What rogue subclass best fits a Viking themed game?

[Klorox]

I'm playing a Viking-themed game shortly, but I'm not sure what type of subclass to choose.

What do you guys all think?

[Kane0]

My money would be on scout, or maybe inquisitive if you’re leaning into the explorer/trader type.
Arcane Trickster or Phantom could also fit just fine depending on your choice of Norse deity?

[RingoBongo]

I like scout.

Vikings were tribal plunderers of the early Northern English territories. They moved around alot and were facing more of nature's environmental stress (survivalist).

They knew how to take a hit and keep going (skirmisher)

They were a mobile force (+10 speed)

They hit hard and fast in coordinated effort (that level 13 ability).

[moonfly7]

Storm sorcerer or tempest cleric would he awesome for a Viking game. A priest if thor, or simply a blessed warrior. Interesting deviation from the typical berserker build.

[stoutstien]

A str based thief would be simple but effective.

[RogueJK]

How about a STR-based Barbarian/Rogue wielding a Short Sword (more thematically appropriate than a Rapier) to allow Sneak Attacks, utilizing Reckless Attack to generate Advantage for Sneak Attacks when there aren't other sources, and using Athletics Expertise to grapple.

Basically more of a "Dirty Fighting Raider" than the traditional "Thief/Criminal/Burglar Rogue".

Could approach it from either angle, depending on how Roguey you want to be: 1-3 levels Rogue and the rest Barbarian, or 2-5 levels Barbarian and the rest Rogue.

I'd probably do something like Rogue 1 -> Rogue 1/Barbarian 5 -> Barbarian 5/Rogue X. (Provided that you're okay with it playing more like a Barbarian than a Rogue for the first 6ish levels, otherwise you may want to start with 2/3/4 Rogue levels before going Barbarian for 5 levels.)

For Rogue subclass, I'd lean towards Scout, with the movement boost (from either Barbarian 5 or Scout 9, or eventually both) paired with Cunning Action Disengage and Skirmisher letting you be a mobile striker and keep from getting pinned down when you don't want to be, while still being able to stand your ground and tank a bit at other times thanks to Rage.

For Barbarian subclass, I'd lean towards Totem Warrior, choosing either Bear if you want to be able to tank at times, or Elk if you really want to lean into the "extremely mobile striker" role.

(Elk Totem gets you 45' movement when Raging starting at Barbarian 3, going up to 55' movement at Barbarian 5, and eventually 65' movement at Barbarian 5/Scout 9, plus you could then use Cunning Action to Dash for 130' movement in a round, or go up to 195' movement if you Dash Action + Cunning Action Dash. Even a bit more if you go Wood Elf to start, for +5 movement.)

[tatsuyashiba]

Valor bard would be thematic. I think phantom (Odin and mystical connection to death?), thief, and scout all fit.

[Dienekes]

Honestly, what are you going for in a viking?

As the half-civilized raider living out in the wild, that'd be Scout.

If you're a huskarl known for taking part in holmganga then the Swashbuckler surprisingly has every ability fit for something you'd do. So long as you refluff Panache to Flyting you're pretty good. I'd suggest finding a way to get Medium Armor and a Shield for the full huskarl effect. But it's not strictly speaking necessary.

[arnin77]

An arcane trickster who doesn’t worship, but has always felt sympathetic to Loki’s tales. You empathize with him because you are an adopted son from a raided land but the nobles’ heir is egotistical and doesn’t take his responsibilities seriously. You have never been able to match the strength of the great warriors of the village but are cunning enough to survive and try to hide your abilities (like invisible mage hand etc). You have honour but are prone to fighting dirty and using tricks to win. You have befriended some dubious people and are tempted by their words when they mention how you would make a better ruler than the heir, you are torn with your loyalties because he is like a brother to you even though he treats you poorly. (Not sure if that’s “the best”... basically just playing Loki but there’s a lot there to work with I think)

[Tanarii]

What armor is available? If the best medium armor you'll see is a Chain shirt, that kind of puts the damper on a Str based rogue. Otherwise a Variant Human scout sailor with moderately armored sounds perfect.

[Vogie]

I'd say either Swashbuckler or Scout.

Scout is fairly straightforward - you are actively moving through everything and are almost impossible to catch.

Swashbuckler you'd have to refluff a bit. Instead of being Inigo Montoya from Princess Bride, you're Tormond Giantsbane from Game of Thrones - your force of personality and raw battle confidence is the key, rather than the typical deft swiftness.

I do like the idea of a Strength Rogue, beating the snot out of your targets.

Regardless if you go the VHGrappler version, or the Barbarian dip version - One thing I would have you ask your DM in that case is the concession/allowance of handaxes as finesse weapons. Rogues already have proficiencies in Shortswords and hand crossbows, so combining them into a single d6 weapon (albeit with a shorter range) shouldn't really be a problem, and would feel very "Viking-y".

[complexhouses]

Depending on what these Vikings plan on doing, I'd be tempted to go Inquisitive and play a scholar from a distant land traveling with the Vikings as part of an ethnographic study, or Mastermind and play a politically ambitious noble from a less distant land fleeing a scandal at court. If those classes would have trouble contributing, however, I'd go Arcane Trickster if everybody else is dumping Intelligence, and Scout otherwise.

