D&D 5E What is the "Generic" Rogue?

[Minigiant]

In many other topics, many D&D fans said the best part of the fighter class it that its mechanics and names invoked little flavor and thus allowed it to be variable enough to fill many fantasy archetypes for trained warriors. The fighter was always generic enough to be knights, gladiators, pirates, bodygaurds, nobles, mercenaries, magic warriors, cavaliers, marksmen, enlisted soldiers, pilots, fencers, dragon slayers, and other warriors to various degrees of success.

Some fans, including myself, were upset that other classes lacked this treatment. Even as an option. The major focus was on the rogue. In 5th edition if you are an adventurer but not an expert warrior or magic user, you're a professional burglar (thief) or a professional killer (assassin).

The class did start as thief only. Then if evolved to allow thief-acrobats and assassin. Then 3rd hit and almost anything skill related was allowed. The class had easy access to skill based prestige classes (assassin and arcane trickster being one of them). This continued in 4th were the base rogue had little flavor enforcement until the paragon paths (cat burglar, daggermaster, master infiltrator, and shadow assassin in the PHB1). Even during the playtest, the rogue had acrobat, rake, scout, and treasure hunter options.

However in 5th edition, the rogue archetype reverts back to choosing thief, assassin, and the magical arcane trickster. There was even some "taking of stuff" with the thief taking some of the acrobat and the assassin doing the same for spies. There is some lightness of the features with the flavor aspects not being too strong but they exist and are intended to be used to keep the class in line with the rest.

So is what is the generic rogue? What would a subclass for it be called? The treasure hunter? the adventurer? the scoundrel?
What roguish archetype features would it have?
OR
Is there no real way to bad a generic rogue in 5th edition? The limits of the rogue subclass is low. You really can't add to many skills and many options invoke specific flavors. Would it be better just to make new roguish archetypes to fill in the missing? The Arcobat for Robin wanabes. The Treasure Hunters for the Jones lookalikes. The Smuggler for the Pseudo-Solo. The Sapper for those crazy demomens.

What are your thoughts?

 

[Mephista]

So is what is the generic rogue? What would a subclass for it be called? The treasure hunter? the adventurer? the scoundrel?
What roguish archetype features would it have?

Currently? Its the thief subclass. Despite the name, the thief is a master acrobat and temple explorer, being able to climb and run around so quickly. There's a reason why its the Basic document class. Its the equivalent of the generic Life-healer cleric archetype.

 

[steeldragons]

Well, in a way, you answer you own query...the default/generic "rogue" is the Thief. That's that it was created as and has had a place as even since 3e changed the class name...to the significantly more broad term of "rogue"...creating this issue in the first place since, now, the class has this "what is it supposed to be" problem...where B/X, BECM, 1e "Thief" or 2e "Rogue" as category and thief as default, there really was no question what your archetype was. 3e+ changing the CLASS name has created this issue. Whether this was right/wrong/good/bad is a matter of different debate, since it's happened...how to deal with it.

Here's how I look at "Rogues"...
1. They are the "skill" class.

2. Primary, if not defining, skills must be/are a) Stealth and b) Sleight of Hand (applicable to many different things from picking pockets/palming objections, running scams/cheating at gambling, juggling, etc...etc...) "Sneak Attack (nee Backstab)" is not/should not be one of the rogue's defining/overarching features.

3. What skills apply beyond that are what shape the given rogue archetype.

Throw in lock-picking, trap finding/disabling, pickpocketing/sleight of hand...you get a burglar/thief...

[I do, as an aside, want to take this moment for an aside to note, since the terms tends to get thrown around as synonymous...the point of the "burglar" is to get in, bypass traps/guardians, get the treasure/target/item, and get out...WITHOUT BEING NOTICED! You are not trying to fight guards/kill anything. You are not trying to take anything/everything you can. No one should know you were THERE or anything is missing until you are, preferably, long gone.

