Rogue doesn't have Pick Pockets or the equivalent as a bonus.

36 posts / 0 new
Last post
I noticed that under the "Class Features" Rogue scheme: Thief, it talks about stealing from people to make a living and yet there is not Pick Pockets bonus or anything. I wonder why?
Because when you take a Thing that gets you a "skill" bonus, it only gives you three of them, unless one or more of them is a Lore, which gets you one extra. At least, that's true throughout these pregens.

Alternately, because he's Not That Kind of Thief

Believe whichever you prefer. 
Because when you take a Thing that gets you a "skill" bonus, it only gives you three of them, unless one or more of them is a Lore, which gets you one extra. At least, that's true throughout these pregens.

Alternately, because he's Not That Kind of Thief

Believe whichever you prefer. 




thief/THēf/









Noun:






A person who steals another person's property, esp. by stealth and without using force or violence.



Now if we were talking about "rogue" then we could say "not that kind of rogue" but you can't say that about a thief. Stealing is what makes a thief a thief.

I mean the thief spends his life stealing to survive and yet doesn't get a bonus, while it says nothing about disarming/ finding traps and he gets a bonus to that. You think that because he needed to steal in order to survive he would be better at it than others.
They will give different bonuses to cutpurses, burglars, thugs, and acrobats.  You can probably buy access to other skills via feats or themes too.  It will be possible.
They will give different bonuses to cutpurses, burglars, thugs, and acrobats.  You can probably buy access to other skills via feats or themes too.  It will be possible.



The point I am making is the fact that you have class feature "Thief" which means "to steal" and yet they don't get a bonus to actually steal.

It's like having a Wizard who isn't better at magic.

You don't get a bonus to steal items from a person.  As a lawyer I can tell you that theft includes burglary (climbing, open locks), robbery (theft with violence) and fraud (bluff).  The thief's bonuses are based on 'schemes' that are split along these lines as far as I can tell.  Cutpurse will most likely include the kind of bonuses to which you refer. 


thief/THēf/









Noun:






A person who steals another person's property, esp. by stealth and without using force or violence.



Now if we were talking about "rogue" then we could say "not that kind of rogue" but you can't say that about a thief. Stealing is what makes a thief a thief.

I mean the thief spends his life stealing to survive and yet doesn't get a bonus, while it says nothing about disarming/ finding traps and he gets a bonus to that. You think that because he needed to steal in order to survive he would be better at it than others.

Nothing in the definition you provided indicates that the things the thief steals from other people have to be things those other people have on them. 

This Thief isn't the thief that lifts your wallet while you're riding the bus. This is the thief that breaks into your house and makes off with your valuables while you're at work.



Now, don't mistake my defending the mechanic for my agreeing with it. I don't. I think this Thief should have a bonus to picking pockets. In fact, I think that all of those mechanics (Open Locks, Pick Pockets, Find/Remove Traps, etc.) should be collapsed into a single skill. We could call it "Thievery". I wonder why the designers haven't thought of this?

Oh wait, THEY DID, and people whined because it was "unrealistic". 

So there's your real answer. This Thief doesn't have Pick Pockets because obviously a character can't be good at picking locks AND disabling traps AND picking pockets all at the same time! That's unrealistic

Pff.

You don't get a bonus to steal items from a person.  As a lawyer I can tell you that theft includes burglary (climbing, open locks), robbery (theft with violence) and fraud (bluff).  The thief's bonuses are based on 'schemes' that are split along these lines as far as I can tell.  Cutpurse will most likely include the kind of bonuses to which you refer. 



I know the modern day terminology but that has nothing to do with what's going on at the moment.

A thief pretty much covers all aspects of stealing, well it should. Lifting items off of someone should be something that a thief is good at. Pick Pocketing is stealing, period.

We don't need to delve into the modern day judicial system to know this.

I think having a "cutpurse" would be a waste of time and space because what a thief can do a cutpurse can do and vice versa so it would just be a waste.





thief/THēf/









Noun:






A person who steals another person's property, esp. by stealth and without using force or violence.



