Unique use of Skills instead of Skill Mastery for Rogue

Instead of giving Rogues the ability to take 10 on skills checks, Rogues could do things other classes can't do with the same skills. Like the 3.5 rogue had Trapfinding that let him use Search to find traps.

An ability could let a Rogue use Acrobatics (when it comes around) to take half damage from a melee attack if he rolls higher on his skill check than what the attacker got on his attack roll.

Use Bluff to get advantage on a creature or let an ally get advantage on a creature. 

Be able to hide and move with the same action when using Stealth. Etc, etc. 

It certainly would be more interesting than Skill Mastery and give and interesting twist to the Skill Monkey and skills in and out of combat.  
Well bluff to get advantage is something that can be done anyway.
I'm pretty sure you can move and stealth, but in 5e that will probably impose disadvantage rather than a normal penalty.

As for the acrobatics, rolling every time an attack is made against you will annoy a lot of people, if you were to use that at least make it 1/round.

Overall this would probably be more fiddly than the current system and lead to a lot more complaints, especially if you create a rogue niche that only they can get out of skills.

Personally I'm still with the "give rogues advantage on trained skills" bandwagon, its simple and easy without giving away pure automatic successes. 
I dislike skill mastery as well but Im not sure I wanna see trapfinding being a rogue exclusive thing again. Lowering it to 5 or 7 would make me happy though Smile
I don't know why the identity of this class is so focused on skills.

Fighters are all about coordination, tactical decisions and physical activities, and no one point that they should be the skill masters of something. They gain class features. This logic can also be applied to the other classes.

Just make rogues choose specific class features as they level, that can be used without any skill rules but are compatible. The rogue could also choose non skill related features and rely on normal skills.

Some of these skill related class features could be…
…Sense trap: passive roll when they are near a trap. Use special class modifier to detect and disable traps or automatic succes to disable trap by taking more time.
…Vigilance: use special class modifier to detect or search anything. Bonus against surprise.
…Infiltration: use special class modifier to open locks, stealth, or to use special forms of movement such as climbing, squeeze, or walking on a rope.
…Deception: use special class modifier to lie, disguise, mimic, forge documents, or detect if the deception works.
…Acrobatic stunts: use special class modifier to perform acrobatics or athletics, gain a climb speed and reduce damage from falling.
…Silver tongue: use special class modifier to influence others. May inflict the charmed or frightened condition on a target.

I think rogues need their own class features, and not special rules to use existing skill rules. With this kind of features, old fashioned rogues players don't even need to use the skill rules.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

The thief tradition in D&D is mostly based on thieving skills (move silently/hide in shadows (stealth), open locks, find and remove traps, pickpocket (slight of hand), etc. from Basic Days)...that's why this iteration (and other ones) make the thief a skill monkey. 

I agree with Promitheas.  If they lower the "take 10" to "take 7" that means that the 1st level rogue can auto succeed on any moderate task.  I'd like them to lower it to "7" and I can live with "5" too (depending on how this scales with additional rogue levels)...also, I'd like to make the rogue roll anyway.  If he rolls a "1" DM throws in a complication.  In my games, even that small chance of failure raises the level of tension.  

A Brave Knight of WTF - "Wielder of the Sword of Balance"

 

Rhenny's Blog:  http://community.wizards.com/user/1497701/blog

 

 

I've said this in other threads. Each class should have the same number of skills for each attribute. For the sake of argument say five skills per attribute. 

Instead of having the know every skill thief which is ridiculous. Having skills spread out for various attributes would allow the player to choose what kind if thief he wants to play.

Want to pick pockets go with a high dexterity.
Want to forge documents go with a high intelligence.
Want to be able to climb walls go with a high strength.
Want to be able to talk your way past the guards go with a high charisma. 

 
The thief tradition in D&D is mostly based on thieving skills (move silently/hide in shadows (stealth), open locks, find and remove traps, pickpocket (slight of hand), etc. from Basic Days)...that's why this iteration (and other ones) make the thief a skill monkey. 