Also, IMO the inclusion of "Backstab" as a core element of the Thief class was a mistake. Flavorful yes. Immediately recognizable and, likely, the cause of many a game's player v. player/PC stealing from PC shenanigans..."What's a thief?" Someone who will, quite literally and figuratively, backstab you. I understand it was probably from the wargaming roots...the character class needed something it could do that other classes couldn't to cause damage in combat different from Fighters/Warrior types....but it's continued inclusion and subsequent prominence has done nothing to HELP the thief/rogue class's definition...again, imo. /Aside]

Throw in lock-picking, disguise, maybe some deciphering/language skills, sneak attack/backstab...there's your assassin (which I will always contend was another mistake of 1e...as much as I understand why it was...and naming the subclass "Spy" would have been much better.)
Throw in tumbling/agility, reflexes/balance stuff...you get an acrobat.
Throw in a little [illusion] magic...your arcane trickster.
Throw in some nature/survival, some tracking...you have yourself a little scout/thiefy-ranger action.
Throw in some acrobatics and nautical stuff...you get a swashbuckler.
etc...etc...etc...ad infinitum.

This could be extended by subclass/archetype design (and has been in various editions and OSR/retroclone games) to include monks, bards...perhaps even rangers as a whole.

Stealth + Sleight of Hand + whatever other skills/features = Rogue character type.

If an archetype doesn't need stealth or have something they can do with sleight of hand...doesn't matter what other skills they possess, they don't need to be a Rogue class.

So, as for 5e's design and structure, it seems clear the solution is to create multiple more subclass archetypes that cover major roguish character types that can not, currently, be.

So...what is the default/generic rogue? The thief. I can be the street urchin pickpocket, the cat burglar, the smuggler, the fence, the scam artist, the cardshark/"hustler", the black market supplier, the archeologist or just plain greedy treasure hunter who researches/knows where to find the artifacts, I can be the knife-fighter or carnival knife-thrower/juggler, the highwayman/bandit, the scoundrel, the street thug or organized crime enforcer,...the organized crime BOSS/guildmaster, for that matter.

For me, the term "Thief" is suitably generic (and has far too much tradition/legacy behind it) to be replaced by something else just because someone wants to play "Indiana Jones", thinks they should be a "rogue", but can not wrap their head around taking the thief class features without filing off the name/"thief" just being something on the character sheet.

Things like "Rake", "Cad", "Scoundrel" all have, I think, a more limited feel/meaning than rogue or thief. Yeah, the term "rogue" is more generic than thief...but following 5e's naming conventions, you can't have a Rogue class with a Rogue subclass. Would the class "Thief" with the subclass "Rogue" be better? I don't think so. I think the titles need to stay as they are...the Thief as the default/generic "Rogue" and other archetypes that are different enough [and it is, of course, a fuzzy ever-shifting line from person to person as to what "different enough" is] can simply be developed and added.

...Soooo...that answer some of what you asked? hahaha. Anywho, those're my thoughts on rogue classes/archetypes, in general and for 5e.

 

[Minigiant]

Currently? Its the thief subclass. Despite the name, the thief is a master acrobat and temple explorer, being able to climb and run around so quickly. There's a reason why its the Basic document class. Its the equivalent of the generic Life-healer cleric archetype.

Then the generic rogue as the thief as thus has Fast Hands, Second Story Work, Use Magic Device and Thief reflexes.

It sorta works but is a less than stellar way to acrobats, archaeologists, demolitions experts, drivers, and scouts.

The thief might be the basic rogue but not the generic customizable rogue.

Well, in a way, you answer you own query...the default/generic "rogue" is the Thief. That's that it was created as and has had a place as even since 3e changed the class name...to the significantly more broad term of "rogue"...creating this issue in the first place since, now, the class has this "what is it supposed to be" problem...where B/X, BECM, 1e "Thief" or 2e "Rogue" as category and thief as default, there really was no question what your archetype was. 3e+ changing the CLASS name has created this issue. Whether this was right/wrong/good/bad is a matter of different debate, since it's happened...how to deal with it.

