Rogue is bad designed?

[Deadandamnation]

I was looking at the rogue class and i felt a little disappointed by design.

1) They don't get shields and have to use finesse weapons that entirely make brutish or defensive rogues unplayable from the beginning.

2) Two-Weapon Style is good if you are a Ranger, Barbarian or Fighter but if you are a Rogue it really sucks.

3) Archery seems the only style a rogue can play effectively.

4) Only the Assassin got a good power but after level 3 you don't gain anything spectacular. The other two simply sucks.

5) Cunning Action is a good ability and incentive a nice playstyle but...can't be used in conjunction with an old staple TWF style.

6) Rogues don't get Extra Attack...ok can be a balancing choiche but: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Monk all get they extra attack why rogues don't?

7) Multiclassing is the only way to optimize many classes but you can still perform good getting 20 levels.
With rogue seems to me that multiclassing is not an option is simply a thing that is better in any case.

Am I wrong?

[Spacehamster]

I was looking at the rogue class and i felt a little disappointed by design.

1) They don't get shields and have to use finesse weapons that entirely make brutish or defensive rogues unplayable from the beginning.

2) Two-Weapon Style is good if you are a Ranger, Barbarian or Fighter but if you are a Rogue it really sucks.

3) Archery seems the only style a rogue can play effectively.

4) Only the Assassin got a good power but after level 3 you don't gain anything spectacular. The other two simply sucks.

5) Cunning Action is a good ability and incentive a nice playstyle but...can't be used in conjunction with an old staple TWF style.

6) Rogues don't get Extra Attack...ok can be a balancing choiche but: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Monk all get they extra attack why rogues don't?

7) Multiclassing is the only way to optimize many classes but you can still perform good getting 20 levels.
With rogue seems to me that multiclassing is not an option is simply a thing that is better in any case.

Am I wrong?

The rogue is good for what its role is, skill monky and utility and decent single target dpr. :)

[Naanomi]

1) which version of dnd had 'Brute rogues' without multiclassing? Fighter/rogue is an amazing build for that sort of thing

2) two-weapon fighting is great for rogues; if you miss your backstab it gives you another shot. Also, swashbucklers. Also, it isn't a great style for other classes really, a niche build for each at best

4) rogue is a class where subclass is gravy on top of a good base, compared to some classes where subclass dominates mechanically (ranger)

5) TWF gives another option, rogues are about options

6) swashbucklers

7) pure rogues are good, but do multiclass well; my 'disguise master' in a game is pure rogue and doesn't regret it at all

[smcmike]

I LIKE that two-weapon fighting isn't the automatic best option. I like my rogues with a finesse weapon in one hand and nothing in the other.

[Shaofoo]

Am I wrong?

Yep, very much wrong.


I was looking at the rogue class and i felt a little disappointed by design.

1) They don't get shields and have to use finesse weapons that entirely make brutish or defensive rogues unplayable from the beginning.

This makes no sense, they can wear light armor (which means max 17 AC), has an ability that halves all damage and lets you take no damage or half damage on area attacks. I think they are plenty survivability even without feats and adding medium armor proficiency which gives you shields.

Their damage is comparable to all other front line users, might not be top tier but close enough.


2) Two-Weapon Style is good if you are a Ranger, Barbarian or Fighter but if you are a Rogue it really sucks.

Two weapon fighting is good if you want to make sure you land your Sneak Attack since both attacks can proc Sneak Attack. You want to deal that massive hit.


3) Archery seems the only style a rogue can play effectively.

Melee Rogue without feats deals more damage than ranged rogue, if you value range over damage then that is your preference but it doesn't invalidate the choice.


4) Only the Assassin got a good power but after level 3 you don't gain anything spectacular. The other two simply sucks.

Sure if all you care about is combat then they are pretty bad considering they give 0 combat help. If you care about combat then go Fighter, the Rogue is a class where people want to be good at things outside of fighting.


5) Cunning Action is a good ability and incentive a nice playstyle but...can't be used in conjunction with an old staple TWF style.

Cunning Action doesn't invalidate TWF, you can use one or the other, having two weapons doesn't prevent Cunning Action. You can't do both in one turn but that is the cost that you must consider to either go TWF or go Cunning Action, it is a feature that you can't do both.