I agree with Promitheas.  If they lower the "take 10" to "take 7" that means that the 1st level rogue can auto succeed on any moderate task.  I'd like them to lower it to "7" and I can live with "5" too (depending on how this scales with additional rogue levels)...also, I'd like to make the rogue roll anyway.  If he rolls a "1" DM throws in a complication.  In my games, even that small chance of failure raises the level of tension.  

My experience with rogues from thi era is :
• At most one backstab at the start of the fight
• Too low % on skills to rely on them before 6th level (and more for the skills waiting for the 2 stealth skills, find/remove trap and open lock to stop draining augmentation points/level).
So the group was finding ways to disable traps without the rogue at low levels, was keeping this habit later, as failing to disable a trap was very dangerous at any level.
Picking pocket was unreliable as the level of the target was a negative modifier. At low level, you were failing check, but almost never got noticed, and when you were really able to pick pocket, the chances that the interesting targets noticed you were too high to risk it.
I remember a lot of dual and multi fighter/rogues played (that said a lot about rangers), and some wizard/rogues, but very few pure rogues (2 or 3, and 2 of them played by beginers, mine being an attempt to prove that rogues could go without being favored by dm at magic items distribution).

Rogues were basically a way to acquire move silently, hide in shadows, Climb walls and Detect noise, or read languages for the wizard/rogues.
Backstab result was a multiplier on the weapon damage, x5 at 13th level (ridiculous) so it wasn't a goal to gain or upgrade it. Surprise was required, as well as beeing behind the target, and it was not usable during combat or against non humanoid creatures.

I have no doubt that players who took rogues as dual or multiclass would have taken simple skills if they had the choice.

Rogues in fantasy have archetypes, regardless of the skills involved. These archetypes should be accessible through class features.
Translating the rogue's luck or expertise through altering the use of normal skills is not enough. Take 10 or advantage have a lot of opponents.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

In my opinion..   drop the skill master concept for the rogue. Make skill master a specialisation.

Instead make rogue the deceptive mobile dex based warrior class.
Give them class options to choose path between:
* the Assassin (master stealth, sneak attacks and maybe poison)
* the Acrobat/swashbuckler (master movement, mobile combat and in-combat improvisation, dirty fighting and feints)
* the charlatan/trickster (master social environments, trickery and deception, maybe deception/improvisation in the vein of 'use magic device')

Give Rogues abilities that aid in movement, stealth, trickery, sneak attack, deception and dirty fighting, distributed on the different schemes. None of those features should be directly skill based, they should be class features.

That's my opinion anyways..


On the unique use of skills...  I would rather let everyone that is trained in a skill be able to use it. Why should a lvl 10 fighter character with lots of stuff invested in some skill not be able to do what a rogue can do with the same skill at lvl 1? It undermines the skill system.
I don't see how this:

...that's why this iteration (and other ones) make the thief a skill monkey. 



...follows from this:

The thief tradition in D&D is mostly based on thieving skills (move silently/hide in shadows (stealth), open locks, find and remove traps, pickpocket (slight of hand), etc. from Basic Days)


The fact that the 1E/2E Thief's skills were very narrowly focused on thiefy things argues against the notion that Thiefs/Rogues are gereralist "skill monkeys" with very broad skill sets. That's not at all how they operated in 1E/2E nor was it the case in 4E (they started with 6 trained skills rather than the normal 4 but that's as far as it went).