Now if we were talking about "rogue" then we could say "not that kind of rogue" but you can't say that about a thief. Stealing is what makes a thief a thief.

I mean the thief spends his life stealing to survive and yet doesn't get a bonus, while it says nothing about disarming/ finding traps and he gets a bonus to that. You think that because he needed to steal in order to survive he would be better at it than others.

Nothing in the definition you provided indicates that the things the thief steals from other people have to be things those other people have on them. 

This Thief isn't the thief that lifts your wallet while you're riding the bus. This is the thief that breaks into your house and makes off with your valuables while you're at work.



Now, don't mistake my defending the mechanic for my agreeing with it. I don't. I think this Thief should have a bonus to picking pockets. In fact, I think that all of those mechanics (Open Locks, Pick Pockets, Find/Remove Traps, etc.) should be collapsed into a single skill. We could call it "Thievery". I wonder why the designers haven't thought of this?

Oh wait, THEY DID, and people whined because it was "unrealistic". 

So there's your real answer. This Thief doesn't have Pick Pockets because obviously a character can't be good at picking locks AND disabling traps AND picking pockets all at the same time! That's unrealistic

Pff.




If I reach into your pocket and I take something from you then I have just stolen your property. Picking pockets has been a part of the game since the beginning, why would it be any different now?
If I reach into your pocket and I take something from you then I have just stolen your property. Picking pockets has been a part of the game since the beginning, why would it be any different now?


It's not. 

But this Rogue is not trained in that kind of thievery.

Why not? Because whoever designed the Thief Scheme decided not to include it.

Why is this difficult to understand? 
Xun, are there not different ways to steal things? Or are you seriously saying that, in terms of the skills used, climbing up the side of a building, opening a window, slinking inside a bedroom, and stealing the shiny things

IS THE SAME THING AS

Sneaking up behind somebody and knocking them in the head with a club, and rifling through their pockets while they're on the ground

WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS

"Accidentally" bumping into someone and picking their pocket. 

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Defenders: We ARE the wall!

 

I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
Xun, are there not different ways to steal things? Or are you seriously saying that, in terms of the skills used, climbing up the side of a building, opening a window, slinking inside a bedroom, and stealing the shiny things

IS THE SAME THING AS

Sneaking up behind somebody and knocking them in the head with a club, and rifling through their pockets while they're on the ground

WHICH IS THE SAME THING AS

"Accidentally" bumping into someone and picking their pocket. 



You never fully read things do you?

I already know there are multiple ways of stealing things and I have already said this. Picking a pocket is different from sneaking into someone's house and stealing their stuff. You don't have to be good with sleight of hand to pull this off. You could actually kick in someone's door while they are away and take their things.

Picking Pockets and having a sleigh of hand are another kettle of fish. I don't know about you but when I imagine a young boy on streets, especially in a medieval type setting, I imagine them using their little hands to reach into big pockets and stealing coins, or untying their coin purse from their belt without them knowing. 

Plus they have said that you will be able to customise - the packets of skills are just guides for easy character building.  If none of the pre-designed packages quite does it for you just build your own. The fact that many of us can conceptualise a thief who doesn't pick pockets is precisely why those kinds of thieves should be an option.  I don't doubt that your version will be an option too.
The problem is trying to break it up into too many parts.

They have already made a Thief rogue scheme but another name for a thief that picks pockets is a cutpurse. Why would you sit there and create a whole nother scheme just to pick a pocket when the thief scheme does that just fine. A cutpurse is a type of thief but in the context of the game, the thief is a type of rogue.
They have already made a Thief rogue scheme but another name for a thief that picks pockets is a cutpurse.

Not in this context. In this context, a Thief picks locks and disables traps, but does not pick pockets. A Cutpurse picks pockets, but might not pick locks or disable traps. 

Why would you sit there and create a whole nother scheme just to pick a pocket when the thief scheme does that just fine.