6) Rogues don't get Extra Attack...ok can be a balancing choiche but: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Monk all get they extra attack why rogues don't?

See TWF and Sneak Attack


7) Multiclassing is the only way to optimize many classes but you can still perform good getting 20 levels.
With rogue seems to me that multiclassing is not an option is simply a thing that is better in any case.

Rogue's capstone of autohitting a miss or taking 20 on a skillcheck per short rest is very powerful. And all the other things are just as good.

It seems that you are complaining that the Rogue isn't a Fighter, it will never be as good of a Fighter at fighting but it beats the Fighter several times when it comes to skills.

If all you care about is fighting then go Fighter, the Rogue is a poor Fighter substitute.

[Necroticplague]

1) which version of dnd had 'Brute rogues' without multiclassing? Fighter/rogue is an amazing build for that sort of thing

3.5 and 4e, to my knowledge. 4e had Brutal Scoundrel, a STR based rogue, and some decent support for it. Even the Essnetials version, the theif, had support for STR based builds. In 3.e, there was absolutely nothing that prohibits you from just using high STR and a two handed weapon for a sneak attack (getting the SA from flanking with a buddy), so it was a fairly viable build (since Weapon Finesse gives you to hit, but not damage, while STR gives you to-hit and damage).

[JellyPooga]

Short Answer; Yes, you're wrong.

To answer in more depth;

1) I don't think Shields even fit a "brute Rogues" style, for a start. If you do want heavier armour and a Shield, take a Feat for it. Secondly; the difference between the 1d6 of a Shortsword and the 1d8 of a Longsword when you have 18 Strength is negligible (only 1pt of damage on average); "Brute Rogues" work just fine, even with finesse weapons.

2) So? Why should TWF be a thing for Rogues anyway? Besides, TWF allows the Rogue two chances at Sneak Attack (his primary source if damage) and that is a good thing.

3) Archery is good for Rogues, but so is melee. Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge mean that a Rogue can stand up with the "bruisers" in melee, perhaps more than you might expect.

4) Assassin is good, but isn't a clear outlier compared to the other Archetypes. Arcane Trickster has all the versatility of magic at his disposal and if you don't think Fast Hands is worth anything then you haven't given it the thought it's due, not to mention the other abilities the Thief archetype gets.

5) I'll say it again; why should a Rogue be good at TWF? Cunning Action is very nearly broken in its utility; it's one of the best abilities in the game and only the Rogue gets it. I'll happily trade the option of TWF at all for Cunning Action and that's even assuming TWF is useless (which it isn't).

6) Rogues don't need it. They are the biggest single-shot hitters in the game. Why bother with two attacks when you've got a single attack that can deal up to 73 points of damage (assuming a maximum ability score of 20 and no other damage riders)?

7) Multiclassing with Rogue is a solid option for other classes because the Rogue has abilities that outstrip of enhance so many other Classes abilities. A straight Class Rogue, on the other hand, gets significantly less for dipping into other Classes than vice-versa.

Simply put, the Rogue is a solid contender for the title of best class in 5ed, in my opinion. Full Casters have him licked on the Alpha Strike or on a short adventuring day, but for sheer utility and staying power the Rogue has it all; he's got reliable every-round all-day damage, he can happily tank up alongside Barbarians, he can skill his way through social and environmental challenges and pretty much has an answer to every situation...and isn't reliant on resting. Like, at all (Arcane Tricksters suffer a little, obviously, but even they can manage better than pretty much any other class without a rest, wheter long or short).

[Tanarii]

Am I wrong?yes, on all counts but one. Others have covered the reasons why. But you have a fair point with:

7) Multiclassing is the only way to optimize many classes but you can still perform good getting 20 levels.
With rogue seems to me that multiclassing is not an option is simply a thing that is better in any case.Close. Single class is definitely viable. But Rogues, along with Fighters, are one of the best classes to multiclass out of at high level if you want to stack some utility on top of what you already have instead of finishing out the single class. For Rogues, the typical point to break out point is after level 13 or 14.

Very very IMO, this was intentional. I'm fairly sure that Fighters and Rogues were considered to be the go-to basic/default classes, including for MC with other classes, and designed as such. To be flexible and balanced enough to have many good MC break-out (or break-in) points spread across their levels.

