makes any roll of 9 or lower count as a 10. 10.

10.

lol, you are correct. Its just that the 9 sticks out in my memory.

Waazraath

2016-05-03, 10:03 AM

In 5e, due to backgrounds, they can literally master any skill in the game better than any other class, to the point of auto-succeeding once a day and never rolling below a 9 on the d20. They have double the bonuses of any other class in 4 skills (other than Bard in 2 skills).

But, this isn't correct, is it? I think it already has been mentioned in this thread that expertise is also available for:
- a cleric subclass (knowledge)
- a figher subclass (purple dragon knight)
- all rangers, wis and int skills in relation to their favored terrain (from which they get 3)

A bard gets expertise in 4 skills, just as the rogue, doesn't it? 2 skills at lvl 3, 2 more at lvl 10.

Besides, other class have other skill boosters. To name a few:
- lore bard: peerless skill, add up to 1d12 to their roll (with expertise and max stat, that maxes out at 49!)
- barbarian: strength checks always at least 20 at lvl 18, 24 at lvl 20
- fiend warlock: add 1d10 to a skill check 1/short rest
- diviner wizard: can choose to succeed on a check 2 or 3 times/day with portent (with high rolls; low roles will obviously be used in another way).

Plenty of classes have ways to be good at skills quite above the average. Lore bard is at least as much the skill monkey as the rogue, other classes can do stuff as well, some within their own niche (ranger, purple dragon knight), some also outside their niche (fiend warlock and diviner can even use their ability in a skill they are not even proficient with).

R.Shackleford

2016-05-03, 11:29 AM

If you look through D&Ds history you'll find that each class was good at different things. The Fighting Man(Fighter) was good at physical athletic style challenges (running, jumping, lifting things, enduring things). The Wizard was good at mental challenges (reading magical scripts recalling lore, knowing lots of languages), the Cleric was good at medical challenges (healing spells, high wisdom), and the rogue was good at thievery(climb walls, open locks, find and remove traps, stealth, forgery).

What you'll find is that the Bard actually got more skills and thus should be the skill monkey of 5e.

Then of course there's the whole expertise thing. In no edition to date has the Rogue been leaps and bounds better than other characters at doing things based on skills. In 3.x they couldn't go over the max that all other characters could go. In earlier editions they had abysmal chances to do things at low levels and at only at the maximum level did they start reliably being able to do their skills.

So why did they do this? Why didn't they make 'skill monkey' a Class Option(sub-class)? Why didn't they make it a feat or three?

They could have easily made it a Class Option for each class.

For fighter they could have called it 'explorer' and granted 4 extra trained skills, Expertise in 2-3 skills, never below 9, and auto 20 at 20th. Other classes would work in a similar way.

So why did they pick rogue?

If it helps any the current Rogue (with help from the Barbarian) pretty much invalidates the Fighter.

Want to do a lot of damage and not think? Barbarian. These guys and gals do great with sword n board, small creatures, and many other non-'splode builds.

Want to do a lot of skills, maneuvers, wear armor or be a nimble fighter, be a shield master have maneuverability and support abilities on the battle field? Rogue.

With the Strength Based Rogue making sword and board very very very nice and the Dex based rogue being the awesome sauce of Ranged combat... You don't really need the Fighter anymore.

The rogue may not do as much damage as the Fighter per turn, but they don't need to do as much damage as the Fighter, they just need to keep up with the monsters. I would just turn the champion, battlemaster, and eldritch knight into Rogue Archetypes. Call the Rogue an Adventurer if you must... and there you go.

C, BM, EK: Additional Prof all armor, shields, and weapons. Sneak attack with any non-heavy weapon... Hell, any non-reach weapon... Might need to deal with feats though.

C: Everything else mostly as normal.

BM: Change a few maneuvers around. Reaction attack may be a bit strong but you can make it where you don't apply full sneak attack?

EK: Pretty much no change.

(subclas conversions would need a bit of work, I'm just giving general thoughts)

You can take a Rogue and make it a Fighter but you can't take a Fighter and make it a Rogue. Taking on Urchin to the Fighter doesn't give it the expertise, the maneuverability, or the uncanny ability to dodge (i love uncanny dodge as a shield block ability).