Because the Thief doesn't do that, obviously.  

A cutpurse is a type of thief but in the context of the game, the thief is a type of rogue.

No, A Cutpurse and a Thief are both types of Rogue. The context is important here.


But the hafling is not a thief, he is a rogue? 



Rogue [rohg] 


noun





1. a dishonest, knavish person; scoundrel.

2. a playfully mischievous person; scamp: The youngest boys arelittle rogues.

3. a tramp or vagabond.

4. a rogue elephant  or other animal of similar disposition.

5. Biology a usually inferior organism, especially a plant,varying markedly from the normal.



verb
 (used without object)

6. to live or act as a rogue.



Verb
 (used with object)



7. to cheat.
8. to uproot or destroy (plants, etc., that do not conform to adesired standard).
9. to perform this operation upon: to rogue a field.




adjective
10. (of an animal) having an abnormally savage or unpredictabledisposition, as a rogue elephant.

11. no longer obedient, belonging, or accepted and hence notcontrollable or answerable; deviating, renegade: a rogue cop;a rogue union local.



 
I have chosen to highlight the sentences that makes gives most meaning to me, as to what a Rogue is. As you can see, the definition is not that a rogue is someone who steals per se, but someone who could be uncrontrollable aka outside the law. So it does not shut out the idea of stealing. 

That being said :P I do understand why many people, myself included has always viewed the picture of a traditional rogue as a pickpocketing, backstabbing stealth master.

A thing i also find fun, is that the Halfling playtest rogue, is a commoner as a background with animal handling??(maybe a horse thief?) :P I lolled! It is a refreshed way to look at the rogue concept.

He doenst have any of the classic rogue abilities either: 

bluff, streetwise, acrobatics... appraise? :P etc

Edit: Sorry for retarded space between sentences :P 
A rogue is not necessarily a thief, a thief is not necessarily a rogue.

It's not complicated.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
A rogue is not necessarily a thief, a thief is not necessarily a rogue.

It's not complicated.



For Joon and Salla:

The halfling is a rogue with the "Thief" rogue scheme.

I know the difference and I know what a rogue and a thief are. Go and look at the rogue's character sheet on page 2 under "Class Features".

A rogue is not necessarily a thief, a thief is not necessarily a rogue.

It's not complicated.



For Joon and Salla:

The halfling is a rogue with the "Thief" rogue scheme.

I know the difference and I know what a rogue and a thief are. Go and look at the rogue's character sheet on page 2 under "Class Features".


oh ****! didnt see that i fail at life
I think Xun's overall point is a valid piece of feedback, and I have to agree with the observation. I think that the Rogue Scheme: Thief should include a bonus to picking pockets.

Mike Mearls regarding feedback for D&D Next: "The big thing is to avoid snark and an overly antagonistic attitude. We're human, and it's easy to tune out someone who comes across as a crank."

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/3.jpg)

I think Xun's overall point is a valid piece of feedback, and I have to agree with the observation. I think that the Rogue Scheme: Thief should include a bonus to picking pockets.




I think Xun's overall point is pure pedantry.  He is essentially complaining that he doesn't feel the NAME of the scheme precisely fits his personal expectations.

But rather than suggest the name should be changed to something that fits his expectations better (Burglar, for example), he instead insists that the abilities of the scheme should be changed to fit his personal viewpoint.  He continues to do this despite multiple posts by others who state that the bonuses from the scheme do fit their expectations of the name.

Well written feedback would have looked like this:
****************
I feel that the rogue Thief scheme was / was not balanced based on my playtest experience, for the following enumerated reasons .  Furthermore, when I read the word "thief", I imagined a scoundrel that stole by picking pockets, not a scoundrel that snuck into guarded vaults.  I think others might be equally confused by this.  Please consider using a different word to label this scheme ("burglar" for instance) and reserve the word "thief" for a scheme that involves the theft of unaware individuals.
****************

-SYB
I think Xun's overall point is a valid piece of feedback, and I have to agree with the observation. I think that the Rogue Scheme: Thief should include a bonus to picking pockets.