Here's how I look at "Rogues"...
1. They are the "skill" class.

2. Primary, if not defining, skills must be/are a) Stealth and b) Sleight of Hand (applicable to many different things from picking pockets/palming objections, running scams/cheating at gambling, juggling, etc...etc...) "Sneak Attack (nee Backstab)" is not/should not be one of the rogue's defining/overarching features.

3. What skills apply beyond that are what shape the given rogue archetype.

Throw in lock-picking, trap finding/disabling, pickpocketing/sleight of hand...you get a burglar/thief...

[I do, as an aside, want to take this moment for an aside to note, since the terms tends to get thrown around as synonymous...the point of the "burglar" is to get in, bypass traps/guardians, get the treasure/target/item, and get out...WITHOUT BEING NOTICED! You are not trying to fight guards/kill anything. You are not trying to take anything/everything you can. No one should know you were THERE or anything is missing until you are, preferably, long gone.

Also, IMO the inclusion of "Backstab" as a core element of the Thief class was a mistake. Flavorful yes. Immediately recognizable and, likely, the cause of many a game's player v. player/PC stealing from PC shenanigans..."What's a thief?" Someone who will, quite literally and figuratively, backstab you. I understand it was probably from the wargaming roots...the character class needed something it could do that other classes couldn't to cause damage in combat different from Fighters/Warrior types....but it's continued inclusion and subsequent prominence has done nothing to HELP the thief/rogue class's definition...again, imo. /Aside]

Throw in lock-picking, disguise, maybe some deciphering/language skills, sneak attack/backstab...there's your assassin (which I will always contend was another mistake of 1e...as much as I understand why it was...and naming the subclass "Spy" would have been much better.)
Throw in tumbling/agility, reflexes/balance stuff...you get an acrobat.
Throw in a little [illusion] magic...your arcane trickster.
Throw in some nature/survival, some tracking...you have yourself a little scout/thiefy-ranger action.
Throw in some acrobatics and nautical stuff...you get a swashbuckler.
etc...etc...etc...ad infinitum.

This could be extended by subclass/archetype design (and has been in various editions and OSR/retroclone games) to include monks, bards...perhaps even rangers as a whole.

Stealth + Sleight of Hand + whatever other skills/features = Rogue character type.

If an archetype doesn't need stealth or have something they can do with sleight of hand...doesn't matter what other skills they possess, they don't need to be a Rogue class.

So, as for 5e's design and structure, it seems clear the solution is to create multiple more subclass archetypes that cover major roguish character types that can not, currently, be.

So...what is the default/generic rogue? The thief. I can be the street urchin pickpocket, the cat burglar, the smuggler, the fence, the scam artist, the cardshark/"hustler", the black market supplier, the archeologist or just plain greedy treasure hunter who researches/knows where to find the artifacts, I can be the knife-fighter or carnival knife-thrower/juggler, the highwayman/bandit, the scoundrel, the street thug or organized crime enforcer,...the organized crime BOSS/guildmaster, for that matter.

For me, the term "Thief" is suitably generic (and has far too much tradition/legacy behind it) to be replaced by something else just because someone wants to play "Indiana Jones", thinks they should be a "rogue", but can not wrap their head around taking the thief class features without filing off the name/"thief" just being something on the character sheet.

Things like "Rake", "Cad", "Scoundrel" all have, I think, a more limited feel/meaning than rogue or thief. Yeah, the term "rogue" is more generic than thief...but following 5e's naming conventions, you can't have a Rogue class with a Rogue subclass. Would the class "Thief" with the subclass "Rogue" be better? I don't think so. I think the titles need to stay as they are...the Thief as the default/generic "Rogue" and other archetypes that are different enough [and it is, of course, a fuzzy ever-shifting line from person to person as to what "different enough" is] can simply be developed and added.

...Soooo...that answer some of what you asked? hahaha. Anywho, those're my thoughts on rogue classes/archetypes, in general and for 5e.