And as I have explained elsewhere, it doesn't make any sense to have Rogues be more skilled than other classes because most of them are people without much if any serious education, professional training or social graces. If anything Rogues should have less general skill aptitude by default and be more specialized.
To my mind, the real problem with rogues as skill monkeys is that we're back to rogues being useless and bored in combat, and fighters being useless and bored out of combat.  Skill mastery is not a substitute for combat superiority, it's a thing rogues get to make sure the fighter is completely sidelined outside of combat while allowing the designers to pretend they're excused from the fact that rogues are sidelined in combat (at least when they can't get advantage, which by their own admission should be at least half the time since it's supposed to take an action to set up advantage).
All the things the OP talks about (using search to find traps, etc) can already be done under current rules. They don't require additional skills or written guidelines. Just sufficient imagination.
I believe that every skill should be available to every class, and every use of a skill should be open to every person who has that skill.  Restricted skills is something I absolutely hated in 3e.

That is the problem, I think, with making the Rogue the "skill specialist."  In my current 4e group, there is no rogue, but I have a player whose cleric is a thief.  If the rogue gets specific uses of skills that only he can employ, like the example of using Spot (PLEASE rename this to Perception) to find traps over a certain DC or whatever, then groups lose the flexibility of choosing the characters they want to play so that they can provide utility to the group.

To be honest, the "skill monkey" rogue design reminds me of early Shadowrun.  I like to play deckers.  So, in combat, I wouldn't do much except maybe fire off a few shots with my pistol.  Then, when it was time to hack, the rest of the group would start talking amongst themselves, because hacking was a different thing that they literally couldn't affect.  I much prefer the setup in 4e Shadowrun, because my hacking is done at the same time and in the same way as combat, and that allows the others to remain engaged in the game.

Sure, this playtest isn't quite to that point, but it evokes those memories.  Why bother trying to roll for success myself when the rogue is guaranteed to succeed because he can't roll anything less than a 13?  At that point, the game becomes separated into two parts: combat, which lets the Fighter show off his combat skills and do a ton of damage, and out-of-combat, which allows he rogue to do everything else with minimal effort.

I'm not a huge fan of Skill Mastery as it is.  It's a nice idea, but I think that combined with the Bounded Accuracy system of static DCs that it creates a lot of problems in regards to challenging a group. 
And why do people think all classes should be equally good at combat, exploration, skill usage, etc?  That's not a classed system at all.  Sacrificing unique advantages and disadvantages in the name of "balance" will lead to blandness..
And why do people think all classes should be equally good at combat, exploration, skill usage, etc?  That's not a classed system at all.  Sacrificing unique advantages and disadvantages in the name of "balance" will lead to blandness..


I agree.  That's one of the things that I don't like about 4e - the food is the same, it's just the flavors that are different.  In saying that, the current iteration of the rogue is painfully boring.  Skill Mastery is cookie-cutter blah and not everyone wants their rogue to be the 1e/2e dungeon delving utility man.  

I do like the idea of different class paths for the rogue but I think that will be better covered by backgrounds and specializations.
And why do people think all classes should be equally good at combat, exploration, skill usage, etc?  That's not a classed system at all.  Sacrificing unique advantages and disadvantages in the name of "balance" will lead to blandness..


The problem comes when certain classes are considered "required" for a party.  If every party needs a cleric to heal and a rogue for traps and locks, then that leads to incredible blandness, as well.

The point is not to make everyone the same.  The point is to make sure that every class can contribute to every part of the game in a meaningful way.  If one class can dominate a portion of the game, whether it be combat or skill use, the game is ... less.

That's not say that it shouldn't be possible to make character that do, in fact, dominate in certain areas, but it should be a group choice, rather than the default assumption of the game. 
And why do people think all classes should be equally good at combat, exploration, skill usage, etc?  That's not a classed system at all.  Sacrificing unique advantages and disadvantages in the name of "balance" will lead to blandness..

No it won't. It's not like every class has just some generic "power level" rating in each pillar of the game that's added to every roll made in that pillar and then nothing else. Different classes should interact with each of the pillars in a way that makes sense for that class. Wizards and fighters can both contribute a lot to combat, but anyone who thinks that that's bland has what I would consider pretty unusual standards.