I think Xun's overall point is pure pedantry.  He is essentially complaining that he doesn't feel the NAME of the scheme precisely fits his personal expectations.

But rather than suggest the name should be changed to something that fits his expectations better (Burglar, for example), he instead insists that the abilities of the scheme should be changed to fit his personal viewpoint.  He continues to do this despite multiple posts by others who state that the bonuses from the scheme do fit their expectations of the name.

Well written feedback would have looked like this:
****************
I feel that the rogue Thief scheme was / was not balanced based on my playtest experience, for the following enumerated reasons .  Furthermore, when I read the word "thief", I imagined a scoundrel that stole by picking pockets, not a scoundrel that snuck into guarded vaults.  I think others might be equally confused by this.  Please consider using a different word to label this scheme ("burglar" for instance) and reserve the word "thief" for a scheme that involves the theft of unaware individuals.
****************

-SYB



Being precise has nothing to do with it. If you look at the description it says that you have made a living by stealing from others. Necessity might have driven you to this work, having no other means to provide for yourself, or you might have been an orphan taken in by a thieves' guild.

I know you don't have to precise with every little description but at the same time, what's the point in having a description of something if you aren't going to try and stick to it?

Since you are a 1st level rogue I am assuming you will be young. Now being a thief on the streets usually means you are mostly stealing from people in the busy markets etc...

Does it mean that you are doing nothing but pick pocketing? Having a skill such as Pick Pockets doesn't mean you have to actually have a pocket involved. You could untie a coin purse from a belt, steal something from a stall without the vendor seeing you do it, trick someone with a card game or the old "find the ball under the cup" type of scenario.

PS: Don't sit there and tell me what is and what isn't well written feedback. If I was making this as a direct feedback to the designers then I would have deemed it so. I have presented it to the gaming population for discussion.

PS: Don't sit there and tell me what is and what isn't well written feedback. If I was making this as a direct feedback to the designers then I would have deemed it so. I have presented it to the gaming population for discussion.

By then insisting anyone who was a different opinion is wrong, and your worldview is the only valid one.

Looking at the scope of the actual playtest: In this case, the Thief Schema is applying to, in fact, the burglar archetype, and not the cutpurse archtype. Age is irrelevant, because that's up to the player, not dictated by WotC. Based on the abilities in the scheme, it focuses more on not being seen, trapfinding and picking locks. This means that a 'living by stealing from others' can be inferred to not mean pickpocketing. The Lurker theme solidifies this is what WotC intended. The Commoner Background makes me think that his life as a thief may not be well-known either, as he has a trade beyond thievery.

Guess that doesn't make him a young man cutting purses.

We haven't seen other schemes, but the Thief here isn't a pick-pocket. Clearly.

PS: Don't sit there and tell me what is and what isn't well written feedback. If I was making this as a direct feedback to the designers then I would have deemed it so. I have presented it to the gaming population for discussion.

By then insisting anyone who was a different opinion is wrong, and your worldview is the only valid one.

Looking at the scope of the actual playtest: In this case, the Thief Schema is applying to, in fact, the burglar archetype, and not the cutpurse archtype. Age is irrelevant, because that's up to the player, not dictated by WotC. Based on the abilities in the scheme, it focuses more on not being seen, trapfinding and picking locks. This means that a 'living by stealing from others' can be inferred to not mean pickpocketing. The Lurker theme solidifies this is what WotC intended. The Commoner Background makes me think that his life as a thief may not be well-known either, as he has a trade beyond thievery.

Guess that doesn't make him a young man cutting purses.

We haven't seen other schemes, but the Thief here isn't a pick-pocket. Clearly.




SYB always finds a opportunity to start something with me, that is why I said that.

We don't know if there will even be a "cutpurse" scheme.

He does have the "Trade" background so that is where his trade comes from but we don't know when he went into that trade.