Default and generic isn't the same thing though.

I can get the Stealth, thieves tools, and Sneak Attack focus.
You are going into dangerous areas. These places are filled with traps and monsters.
And you are not training to fight nor know powerful magic.
You have to cheat and hide just to survive. It makes sense.

But Burglary and Assassination aren't requirements. You could be a scout or lookout for a gang or agency who tails VIPs and needs to know how to fight if spotted. Or a smuggler or getaway driver who needs to know how to knock a foe who double crossed you. Or you could be a scientist or explorer how needs to go to dangerous places to practice his or her craft. Or you could be a saboteur who needs stealth to plant the bombs in the enemy dragon's cave or orc den and sneak attack to fight the incoming guards after the boom who didn't die in the blast.

Scroll tricks and Pickpocketing are not required.


The thief may be the default rogue.
The thief may be the basic rogue.
The thief in not the generic rogue.


Just how a fighter isn't necessarily a knight or military soldier, a rogue need not be a thief or assassin.

 

[steeldragons]

The thief may be the default rogue.
The thief may be the basic rogue.
The thief in not the generic rogue.

I understand what you mean that it isn't "generic"...but you are equating "Thief" to "Fighter"...instead of "Rogue" to "Fighter" and "Thief" to "Champion"...which is what 5e does.

Just how a fighter isn't necessarily a knight or military soldier, a rogue need not be a thief or assassin.

Right. A Fighter isn't necessarily a knight or military commander [Battlemaster] or, necessarily, a "hard hitter" [Champion] but those are the subclasses we've started with. A Fighter gets its base elements of WHAT a fighter does, and then the subclass adds and expands on the HOW they do that. The concept of "Fighter" (not "Champion") is generic.

Rogue isn't necessarily a thief or an assassin...but those are the archetypes we started with. The ROGUE gets its base elements of WHAT a rogue does, and then the subclass (thief or assassin) adds and expands on the HOW they do that. The concept of "Rogue" (not Thief) is generic.

The Rogue, at its root, is getting Expertise, Sneak Attack, and Cunning Action (and thieves' cant, but we'll just stipulate to that...as a rogue of any stripe you know how to chat with folks that might be otherwise...shall we say, "disreputable."). From that Rogue you can go in whatever direction you want subclass-wise.

Yes, the Champion, arguably, is more "generic" as the "default" Fighter class. But, as I said, the Thief allows for a wide variety of broad characters, whether the character sheet says "Thief" on it or not, and thus suitably (to me) "generic" as the "default" Rogue class.

You could be a scout or lookout for a gang or agency who tails VIPs and needs to know how to fight if spotted. Or a smuggler or getaway driver who needs to know how to knock a foe who double crossed you. Or you could be a scientist or explorer how needs to go to dangerous places to practice his or her craft. Or you could be a saboteur who needs stealth to plant the bombs in the enemy dragon's cave or orc den and sneak attack to fight the incoming guards after the boom who didn't die in the blast.

These are all very specific archetypes, and (I would add) largely dependent on nothing more than RP. Your issue seems to come from the attitude/perspective that each/every one of these ideas is deserving of its own personalized mechanics...and that, in 5e's design structure/philosophy, just isn't so. Yet you are arguing that there should be a generic enough rogue class in which cover all of these options...it is...confusing.

There is no reason I can't play an Indiana Jones type character with the thief subclass. There's no reason I cannot play a James Bond with the Assassin. There is no reason I can't do a "demo expert" or "smuggler" (or scout either) as either one. A lookout? A getaway driver? Really? You need new/different subclass that's not a thief to play a lookout or getaway driver?

I am all for (and am working on, myself) a variety of new Rogue subclasses...but they are not really dependent on that level of granular story/specialty. They need to be generic enough and have enough story assumption without setting specificity to warrant their creation as a subclass...for me.