[bid]

Am I wrong?
Yes.:smallsigh:

[Snowbluff]

1) which version of dnd had 'Brute rogues' without multiclassing? Fighter/rogue is an amazing build for that sort of thing

Um... 4th edition had great options for strength based rogues, like the counter attack based power and adding str to sneak attack damage. 3.5 had rogues with great swords and power attack, which worked out fine. 1st edition, it looks credible, too, since rogue backstage were a multiplier.

[The_Ditto]

I played a gnome rogue in my campaign, did melee, used two weapons, but didn't go any feats towards it.
only feats I took: Mobility and Lucky ... then did stat boosts.

I was doing great single target damage ... *shrug* ... never really felt a problem ... was never in melee long enough for anyone to tag me ... and the occasional shots at me, my uncanny dodge diminished.

*shrug* .. and yeah, the out of combat skills worked well ... so never felt weak or anything ...

[ad_hoc]

I think assassin is the weakest of the Rogue subclasses.

It is the most niche as it doesn't fit in well with standard group play.

[Malifice]

They don't get shields and have to use finesse weapons that entirely make brutish or defensive rogues unplayable from the beginning.

Is a shield using Rogue inline with the archetype? Theyve never gotten shield proficiency before. If you want to use one, youre a fighter dip or a feat (moderately armored) away from it.

Re finesse weapons; partly agree. I would like to see a feat that allows sneak attack with non finesse weapons. I use one as a homebrew in my own campaign.


Two-Weapon Style is good if you are a Ranger, Barbarian or Fighter but if you are a Rogue it really sucks.

Fighting with two weapons with a rogue is amazing. It gives you two chances to land your sneak attack. The drawback is that if you do swing with your second weapon, you cant use cunning action to move away (unless youre a swashbuckler, or have the mobile feat). This makes it an intentional risk/reward choice. Feature not bug.


Archery seems the only style a rogue can play effectively.

Still has its problems. Rogues need to shoot at a creature threatened by an ally. This also usually involves taking a cover penalty to hit. Melee is the most reliable method (no cover penalty and you have the option of TWF).


Only the Assassin got a good power but after level 3 you don't gain anything spectacular. The other two simply sucks.

The assasinate ability is incredibly situational. You need to both approach the enemy unseen and unheard (usually on your own, as if the enemy spots an ally, it isnt surprised), AND roll higher on initiative to pul it off. A creature is only surprised if it fails to notice anyone at all, and it stops being surprised after its first turn (where it does nothing).

The archetypes are perfectly balanced against each other. The higher level Thief abilities are amazing, and the Rogue chassis itself is brilliant.


Cunning Action is a good ability and incentive a nice playstyle but...can't be used in conjunction with an old staple TWF style.

Exactly. Its a risk v reward thing. If you miss with your first attack, you have the option of swinging again, retreating or moving. Its an intentional choice.


Rogues don't get Extra Attack...ok can be a balancing choiche but: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Monk all get they extra attack why rogues don't?

They dont need it. Its a nice to have, not a must have.


Multiclassing is the only way to optimize many classes but you can still perform good getting 20 levels.

With rogue seems to me that multiclassing is not an option is simply a thing that is better in any case.


Single class Rogues are amazing. Theyre one of the best designed classes in the game. In fact theyre borderline broken with skill use, particularly after 10th level. The absolute minimum they score with at least 4 skills is 18+stat, which considering bounded accuracy is an auto win 9/10.


Am I wrong?

Yes.


Rogues, along with Fighters, are one of the best classes to multiclass out of at high level if you want to stack some utility on top of what you already have instead of finishing out the single class. For Rogues, the typical point to break out point is after level 13 or 14.

Slippery mind (prof in wisdom saves), blindsense (auto detect hidden and invisible), elusive (ignore disadvantage to attack rolls), stroke of luck (1/short rest auto succeed attack roll or skill check), thiefs reflexes (take 2 x turns in the first round of every combat) and an extra +3d6 sneak attack isnt worth it?

I disagree. If I've ridden Rogue out to 14th, I'm sticking with it. You get very little MCing out at that point; those are some pretty amazing abilities that you would struggle matching with 6-7 levels in another class.