I'm sorry but this is a role playing game and all of this is very important. If a game system is going to have themes and backgrounds then they really need to equal up to what they are supposed to represent and not just provide a mathematical bonus.

SYB always finds a opportunity to start something with me, that is why I said that.

...And yet my statement still stands.

We don't know if there will even be a "cutpurse" scheme.

You're absolutely right! We also don't know there won't be. This is pure conjecture and entirely outside of the scope of the playtest.

Actually, "commoner" makes me thing more of someone who just lives in the streets and steals from whoever walks by.

And you'd be wrong, as the background bonus for Commoner is "Trade", in which a PC gains a trade, such as blacksmithing, jeweling, or thatching. If you actually read the rest of the character sheet beyond "NOooo! Thief doesn't have pickpocketing!" and had an immeadiate knee-jerk ragefest, you'd have noticed he's living a double life.

He's not a cutpurse. The rogue should have the ability to pick pockets, yes. But I don't agree that it should be part of the thief scheme's package.

SYB always finds a opportunity to start something with me, that is why I said that.

...And yet my statement still stands.

We don't know if there will even be a "cutpurse" scheme.

You're absolutely right! We also don't know there won't be. This is pure conjecture and entirely outside of the scope of the playtest.

Actually, "commoner" makes me thing more of someone who just lives in the streets and steals from whoever walks by.

And you'd be wrong, as the background bonus for Commoner is "Trade", in which a PC gains a trade, such as blacksmithing, jeweling, or thatching. If you actually read the rest of the character sheet beyond "NOooo! Thief doesn't have pickpocketing!" and had an immeadiate knee-jerk ragefest, you'd have noticed he's living a double life.

He's not a cutpurse. The rogue should have the ability to pick pockets, yes. But I don't agree that it should be part of the thief scheme's package.




Might want to recheck my post above.
I've said this before and I'll say it again.

D&D Next needs to becareful with bloat and in this instance, scheme bloat.

The "thief" is more than capable of covering the "cutpurse" because a cutpurse is a type of thief. Making something like the "thief" but giving it Pick Pockets would just be a waste of time.

I mean what are they going to do:

Rogue Scheme: Cutpurse

* Pick Pockets + 3
* Open/Locks + 3
* Stealth + 3

Seriously, you would be better off just giving the "thief" pick pockets and ignoring the "cutpurse" scheme all together.
Might want to recheck my post above.

Confirmed for not reading the entire sheet. So, why are we having this discussion? You only give a crap about the mechanical benefits, as that +3 is incredibly important to you. Absolutely nothing stops you from making a DEX vs. WIS contest for pickpocketing as the rules currently stand.

Stop being a hypocrite. You can wave around the 'BUT TEH ARRPEES!' flag, but anyone who's been on these boards as long as I have knows what an utter crock that is when it comes to you, Xun.

I don't even like what I saw in the playtest article, but you're imposing personal worldviews and using conjecture based on lack of information, and using that as a standing ground to insist that it should be changed.

If you aren't willing to actually read the entire sheet, look at what the sheet actually gave you for those 'roleplaying needs', you'd realize that my interpretation of the Rogue is fairly close, while yours is very wrong, and that the game provided me with everything for that. Mechanics, fluff, etc. You're looking for the "Commoner" theme to equal a "Beggar" theme, when it represents a common beginnings. Like Chickenkicker, from Fable, to an extent. The Commoner theme is what you expect an average NPC in town to possess.

You're just twisting it in an attempt to say that it's not accurately representing your exclusive idea of what it should be.

Guess what: there's enough there to be used for roleplaying while still clearly representing the mechanical benefits. Turns out you're wrong.

EDIT:

How about Insight +3, Sleight of Hand +3, Pick Pockets +3? A cutpurse would be good at identifying marks, lifting coin or jewelry, and then easily misdirecting, or hiding the pilfered object. He is now a cutpurse. Mechanics could involve gaining Advantage via misdirection. OH LOOK. A DIFFERENT SCHEME ENTIRELY. NO BLOAT.