But a "generic" in the sense of "covers any possible rogue type [you've] described here" does not seem possible. You are looking for a class/subclass that allows all of these things...but that have specialized/individual skills...that...isn't possible[1]. I'm not sure what else to tell you.

[1]It isn't possible without being so generic as to be meaningless. Such as, "Explorer: now just hand-pick X individual skills from this list over here." By the design framework and apparent goal of 5e, that just isn't going to fly/jive for many players.

 

[Greg K]

Personally, I don't equate rogue with archaeologist (I don't base my archetype on Indiana Jones or Laura Craft), demolition expert, or driver.
I also don't see a need for a generic rogue to have thief tools, magic ability, or sneak attack (other than the D&D thief originally had pick locks, disable traps, backstab, and later the ability to use scrolls).

 

[Minigiant]

I understand what you mean that it isn't "generic"...but you are equating "Thief" to "Fighter"...instead of "Rogue" to "Fighter" and "Thief" to "Champion"...which is what 5e does.

I am equating Fighter to Champion and Rogue to ???.

I'm asking if ??? exists or not.

Right. A Fighter isn't necessarily a knight or military commander [Battlemaster] or, necessarily, a "hard hitter" [Champion] but those are the subclasses we've started with. A Fighter gets its base elements of WHAT a fighter does, and then the subclass adds on the HOW they do that. The concept of "Fighter" (not "Champion") is generic.

Rogue isn't necessarily a thief or an assassin...but those are the archetypes we started with. The ROGUE gets its base elements of WHAT a rogue does, and then the subclass (thief or assassin) adds on the HOW they do that. The concept of "Rogue" (not Thief) is generic.

The Rogue, at its root, is getting Expertise, Sneak Attack, and Cunning Action (and thieves' cant, but we'll just stipulate to that...as a rogue of any stripe you know how to chat with folks that might be otherwise...shall we say, "disreputable."). From that Rogue you can go in whatever direction you want subclass-wise.

Yes, the Champion, arguably, is more "generic" as the "default" Fighter class. But, as I said, the Thief allows for a wide variety of broad characters, whether the character sheet says "Thief" on it or not, and thus suitably (to me) "generic" as the "default" Rogue class.

These are all very specific archetypes, and (I would add) largely dependent on nothing more than RP. Your issue seems to come from the attitude/perspective that each/every one of these ideas is deserving of its own personalized mechanics...and that, in 5e's design structure/philosophy, just isn't so. Yet you are arguing that there should be a generic enough rogue class in which cover all of these options...it is...confusing.

There is no reason I can't play an Indiana Jones type character with the thief subclass. There's no reason I cannot play a James Bond with the Assassin. There is no reason I can't do a "demo expert" or "smuggler" (or scout either) as either one. A lookout? A getaway driver? Really? You need new/different subclass that's not a thief to play a lookout or getaway driver?

I am all for (and am working on, myself) a variety of new Rogue subclasses...but they are not really dependent on that level of granular story/specialty. They need to be generic enough and have enough story assumption without setting specificity to warrant their creation as a subclass...for me.

Well that's my whole question.

Is the Thief archetype generic enough to fit all those "role play" archetypes or does the Thief ssubclass features either imply too much theivery OR not provide enough meat for the other archetypes?

But a "generic" in the sense of "covers any possible rogue type [you've] described here" does not seem possible. You are looking for a class/subclass that allows all of these things...but that have specialized/individual skills...that...isn't possible[1]. I'm not sure what else to tell you.

[1]It isn't possible without being so generic as to be meaningless. Such as, "Explorer: now just hand-pick X individual skills from this list over here." By the design framework and apparent goal of 5e, that just isn't going to fly/jive for many players.

Why not?
The 3rd edition rogue nor the 4th edition rogue forced imagery past the basic rogue stuff (Stealth, Dexerity light armor, simple weapons, Sneak Attack)

Why can't there be a generic roguish archetype to fill in the gaps in thief, assassin, and arcane trickster? It really isn't that hard to make boring generic stuff.