[Clancey]

I love playing Rogues. Had a Halfling Assassin and did not like it as much as my High Elf Arcane Trickster, but I just joined an AL game with the new Swashbuckler (Wood Elf) and am having a great time with it. The swing - no opportunity attack is great, as is the sneak attack when I am the only character within 5' of an adversary. I use the off-hand attack only when I don't hit with my main weapon, so cunning action is still there if I need it. I would have liked the fighting style built into the character, and when I make 4th level, I am going to take the Two Handed feat so I can use my +1 rapier and another rapier for the off-hand. I might take one level of fighter to get the off-hand bonus after I get to 6th level, but I'll see how that plays out. I wish I didn't have to take a feat and miss the dex bonus (auto corrected as sex bonus, BTW) but at least I'll get the bump in AC due to the feat. He's pretty tanky and will really hit his stride at 5th level. As it is, I've gotten my sneak damage on most of my rounds and can duck and weave like crazy. My other Rogues have been the bow from afar, hide variety, so this one is a gas. It's all in what you like to play - thank goodness we have a player who likes playing Clerics, as I am used to getting little to no damage with my sneaky Rogues, but HAVE suffered a lot more damage with this character, but again, that should be lessened when I get to halve my damage at 5th level!

[Flashy]

Single class Rogues are amazing. Theyre one of the best designed classes in the game. In fact theyre borderline broken with skill use, particularly after 10th level. The absolute minimum they score with at least 4 skills is 18+stat, which considering bounded accuracy is an auto win 9/10.

Yeah, Reliable Talent is arguably the single best class feature in the game.

[Malifice]

Yeah, Reliable Talent is arguably the single best class feature in the game.

It just makes them so... reliable!


I wish I didn't have to take a feat and miss the dex bonus (auto corrected as sex bonus, BTW)!

Sex bonus works. Its untyped and thus stacks.

If youre lucky.

[Longcat]

1) They don't get shields and have to use finesse weapons that entirely make brutish or defensive rogues unplayable from the beginning.
6) Rogues don't get Extra Attack...ok can be a balancing choiche but: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Monk all get they extra attack why rogues don't?
7) Multiclassing is the only way to optimize many classes but you can still perform good getting 20 levels.


The ruthless ruffian archetype from 4e is effectively dead, yes. You can get Shield proficiency and Extra Attack by taking 5 levels of another martial class. In fact, 6 levels of Battlemaster Fighter are very good for a Rogue, and may give you what you desire



2) Two-Weapon Style is good if you are a Ranger, Barbarian or Fighter but if you are a Rogue it really sucks.


TWF gives you a second chance at applying Sneak Attack, which can be very good.



3) Archery seems the only style a rogue can play effectively.


Archery is IMO stronger than melee due to easier positioning, the squishiness of the class and because you can more easily leverage Cunning Action into Hide, allowing you to make attacks with Advantage.



4) Only the Assassin got a good power but after level 3 you don't gain anything spectacular. The other two simply sucks.


The Assassin abilities after level 3 are mostly fluff, so if you play a strictly mechanics focused dungeon crawler they tend to not see a lot of use.

Thieves get access to a plethora of magic equipment and can poach good items from other classes such as a Holy Avenger (they can exist as Rapiers) or various Wands/Staffs/Rods. They can also use a Healing Kit as a Bonus Action with the Healer feat, allowing them to heal as a Bonus Action. If your game is *****rd on magic items, then the Thief archetype loses a lot of its appeal.

Arcane Trickster depends a lot on your spell selection. Shield for example is excellent.



5) Cunning Action is a good ability and incentive a nice playstyle but...can't be used in conjunction with an old staple TWF style.


You are not supposed to use them together.

[Maxilian]

I was looking at the rogue class and i felt a little disappointed by design.

1) They don't get shields and have to use finesse weapons that entirely make brutish or defensive rogues unplayable from the beginning.

They don't need shields, also... you only need to use a Finesse weapon, to use DEX, you could easily make a brutish rogue



2) Two-Weapon Style is good if you are a Ranger, Barbarian or Fighter but if you are a Rogue it really sucks.


I don't agree at all, the Rogue takes more out of Two-Weapon FS than the ranger, mainly cause the Rogue only need to hit once to do all his damage, and with Two-weapon FS you have a bigger chance to hit.



3) Archery seems the only style a rogue can play effectively.