Bloat is a natural part of D&D. It always has been and you cannot prevent it, thanks to the the fact that WotC would like to sell rulebooks for the entirity of an edition. So let's knock that little idea off the wall before we start.
Keep in mind that this is a Thief scheme, not the Thief scheme.

the pick pocket skill isn't in the playtest for reasons unknown, that doesn't mean that the final version of this scheme won't have it.

if you feel strongly that a "Thief" should be able to pickpocket, you should definitely let them know this in your feedback, but don't assume that someone at WotC sat down and decided that Thieves aren't good at pickpocketing. my bet is that they either left it out for simplicity's sake or the mechanic just wasn't polished enough to be sent out with the packet.
I'm for narrowing skills so those 3 +3 bonuses cover a wider range. And I'd just fold pick pocket under stealth.  Though the halfling thief is actually decent at picking pockets anyways.  I'm going to make the wild assumption that it would be a dex test so he would have a +3 to his opposed test a average cutpurse who did have the skill would be at +3 as well.  A PC or above average NC trained in it would be better, but this theif is still liekly to be a decent pick pocket haveing better than even odds against almost anyone not trained in whatever would help resist this.  I'd assume perception.

How about Insight +3, Sleight of Hand +3, Pick Pockets +3? A cutpurse would be good at identifying marks, lifting coin or jewelry, and then easily misdirecting, or hiding the pilfered object. He is now a cutpurse. Mechanics could involve gaining Advantage via misdirection. OH LOOK. A DIFFERENT SCHEME ENTIRELY. NO BLOAT.



Its like you read my mind.

Gold is for the mistress, silver for the maid

Copper for the craftsman, cunning at his trade.

"Good!" said the Baron, sitting in his hall,

"But Iron -- Cold Iron -- is master of them all." -Kipling

 

Defenders: We ARE the wall!

 

I've replaced the previous Edition Warring line in my sig with this one, because honestly, everybody needs to work together to make the D&D they like without trampling on somebody else's D&D.

 

Miss d20 Modern? Take a look at Dias Ex Machina Game's UltraModern 4e!

 

57019168 wrote:
I am a hero, not a chump.
It's worth noting that in Star Wars Saga Edition, picking pockets was subsumed under the stealth skill, so maybe they've decided to try that out for the playtest.

It seems to me that while the skill list leaves room for a bit of variety, there's still too many thief skills. It would seem to make sense to collapse traps or locks into one skill or to have picking pockets/sleight of hand fall under stealth.

Personally, I think the latter is probably the most reasonable interpretation. But that's just my opinion.
I hope they actually list out all the things you can do with a certain skill to give people a general idea of what you can do.
I hope they actually list out all the things you can do with a certain skill to give people a general idea of what you can do.



Or, rather ability score. It wouldn't have to be on a character sheet, but maybe in the ability score section of the PHB it could show associated (but not an all-inclusive list of) skills. I like what they did with the essentials line with the "improvising with ..." and think that they can take it even further here.


Mike Mearls regarding feedback for D&D Next: "The big thing is to avoid snark and an overly antagonistic attitude. We're human, and it's easy to tune out someone who comes across as a crank."

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/3.jpg)

I hope they actually list out all the things you can do with a certain skill to give people a general idea of what you can do.



Yikes isn't this the exact opposite of what they want to do?  Some brief examples might be good but my understanding was that skills were supposed to be more freeform.  It's entirely possible for your rogue to be good at pick pocketing without having a specific pick pocket skill if you have picked a skill that broadly covers picking pockets.  The broader the skill, the more likely the DM may ascribe a penalty to perform specific, difficult tasks but for example, some one trained in bluff mght try distraction to enhance his dexterity check to pick pockets.  Maybe that is straying into skill challenge territory but if it involves a fun contest and some role playing, why not?
The rogue has stealth +3.... that should cover any pick pocketing aswell, as that is an act of stealth. Sorry, only read OP.