The matter is if it is worth it, if these archetype need their own subclasses, or if the thief does a suitable job for them already.

 

[steeldragons]

I am equating Fighter to Champion and Rogue to ???.

I'm asking if ??? exists or not.

And have been told by at least two posters that, yes ??? exists...and its called the thief.

Is the Thief archetype generic enough to fit all those "role play" archetypes or does the Thief ssubclass features either imply too much theivery OR not provide enough meat for the other archetypes?

Yes.

Why not?
The 3rd edition rogue nor the 4th edition rogue forced imagery past the basic rogue stuff (Stealth, Dexerity light armor, simple weapons, Sneak Attack)

And, as this is neither 3 nor 4e, we need not worry about what they did. However, 5e did this also...they called it Rogue....ANY rogue, gets light armor...gets simple weapons....gets Sneak Attack...gets Expertise: choose Stealth if that what you want expertise in/think the "everyrogue" should have...Everything you're saying 3 & 4, did 5e put in the BASE of the class. It's there already.

Why can't there be a generic roguish archetype to fill in the gaps in thief, assassin, and arcane trickster? It really isn't that hard to make boring generic stuff.

And why would anyone want to play boring generic stuff? What boring generic stuff do your examples have in common that would be the basis of this subclass that covers saboteurs/scientists/archaeologists [HUGE setting/campaign assumptions implied there] and lookouts/getaway drivers [henchman/NPC AND setting assumptions]?

The matter is if it is worth it, if these archetype need their own subclasses, or if the thief does a suitable job for them already.

No, these corner-case and/or defined-by-roleplay characters are not worth it. Yes, the thief covers most of these just fine...nobody says you have to use all of their tricks/thievery stuff. Play how you want the character to be...not look to/rely on mechanics to do it for you.

 

[Bacon Bits]

D&D Basic presents the most generic and version of the game. I would argue that best exemplifies the 4 basic classes in their purest form with the most similarity to the earliest versions of the game. In that subset of the rules, Rogues have one archetype: Thief.

 

[Minigiant]

And have been told by at least two posters that, yes ??? exists...and its called the thief.

And that's what I was looking for.

And, as this is neither 3 nor 4e, we need not worry about what they did. However, 5e did this also...they called it Rogue....ANY rogue, gets light armor...gets simple weapons....gets Sneak Attack...gets Expertise: choose Stealth if that what you want expertise in/think the "everyrogue" should have...Everything you're saying 3 & 4, did 5e put in the BASE of the class. It's there already.

I understand what the base is.

My issue is the Roguish Archetypes. I was wondering if they add too much flavor in name and/or in mechanics.

And why would anyone want to play boring generic stuff? What boring generic stuff do your examples have in common that would be the basis of this subclass that covers saboteurs/scientists/archaeologists [HUGE setting/campaign assumptions implied there] and lookouts/getaway drivers [henchman/NPC AND setting assumptions]?

Because that person thing the current roguish archetype adds too many aspects to their PC that don't fit it while not adding enough that do.

No, these corner-case and/or defined-by-roleplay characters are not worth it. Yes, the thief covers most of these just fine...nobody says you have to use all of their tricks/thievery stuff. Play how you want the character to be...not look to/rely on mechanics to do it for you.

Scouts, academics, and expert at street level activities aren't rare. A setting could easily have more of them than full fledged soldiers and D&D has all kinds of reasons to shove them down a dungeon.

If the thief is the generic, why is there an assassin?
Couldn't a thief just get proficiency in poisoner's kit and disguise kit and be an assassin?


---
Note, I'm not attacking your position. I believe the thief does pull off a B- or C+ at filling most rogue archetypes with a proper background, ability array, and maybe a feat.
But I do believe a B- or C+ isn't good enough and something should be done for some popular nonthief nonassassin rogues. Whether a "generic rogue" or just more new roguish archetypes, I don't know.
I like the upcoming swashbuckler to do the duelist. And I still think more can be done with acrobatics, perception, and academic skills.