Playing against Class

[KyleG]

is playing against type annoying/fun/hard or any other adjective.

I mentally liked the idea of say a Big burly guy growing up around thieves who considers himself a Rogue but is not very int/dex having in reality been merely the thieves guilds muscle. Do you play him as a rogue or a barbarian who TRYS to Rogue.
Or sticking with the Rogue idea...a gifted Rogue who in reality is a wild magic sorcerer who achieves things by shear wild magic luck (I am imaging HP removing the glass from the snake enclosure here). or again do you play as the sorcerer TRYING to Rogue.

At what point does whimsical become annoying both to the party and the player?
And if this does actually sound like a good idea what other classes/roles do you think could play well like this?

[Max_Killjoy]

is playing against type annoying/fun/hard or any other adjective.

I mentally liked the idea of say a Big burly guy growing up around thieves who considers himself a Rogue but is not very int/dex having in reality been merely the thieves guilds muscle. Do you play him as a rogue or a barbarian who TRYS to Rogue.
Or sticking with the Rogue idea...a gifted Rogue who in reality is a wild magic sorcerer who achieves things by shear wild magic luck (I am imaging HP removing the glass from the snake enclosure here). or again do you play as the sorcerer TRYING to Rogue.

At what point does whimsical become annoying both to the party and the player?
And if this does actually sound like a good idea what other classes/roles do you think could play well like this?

Some of these are precisely what Multiclassing is for. The first guy is a Rogue (thief) 1, with remaining levels in Fighter, and a criminal Background of some sort.

[Man_Over_Game]

Some of these are precisely what Multiclassing is for. The first guy is a Rogue (thief) 1, with remaining levels in Fighter, and a criminal Background of some sort.

Agreed.

1 level of Rogue doesn't mean you are "Rogue". It means you are 1 level of Rogue mechanics.

I have a brute, his name is Charlie. Charlie likes to punch people, and he was hired as a bodyguard for the local mafia. He knows how to shank a guy in the ribs, and he does so with great force. Other times, he just throws the jerk out to the street. As a character, he might fall into the more stereotypical Fighter archetype, but mechanically, he's a Rogue 1 with Strength and Athletics, and would greatly benefit from a few levels of Barbarian. This will not define him as a savage, though.

[KyleG]

Agreed.

1 level of Rogue doesn't mean you are "Rogue". It means you are 1 level of Rogue mechanics.

I have a brute, his name is Charlie. Charlie likes to punch people, and he was hired as a bodyguard for the local mafia. He knows how to shank a guy in the ribs, and he does so with great force. Other times, he just throws the jerk out to the street. As a character, he might fall into the more stereotypical Fighter archetype, but mechanically, he's a Rogue 1 with Strength and Athletics, and would greatly benefit from a few levels of Barbarian. This will not define him as a savage, though.

Then starting at level 1 it probably makes sense to just background him as a roguish type and never bother with the rogue levels..sounds fair.
Ok so with that established when roleplaying the character is it likely to piss off other players if he attempts to do Rogue like things and isn't usually successful? eg. trys to find traps and gives the all clear because he doesn't find the 6 on the ground in front of them. =) o

[Nhorianscum]

is playing against type annoying/fun/hard or any other adjective.

I mentally liked the idea of say a Big burly guy growing up around thieves who considers himself a Rogue but is not very int/dex having in reality been merely the thieves guilds muscle. Do you play him as a rogue or a barbarian who TRYS to Rogue.
Or sticking with the Rogue idea...a gifted Rogue who in reality is a wild magic sorcerer who achieves things by shear wild magic luck (I am imaging HP removing the glass from the snake enclosure here). or again do you play as the sorcerer TRYING to Rogue.

At what point does whimsical become annoying both to the party and the player?
And if this does actually sound like a good idea what other classes/roles do you think could play well like this?

Roughly 100% of my characters can be considered playing against type if type is defined by my base class(s). Mostly because they just do weird stuff, really weird stuff.

Roughly 100% play to concept and the class(s) are just abstract building blocks used to make that concept happen. (Ignoring my first few edgelord chars back in the day... *shame*)

As for building a character that intentionally plays against type/trope in the way you're considering it... They're all kinds of fun and I would highly recomend it. My personal favorite PC of this type has got to be CE VHuman(Prodigy)Redemption paladin, with a messton of crafting skills and a bag of reverse beartraps. (100% recovery!). Honorable mentions go to a fun little sailor background Rouge Therapist (inspired by a short story by Ray Bradbury).

[Man_Over_Game]

Then starting at level 1 it probably makes sense to just background him as a roguish type and never bother with the rogue levels..sounds fair.
Ok so with that established when roleplaying the character is it likely to piss off other players if he attempts to do Rogue like things and isn't usually successful? eg. trys to find traps and gives the all clear because he doesn't find the 6 on the ground in front of them. =) o

Well, there's different kind of Rogues. Stealing from people and understanding complex mechanisms are two very different skillsets that most people would consider two separate professions.

Don't try too hard to be a "rogue", just do what you envision what your guy does well. If you WANT him to deal with traps and stuff, then skills and Thieves' Tools proficiencies can all be obtained from a Background.

But if you happen to be the most "roguish" person on the team, but you're mostly the muscle, then there's no problem with that. There's a reason that Knock and Find Traps are a spell.