It's by no means necessary for every class to be exactly at 100% in all three pillars, but games are far more interesting when everyone is contributing in a way that makes sense for their class and abilities than when they're just taking turns handling things.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
If you take a bunch of scholarly sages into a dungeon, with no shock troops, they should expect to die. If you expect your party of four paladins should be able to handle the Twisty Tomb of Ten Thousand Traps without a thief, they should die. I am not seeing the problem here.
All the things the OP talks about (using search to find traps, etc) can already be done under current rules. They don't require additional skills or written guidelines. Just sufficient imagination.


Rogues can dodge half of the damage of a melee attack with an acrobatics check?

Maybe the examples given are the best or the most balanced, but they were just ideas thown out there to start the discussion.

No one is complaining that only the Fighter has combat superiority that let him do unique tricks during combat. What I suggest is giving the rogue "skill superiority" that give him unique use of skills. Eveyone will be able to use acrobatics to jump over a chasm, the rogue will just be the only that can dodge some attacks with it cause he is trained to do that, like the Fighter is trained to Parry, for example.

The thing is to avoid certain non sense like not being able to searcch for traps if your not a rogue. He an be better at it, but not the only one.  
If you expect your party of four paladins should be able to handle the Twisty Tomb of Ten Thousand Traps without a thief, they should die.


Why? What if one of those paladins is capable of finding and disarming traps because of prior training or experience? Are Rogues the only people in the world who can be sneaky, pick locks and find hidden devices?

Pigeon-holing every class into a narrow, pre-defined specialty is worse than giving the players the flexibility to play the character they want, especially when that specialty is a ham-fisted mechanic that removes drama and pushes the rest of the party to the sidelines.
Eliminate the class entirely, and fold it into Fighter.
" Why? What if one of those paladins is capable of finding and disarming traps because of prior training or experience?"

Then he is not a paladin, who is a specialist holy warrior.

This is what all these protests boil down to. "what if I want to play a thief, but he's not actually going to have any of the thief traits, like skills, or sneak attack, instead he studies magic all day and does spells. Why can't I play a magic throwing, skill-free thief, huh???" Dude, play a wizard. That's what you're describing.
" Why? What if one of those paladins is capable of finding and disarming traps because of prior training or experience?" Then he is not a paladin, who is a specialist holy warrior. This is what all these protests boil down to. "what if I want to play a thief, but he's not actually going to have any of the thief traits, like skills, or sneak attack, instead he studies magic all day and does spells. Why can't I play a magic throwing, skill-free thief, huh???" Dude, play a wizard. That's what you're describing.


You didn't answer the question. Why can't a Wizard pick locks? Why can't a fighter find traps? Why can't a Ranger be stealthy?

Because that's the way it was done 30 years ago?
" Why? What if one of those paladins is capable of finding and disarming traps because of prior training or experience?" Then he is not a paladin, who is a specialist holy warrior.


What if I'm playing a paladin of Sehanine?  Or maybe even a paladin of Zehir?  The paladin isn't the "must be Lawful Stupid" holy warrior anymore.

You didn't answer the question. Why can't a Wizard pick locks? Why can't a fighter find traps? Why can't a Ranger be stealthy?

Because that's the way it was done 30 years ago?



No, because that's the definition of the class.A ranger *can* be stealthy...just not as stealthy as a thief who trained in that art.  If the ranger wants to train in that art, it's not a ranger any more, it's a thief.

There is already a procedure for mixing abilities, and has been in every iteration of D&D.  It's called multiclassing.  What Paladin skill or ability were you planning on your theoretical paladin giving up in order to give her the ability to disarm traps?  How many fewer spells will your wizard know because he took the ability to pick locks?  
 
The Paladin has never been "Lawful Stupid."  The ability to fight nearly as well as the fighter and yet heal and turn undead like a cleric is not stupid.  But if you want him to suddenly dump the whole "Holy Warrior" thing, you're not looking for a Paladin anymore.  It's like asking for a "Horror movie," but not one you know, with any scares, and let it be a funny horror movie with a strong romance plot.  It turns out you didn't want a horror movie, you wanted a romantic comedy.  Same thing.