[Arkhios]

Well, Loki would definitely be an Arcane Trickster, if he wasn't a god.

Can't go wrong with that one.

However, a Swashbuckler could be an option.
Vikings (or rather, Norse) were skilled with fighting with two weapons and one of their most common weapons was a Seax, technically a dagger or short sword.


An arcane trickster who doesn’t worship, but has always felt sympathetic to Loki’s tales. You empathize with him because you are an adopted son from a raided land but the nobles’ heir is egotistical and doesn’t take his responsibilities seriously. You have never been able to match the strength of the great warriors of the village but are cunning enough to survive and try to hide your abilities (like invisible mage hand etc). You have honour but are prone to fighting dirty and using tricks to win. You have befriended some dubious people and are tempted by their words when they mention how you would make a better ruler than the heir, you are torn with your loyalties because he is like a brother to you even though he treats you poorly. (Not sure if that’s “the best”... basically just playing Loki but there’s a lot there to work with I think)

No reason why you couldn't both worship Loki and be an Arcane Trickster. Faith and divine magic aren't bound to each other. You don't always get divine magic from being devout. Paladins get divine magic from their conviction, and druids and rangers from the nature itself.

[BoxANT]

mountain dwarf swashbuckler obviously

[arnin77]

No reason why you couldn't both worship Loki and be an Arcane Trickster. Faith and divine magic aren't bound to each other. You don't always get divine magic from being devout. Paladins get divine magic from their conviction, and druids and rangers from the nature itself.

Not sure if this was for me or the OP.... I am well aware you can definitely worship Loki, I was trying to create some inner conflict and motivations for a character - maybe I didn’t explain that well enough.

[Droppeddead]

I'm playing a Viking-themed game shortly, but I'm not sure what type of subclass to choose.

What do you guys all think?

I love how the question is what rogue subclass would be best and people start suggesting all sorts of non-rogue classes. :P

That said, Swashbuckler for the more heroic "look at me and my glory!" kind of character, Scout for a more, well scouty kind of character ("Vikings" weren't less civilized than any other people of the time period) or Arcane Trickster or Mastermind for a more "intellectual" character.

[Tanarii]

I love how the question is what rogue subclass would be best and people start suggesting all sorts of non-rogue classes. :P
The OP doesn't state rogue, only the title. I missed it initially and almost answered a non-rogue subclass too.

[Gignere]

I think all of them, to me backgrounds are what determines if it is Viking themed or not.

[Naanomi]

Historical Vikings: any of them

Thematic Vikings: Scout, Swashbuckler with the right fluff

Hrm... how about a Valkyrie themed Phantom Rogue? Rely on the strength of those einherjar

[Dienekes]

Historical Vikings: any of them

Thematic Vikings: Scout, Swashbuckler with the right fluff

Hrm... how about a Valkyrie themed Phantom Rogue? Rely on the strength of those einherjar

Having a hard time thinking how to rationalize arcane tricksters, phantoms, and soulknives can be considered historic. Legendary or mythological maybe.

[Naanomi]

Having a hard time thinking how to rationalize arcane tricksters, phantoms, and soulknives can be considered historic. Legendary or mythological maybe.
In that historical Vikings would have access to the same classes as any other era societies, with no obvious cultural reasons to restrict them... maybe monk and samurai are too culturebound from a historical perspective looking beyond rogue

[Dienekes]

In that historical Vikings would have access to the same classes as any other era societies, with no obvious cultural reasons to restrict them... maybe monk and samurai are too culturebound from a historical perspective looking beyond rogue

Ahh. Fair enough, I can think of a few I’d add to the list. I don’t think the Norse had quite the developed writing and book making to really fit with a wizard and while I wouldn’t ban Paladin I’d be giving quite a side eye to someone who picked it.

[Tanarii]

In that historical Vikings would have access to the same classes as any other era societies, with no obvious cultural reasons to restrict them... maybe monk and samurai are too culturebound from a historical perspective looking beyond rogue
Most D&D classes are pretty tightly bound to fantasy Western European early renaissance, but there's some pretty huge links to earlier medieval periods. Like Charlamagne's Paladins. And the Vikings were huge at the same time as the Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne.

About the only one I'd think about cutting out would be Wizards and Monks. I'd cut monks from any explicitly Western European themed game. And Wizards are definitely a "renaissance" class. Paladins should probably be German foreigners.

Warlocks and Sorcs cover the "feared magical witch" theme space perfectly. Druids are back woods Shamans, maybe give them some stigma, frowned upon as terribly rustic Hicks in polite Viking society. Or maybe Druids are all foreign Anglo-Saxons, having learned it from the Celts they displaced.

Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Fighters, Rangers and Rogues should all be the go-to classes though.