=======

Oh, and I notice you mentioned you are new to 5e. A lot of people miss that there are rules in the PHB, to modify or create your own backgrounds. The basic formula is this:

Pick 2 skills. Pick a combination of a combined 2 languages/tools. Pick a benefit unique to that background by copying one of the other unique background benefits.


For example, if I wanted to have the background of Bounty Hunter, I'd probably do something like this:

Skills: Investigation, Athletics
Tools: Thieves' Tools, Gaming Set
Benefit: Can travel quickly through the city (same as Urchin)

[KyleG]

So you think I should play to his real strengths not to his perceived strengths. Fair call.
Perhaps this is all just me trying to roleplay more and I thought if there was something distinctively prone to cause entertainment/issues it might be easier. Like Nott on critical role getting drunk. It doesnt help per say but its a distinctive quirk with very real roleplaying consequences

[Man_Over_Game]

So you think I should play to his real strengths not to his perceived strengths. Fair call.
Perhaps this is all just me trying to roleplay more and I thought if there was something distinctively prone to cause entertainment/issues it might be easier. Like Nott on critical role getting drunk. It doesnt help per say but its a distinctive quirk with very real roleplaying consequences

There's nothing stopping your character to PRETEND he has those strengths. I had an Arcane Trickster with Ritual Caster. He always loved magic, and he wanted to be a full fledged wizard, but he was terrible at it and never had a good grasp of how to cast it effectively.

I also played a Warlock spy with some levels into Rogue, and I pretended I was a Bard to convince people I wasn't a bad guy.

Maybe you get foolish around people, because they make you anxious.
Maybe you try to find traps because you feel like you're not contributing enough, and finding traps seems easy enough.
Maybe you are giddy around the girl you like, so you puff out your chest and go straight into melee combat (as the Sorcerer).

If there's a reason you're to fool everyone into believing you're something you're not, that's totally cool, but make sure you're doing so for a reason, and not just aiming blindly for a comedic end result. You're an adventurer, not a liability. Save that crap for the NPC princess.

[KyleG]

There's nothing stopping your character to PRETEND he has those strengths. I had an Arcane Trickster with Ritual Caster. He always loved magic, and he wanted to be a full fledged wizard, but he was terrible at it and never had a good grasp of how to cast it effectively.

I also played a Warlock spy with some levels into Rogue, and I pretended I was a Bard to convince people I wasn't a bad guy.

Maybe you get foolish around people, because they make you anxious.
Maybe you try to find traps because you feel like you're not contributing enough, and finding traps seems easy enough.
Maybe you are giddy around the girl you like, so you puff out your chest and go straight into melee combat (as the Sorcerer).

If there's a reason you're to fool everyone into believing you're something you're not, that's totally cool, but make sure you're doing so for a reason, and not just aiming blindly for a comedic end result. You're an adventurer, not a liability. Save that crap for the NPC princess.

Perfect. Thanks

[DMThac0]

I have a fighter in a game, he's a battlemaster, loves the tactical side of battle, loves the brainy side of combat. He hits like a truck and can take a punch from the best of them. However, I have him the charlatan background, the concept is that he's the "mastermind" type when it comes to the underground. He plays the long con, disguises his own strengths and plays himself off as a Bard, even carrying a Lute that he's hidden a weapon in side of.

The first battle they ever got in was probably the most amusing thing I've done in a long time as a player, and my table was just jaw dropped the whole time. They knew I was playing a fighter, but here I am running around without a weapon, and a lute strung over my shoulder. I refused to pull the weapon from my hidden compartment, instead using the coin purse I had as a makeshift Sap. Eventually resorting to grabbing my opponent by the face and bouncing his head off the wall to knock him unconscious.

It took close to 6 sessions before I was forced into a position where I had to reveal that I had a hidden weapon in my Lute, and the party just lost their minds. They couldn't believe that I had been hiding something like that for so long, they thought I had taken the archer archetype to be a ranged fighter/battlemaster. Then I proceed to clean house, smugly put my weapon away and look at the rest of the party with a look of confusion. The only thing I said was "You saw nothing...it's safer for us all that way".

Playing "against type" can be minor or major, it can be annoying (like the wizard I played who refused to kill anything), or it can be amusing, like the anecdote above. The thing to remember is to make it a character thing, not a trolling your party/dm thing.

[ImproperJustice]

Your initial concept reminds me of Verrin, a horse theif and sidekick to Matt Cauthon from the Robert Jordan Wheel of Time novels.

He was a balding, fat, middle-aged guy who was an expert horse theif. He was just good at paying attention to his surroundings, reading people (and horses) and picking his moments to get away clear.

I think Expertise allows Rogues the freedom to excell at skills outside their attribute bonuses, so your concept could totally work.

[Mercurias]

As far a roleplaying against type, you can also do that within your own class. Imagine a seemingly amoral Rogue who gathers a party of adventurers for the heist of a century, only to reveal that he is a devoted follower of Aureon looking for a crew to retrieve a sacred relic.

What about a Samurai, hired as a ronin to the service of a bandit lord, who has spent months waiting for the moment that the bandit would let his guard down long enough to take three feet of steel into his belly? It’d make sense if he was ordered by his true master to eliminate the target by any means necessary, after all.