No, because that's the definition of the class.A ranger *can* be stealthy...just not as stealthy as a thief who trained in that art.  If the ranger wants to train in that art, it's not a ranger any more, it's a thief.


I would actually put forth that a ranger without Stealth is just a fighter that's specialized in archery or two-weapon fighting.  Part of the ranger's theme is being able to skulk about the woods unnoticed.  In that regard, the ranger and the rogue are very much two sides of the same coin: The rogue focuses on urban areas, while the ranger focuses on wilderness.

There is already a procedure for mixing abilities, and has been in every iteration of D&D.  It's called multiclassing.  What Paladin skill or ability were you planning on your theoretical paladin giving up in order to give her the ability to disarm traps?  How many fewer spells will your wizard know because he took the ability to pick locks?


Picking locks is not an ability; it's a skill.  And, yes, we already have a mechanism for having strange skills in Next: the Background system.  A paladin may have started his life on the streets, living the life of a cutpurse and second-story worker (kids were often used for this work).  But, somehow he discovered religion, and it changed his life so much that he became an ultimate representation of his deity's faith in the mortal world.  He needn't be Lawful Good.  Maybe he's Chaotic Good, and picking locks will help him in his mission for his deity.  Maybe he's a paladin of the Chaotic Evil god of poisons and assassins, and he views the ability to pick locks and sneak about as a major part of his worship.

The Paladin has never been "Lawful Stupid."  The ability to fight nearly as well as the fighter and yet heal and turn undead like a cleric is not stupid.  But if you want him to suddenly dump the whole "Holy Warrior" thing, you're not looking for a Paladin anymore.  It's like asking for a "Horror movie," but not one you know, with any scares, and let it be a funny horror movie with a strong romance plot.  It turns out you didn't want a horror movie, you wanted a romantic comedy.  Same thing.


I've only been playing D&D since 3E, but even I know that the phrase "Lawful Stupid" was coined precisely because of paladins.  Their alignment restriction was so inane that people literally had to roleplay them as somewhat dim-witted to fit in with a normal adventuring group.  This is not the case all the time, of course, but it happened often enough that the phrase gained widespread use.

I don't think that dealing with undead is inherently a function of the paladin class.  I think it's something that a paladin of Pelor or the Raven Queen would do, because those deities hate undead.  But, other deities' paladins wouldn't have such a problem with them.  Perhaps Corellon's paladins have bonuses against drow and spiders.  Perhaps Ioun's paladins are adept at gleaning knowledge from ruins.

The problem, I think stems from a difference of viewpoint.  You're looking at a class as a collection of mechanics.  I'm looking at a class as the first major theme of the character.  Specialty and background provide other layers of specialization.
If you're now arguing that the background and skill-set mechanics already exist to give you your lock-picking paladin, then you can't then complain that the system isn't providing you the options you want to customize your character.

But I maintain: those who think the paladin's alignment limitations equated to stupidity were simply playing the class incorrectly. The whole point is not "choose a class, then play it exactly opposite of its design then complain." The point is "decide first how you want to interact with the world, then choose a class which fits that play style." Otherwise, your frustration is your own fault.
That can explain why a paladin has picking locks, but it doesn't mean he will be as good as the rogue  or that he will be able to do unique things with picking locks like the OP suggested for the rogue.


Why not?  He has the skill.  He uses it frequently.  Why can't he be as good at it as a rogue, assuming both have the same Dexterity and Skill Mastery is not in play?  What makes the rogue so special?

Nothing.  The rogue is just a theme.  And any other theme (class) should be able to fully utilize every skill it might take.

It is more than a theme, they are specilizations they got from training in peticular fields.