Its useful, if you want to play a range rogue



4) Only the Assassin got a good power but after level 3 you don't gain anything spectacular. The other two simply sucks.


The ability to use an object with your bonus action is better than what you think (also... right now Arcane Trickster rogues are pretty popular, even more with the new SCAG cantrips)



5) Cunning Action is a good ability and incentive a nice playstyle but...can't be used in conjunction with an old staple TWF style.


You don't need to, TWF is mainly used when you missed your first attack and you want that Sneak attack :P



6) Rogues don't get Extra Attack...ok can be a balancing choiche but: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Monk all get they extra attack why rogues don't?


Because they only need to hit once (not like most other classes)



7) Multiclassing is the only way to optimize many classes but you can still perform good getting 20 levels.
With rogue seems to me that multiclassing is not an option is simply a thing that is better in any case.


Just like every other class, no, is not needed to MC, is like saying that Fighter is a class that have to be MC after X because they are boring, and that's not true



Am I wrong?

You may not be wrong, but i don't agree

[CNagy]

I'm going to go ahead and say that the Rogue is poorly designed in the latter half of the class. I don't see a reason for the love affair that people have with the single-classed Rogue. I'm looking at the class list and I can't honestly find a reason to say "the 20th level Rogue is preferable to the Rogue12/X8." Maybe this is intentional--perhaps making the last 8 levels of Rogue as good as the first 12 would have resulted in a class that was objectively too good. But that's still a design issue. So here are my thoughts to support what some consider an unsupportable position.

Level 13:
Assassin's Imposter. Looks good on paper, in game impractical to the point of nearly impossible. I've houseruled it to allow the mimicry of those components you can study instead of requiring all three, but as written if your subject hasn't penned anything or cannot write then you cannot use the ability. The amount of time it takes and the observation requirement really restricts what this ability can be used for without making it The Assassin Show.

Thief's Use Magic Device. Looks good on paper, but once again it suffers from some in-game realities. Sure, Holy Avengers come in rapier--but how often do Holy Avengers come to parties without Paladins? In campaigns where the DM picks useful gear to put in loot, the Thief is going to basically be second-in-line on usefulness. Why give the Holy Avenger to the Thief when the party Paladin will actually trigger the 30' aura? Also UMD says you ignore class, race, and level requirements; this does not bypass the spell list requirement on using spell scrolls.

Arcane Trickster's Versatile Trickster. Show of hands--who here who plays Rogues ever finds themselves regularly not in position/the right circumstances to trigger sneak attack just by using their movement? You could be fighting an enemy that you cannot physically reach--but then they have to still be within 30'. The set piece where Versatile Trickster shines is not exactly common, and I don't even waste the action to cast Mage Hand unless I've got a secondary objective in combat (i.e. steal from someone or trigger something at the right moment.)

Level 14, Blindsense:
Perception for people who thought "Why get/expertise Perception?" Within 10', you are aware of the location of any hidden or invisible creatures. Now, it's not blindsight--so you still have all of the penalties of attacking an unseen creature, and it has all the bonuses of attacking you (until no one gets advantage on you anymore). The only situation where this isn't the case is one where the creature is hidden but neither invisible nor heavily obscured and within 10'. That's not a common circumstance.

Level 15, Slippery Mind:
How could I possibly not like a free Wisdom saving throw? Well, for starters it would be more valuable on a class that got fewer ASIs/feats. My issue with it is how late in the game it comes. Maybe I'm the only player who found himself playing and realizing "I am getting screwed by Will saves... but if I get Resilient Wisdom, I've got a dead level at 15." Sure, this is great in a feat-less game but how often do you play those?

Level 17:
Assassin's Death Strike and Thief's Reflexes are good stuff. Arcane Trickster's Spell Thief is best relied on as a chance (good chance, to be fair, something like a 65%) to counterspell without using slots 1/long rest. Now it is better than counterspell because presumably you might get to know what has been cast depending on how the spell manifests--but the thieving part of the Spell Thief just falls flat. You don't have the spell slots to cast the good stuff. The only way I've made use of the thieving part is to use it against a party member to get a hold of a spell in preparation for a big battle.

Level 18, Elusive:
A genuinely good ability. Attackers getting advantage against you sucks, so anything that prevents that is good. Still, it's kind of a long trek from Level 12 to get here, and this is the high spot of the class, because the capstone hardly merits the name.