[Naanomi]

I wouldn’t cut Wizards but they would be exceedingly rare... Odin and the origin of writing, rune craft, etc... all seem ripe for a wizard archetype (just don’t expect a lot of spellbook or scroll access)

If you cut wizard, I would look at making relevant subclasses somehow accessible to other classes (diviner, necromancer)

[Tanarii]

I wouldn’t cut Wizards but they would be exceedingly rare... Odin and the origin of writing, rune craft, etc... all seem ripe for a wizard archetype (just don’t expect a lot of spellbook or scroll access)

If you cut wizard, I would look at making relevant subclasses somehow accessible to other classes (diviner, necromancer)
I mean if we're going all out we're probably cutting out all Evocation, Conjuration, and Transmutation spells anyway. In which case casting runes as a spell book works well.

Excuse me while I go see what happens to the base class spell list with those three schools gone ... :smallamused:

[Dienekes]

I wouldn’t cut Wizards but they would be exceedingly rare... Odin and the origin of writing, rune craft, etc... all seem ripe for a wizard archetype (just don’t expect a lot of spellbook or scroll access)

If you cut wizard, I would look at making relevant subclasses somehow accessible to other classes (diviner, necromancer)

But the runes themselves from what has been uncovered or described in the eddas work more like prayers than arcane spells. The runes work because they call upon a deity or spirit in some way not because they’ve broken the cheat codes of creation.

Though I will admit, Oden did unlock secrets of creation. But that was more through some very blood magic style sacrifice than anything else.

Which does bring up, a lot of Norse ritual seems to involve killing things. I’m curious if a game could make use of that in some way. Sacrificing slaves to please the gods or serving great kings in the afterlife kind of stuff. Or burning your own food before a battle for luck.

Wouldn’t work for D&D though.

[Droppeddead]

The OP doesn't state rogue, only the title. I missed it initially and almost answered a non-rogue subclass too.

So OP did in fact state rogue. You know, on the account that OP was the one who wrote the title. Which you presumably read before clicking on the link? :P


Most D&D classes are pretty tightly bound to fantasy Western European early renaissance, but there's some pretty huge links to earlier medieval periods. Like Charlamagne's Paladins. And the Vikings were huge at the same time as the Holy Roman Empire and Charlemagne.

Well, not really. Vikings started to come about in the early 9th century (793 is commonly referred to as the start of the "Viking" era), just around when Charlemagne died.


About the only one I'd think about cutting out would be Wizards and Monks. I'd cut monks from any explicitly Western European themed game. And Wizards are definitely a "renaissance" class. Paladins should probably be German foreigners.

You could of course, have characters that mechanically use the Monk rules but thematically are something different. There are lots of stories about powerful hand to hand fighters. And why would the paladins of the French king Charlemagne be German? Or do you mena Germanic?


Warlocks and Sorcs cover the "feared magical witch" theme space perfectly. Druids are back woods Shamans, maybe give them some stigma, frowned upon as terribly rustic Hicks in polite Viking society. Or maybe Druids are all foreign Anglo-Saxons, having learned it from the Celts they displaced.

Barbarians, Bards, Clerics, Fighters, Rangers and Rogues should all be the go-to classes though.

Well, if you want to be that strict about classes then Bards should be the exclusive territory of the Gaelic/Celtic.

[Droppeddead]

Which does bring up, a lot of Norse ritual seems to involve killing things.

Not neccesarily more so than other religions of the period.


I’m curious if a game could make use of that in some way. Sacrificing slaves to please the gods or serving great kings in the afterlife kind of stuff. Or burning your own food before a battle for luck.

Wouldn’t work for D&D though.

If it fit the setting it would be a perfect time for the DM to grant inspiration.

[Dienekes]

Not neccesarily more so than other religions of the period.

That might be a hard point to back up during the period called the Viking Age. Though if we're going early you'd probably be right. Though I don't think we can get further into this topic on the this board.

[Tanarii]

Well, not really. Vikings started to come about in the early 9th century (793 is commonly referred to as the start of the "Viking" era), just around when Charlemagne died.



You could of course, have characters that mechanically use the Monk rules but thematically are something different. There are lots of stories about powerful hand to hand fighters. And why would the paladins of the French king Charlemagne be German? Or do you mena Germanic?

Mostly, I'm mixing up the Carolingian and Holy Roman Empires. :smallredface:

[KorvinStarmast]

And why would the paladins of the French king Charlemagne be German? Because the Franks were a Germanic tribe. Recommend a review of the rise of the Franks from Clovis to Charlemagne ... I think that it is fair to say that the "French" came later, after the Franks, but that gets us wrapped into a huge bundle of Dark Ages stuff, what with the mish-mash of Burgundians, Alamanians, Nuestrians, Austrasians, Lombards, Aquitanians, Saxons, and so forth. A couple of years ago somebody posted a link to a great "D&D 5e slimmed down" mod that removes arms and armor that was not in the feudal/dark ages era. I'll see if I can find it. Heaviest armor is chain mail. Can't seem to find the file, sadly, as I am sure it would have the web address on it.

It's a great mod if you want to get that "Era of Charlemagne" feel. We ran five sessions in that mode - using that file as a general guide. It was very dark ages/Old/Original D&D feel. The only magic classes we agreed to was a few cleric domains (Light, Life, War), Warlocks(Fiend, Archfey, no GOO) and druids. Yes, we had Paladins.
And then, sadly, RL blew up our group. arrggghhhh