I think it's the concept of specializing that you seems to be problematic. The pally trained to be a holy warrior, the rogue trained to be the skill monkey. This is why the rogue should be better at it.

It doesn't mean the pally can't do it, you gave a good example why he could, he just won't be as good. Thus maybe a bonus for rogues on certain skills and maybe unique use for them.


You're equating skills with class features and abilities.  Skills are an entirely different system, and the reason that I believe the rogue as a class is inherently flawed, as well as being the most boring of the "core four" in the current playtest.

The paladin who wanted to be able to pick locks made the sacrifice of another skill that might fit him better, say, for example, Diplomacy.  He should be able to fully utilize any skill he has, even if he's not a rogue.  The paladin got his training on the streets, just like the rogue did (background: Thief), and he continues to use those skills in pursuit of his new calling (class: Paladin).  Assuming equal Dexterity, there is no justification for saying "The rogue is just better."

The rogue is the guy that spends 10 hours a day doing acrobatics to dodge melee attacks. The pally spends 10 hours a day practicing melee combat.


This is referring to how they deal with combat--not how they employ skills outside of combat.

Now if the pally wants to do rogue tricks, well he can go "hybride" but for that he needs to trade pally abilities. This trade off means the pally trained in other anotehr field. 


As stated, the paladin got the exact same training the Rogue did.  The tradeoff is that the Paladin gives up the ability to use some other skill.  The tradeoff has already been made.

I'll ask my question again: What makes the rogue so special when it comes to skills?  As it currently stands, any Fighter can be just as knowledgeable as a Wizard when it comes to Arcane Lore.  Any Wizard can be just as knowledgeable (maybe even moreso) as a cleric when it comes to Religious Lore.  Why is the rogue some inviolate thing when it comes to picking locks or finding traps?

... Rogues could do things other classes can't do with the same skills. ...

An ability could let a Rogue use Acrobatics (when it comes around) to take half damage from a melee attack if he rolls higher on his skill check than what the attacker got on his attack roll.

Use Bluff to get advantage on a creature or let an ally get advantage on a creature. 

Be able to hide and move with the same action when using Stealth. Etc, etc...

I am reminded of D&D4e's Skill Powers.

Actually, I have become enamoured with the idea of the Rogue being the default base class upon which all others are built:
instead of choosing any number of useful skills from a broad array of possibilities, the basic Fighter, Wizard, and Priest are all narrow specialists who are left with little choice in comparison to the free lifestyle of the Rogue, who might specialize or dabble as he/she sees fit!

-DS



Picking locks is not an ability; it's a skill.  And, yes, we already have a mechanism for having strange skills in Next: the Background system.  A paladin may have started his life on the streets, living the life of a cutpurse and second-story worker (kids were often used for this work).  But, somehow he discovered religion, and it changed his life so much that he became an ultimate representation of his deity's faith in the mortal world.  He needn't be Lawful Good.  Maybe he's Chaotic Good, and picking locks will help him in his mission for his deity.  Maybe he's a paladin of the Chaotic Evil god of poisons and assassins, and he views the ability to pick locks and sneak about as a major part of his worship.


That can explain why a paladin has picking locks, but it doesn't mean he will be as good as the rogue  or that he will be able to do unique things with picking locks like the OP suggested for the rogue.



My paladin uses the Invocations of Justice and Freedom (a set of quick rites ) note how the following parallels thief skill uses...
Justice cannot be denied  - He pounds the door with the pommel of his weapon and with a shout divine power reverberates through it and with success the lock rings open almost with an answering shout not quiet but cool and relockable.
Warding the Baneful Device - a glowing rune appears on the trap so long as the glow is active the trap may seem to fire but it is harmless ghostly visuals and hollow sounds without bite and moments later it appears to once more be in an un-triggered state. A successful religion check befoul this ward and make the trap active once more. 
Freeing of Wealth Undeserved - similar at first glance to pick pocket but everyone knows exactly where the item came from. This check is made at +2 if the item was indeed stolen recently - also there is a presumption that the item was stolen previously which reduces the difficulty of bluffs or diplomacy checks towards convincing onlookers that the revealed item was stolen by the target.  This invocation "requires" a range of 1 to 4 squares.
Freeing the unjustly held ....
like the use of Acrobatics to Escape from restraints but may affect others at a range of up to 1 square. (this last basically replaces sleight of hand in the thieving skill usages)

The above is a in effect a set of cantrip/orisons that use charisma and otherwise act as a skill (in 4e).

My actual thought is assuming the paladins player spends appropriate design resources to achieve good at lock picking why shouldnt he be as good as the rogue. Especially since I am quite sure there are gods of thieves who has paladins and priests which are without a doubt thieves, and cant rogues be nobleman fencers who were raised to be knights and kings?

  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

Great points hipster, gj
Reasons why the rogue should be a skill monkey:


  • Because everyone expects that to be what a D&D rogue is.

  • Because skills are not a separate system than class anymore than hp are a separate system than race yet the Dwarves get extra hp

  • Because having a character that is good with skills almost in general doesn't prevent Wizards from getting some class feature that benefits their Arcane Lore

  • Because, for each skill, you can probably make up a rogue scheme where it would make sense to have such skill

  • Because your skill bonus doesn't determine completely how good you are at some task. It determines how likely you are to succeed, but as far as I can tell, in this edition, as you advance in level you get better successes (sneak attack and Deathly Strike are better succesful attacks), better failures (such as the Researcher trait, although that  is lvl 1) or more opportunities to roll and succeed (such as Thief Sneaking).

  • Because it can be balanced right (I think) 


Now, as far as my group is concerned, the rogue is so far the coolest class in D&Dnext. This are my toughts regarding it's excecution so far and particularly around skills:


  • Skill Mastery is a great concept. My group feels it is extremely right for the rogue. It is currently very overpowered and I would have had it so that 1 is still a failure.

  • Still, the ability to just know that there are certain things that for others would require a check but for you are an autosuccess has been so far pretty cool. As the DM, I figure it is because so far I have never made the check the challenge itself, just a piece of it.

  • It is very cool that the rogue gets an extra background.

  • Knack seems cool, but it might abuse the fact that for some problems, such as diplomacy, rolling 2 times makes as much sense as rolling 9.


I am not sure why this frustrate some people that a class is better at somethings than others. No one is complaining the fighter is better at combat. 


Actually, I do believe that the fighter's attack bonus needs to be brought in line with everyone else's now.

In 3E, the Fighter's (and Paladin's) higher attack bonus was made so that he could sacrifice that BAB for more damage and the like via feats such as Power Attack.  In Next, the expertise dice do that without any sacrifice in BAB.  Thus, I believe that the attack bonus should scale similarly to any other melee class.

I'm fine with the casters having lower melee bonuses, but I believe they need to have similar magic attack bonuses and saving throw DCs.
The problem is not that rogue shouldn't be better at something than other, just that the rogue archetypes do not all match the skill master profile.

Lazy pickpockets only good to steal, hide, flee, offer advantage to other fighter by playing dirty from afar, and sell anybody or anything for gold or safety are not more skill masters than others.

I would even say that rogues are more often depicted in fiction by being better at avoiding the result of their failures than being skill masters. They try often, but rarely succeed.
Rogues types often have in their background another antagonist rogue more successful than them and mocking them. And how often fantasy rogues start their new adventures imprisoned ?

That rogues have the opportunity to learn more skillls than most people due to their class bonds with any part of a society is okay, but making them masters at these skills is a discussable choice, even more when making them masters at every skills.

I agree with Mike Mearls when he said that the identity of the rogue should be : Trickster.

If you think my english is bad, just wait until you see my spanish and my italian. Defiling languages is an art.

Sign In to post comments