Level 20, Stroke of Luck:
One per rest, you turn a miss into a hit. Hard to say that as if it is a bad thing, but as a capstone? Where does it rank compared to +4 Str/Con? Or a 4th attack? Or divine intervention? Or any of the Paladin's crazy capstones? Or Signature Spell? Or Eldritch Master? Basically, you've got the Ranger's capstone beat.

Oh, but there is also that auto20 on a skill. I forgot about it because I literally have never been in a position where it needed to be used. Probably because the most important and commonly tests skills all had Expertise, and Reliable meant that the result was never going to start south of 22 and could be as high as 27 (I try not to do dump stats.) With very difficult at DC25 and nearly impossible at DC30, an auto20 is rarely needed. If my choice is to use this ability to pass some check that isn't life-or-death, or to autohit on a miss (which occurs a lot more often) and deal a nice chunk of sneak attack damage, that's not really a choice at all, is it?

So all that aside, look at multiclassing. As an example, what Arcane Trickster doesn't see more of a benefit out of 8 levels of Diviner or Enchanter? Instinctive Charm is right up the Trickster's alley. What new and nasty tricks do you get ahold of for your Magical Ambush? And so many more spell slots to cast them with. And if he is an Elf, there is Bladesinger. And those wonderful attack cantrips.

To me, it seems clear that with almost any combination of classes, what you get from Rogue 13-20 just doesn't add up to what you get from 1-8 of another class. Edit: It feels important to note that I have played 2 single class Rogues through the high levels, so this comes from a place of experience and theory.

[Alejandro]

OP, our party has a greatsword wielding rogue in it. He does just fine. :)

[Shaofoo]

snip

While I am not going to call you out on your opinions I do want to say that just because Rogue 20 isn't as good as Rogue 12/ X 8 doesn't make Rogue 20 bad in any stretch. Rogue 20 is perfectly viable in play, I don't see the class not working as intended. Just because you aren't the best doesn't mean that you are bad.


OP, our party has a greatsword wielding rogue in it. He does just fine. :)

Well is the Rogue also multiclassed as a fighter first?

Also you can totally have the Rogue be a noncombatant character as well, only focus on skills if that is your deal. Rogue is probably the best class that doesn't depend on spells to be more about skills than combat.

[sigfile]

Don't get hung up on a name; if you settle on a system-agnostic concept, the odds are good you can find a way to represent that concept mechanically. For example, if you'd like a thief-y kind of character that happens to wield a longsword and wears a shield, that's a fighter with the criminal background (maybe with a bit of rogue multiclassed in depending on exactly how thief-y you'd like to be).

[Deadandamnation]

Well I still think that should be changed that way:

- Add Shield Prof to the class (in 3.5 rogues could use bucklers) that way they can choose from first level to play Sword and Board or TWF or Archery.

- Remove the finesse tag from Sneak Attack. (That way I can play a Str based rogue that SA with a two-hand weapon or a reach weapon, but still I miss medium armor so my CA will be lower)

- Extra Attack at level 6

-Slippery Mind at level 11. (It replace Reliable Talent)

- Blindsense become Blindsight 20 or 30 feet.

-Extraordinary Dodge (replace slippery mind at 15) Your Uncanny Dodge now let you to avoid an attack entirely instead of just halving the damage you get no damage or effect from the attack.

-Supreme Preparation replace stroke of luck: Once per round you can reroll a dice. (You must accept the second result)

-Disguise Kit as a bonus proof.

Assassin subclass:

3rd: Assassinate: Once per short rest, if you hit a target with an attack and deal your SA damage treat SA dices as they have rolled 6. (That way you can't do multiclass shenanigans that roll absurd number of crits dices and the best that you get from that is 12 damage at 3rd but you will have more control on when to use it). Alternatively you can make it an automatic crit but just for an attack, so no more Action Surges power novas.

3rd: Poison Master: You can poison a weapon or ammunition as a Bonus Action. Still get prof with poison kit. (I dunno how poisons works in 5ed but assasin should be good at them)

9th: Improved Sneak Attack: Your dice for Sneak Attack Become d8's.

13th: Mask of Many Faces: As an Action you can change yourself as the Alter Self spell except it don't require casting it but still require concentration.

17th: Death Strike stay the same.

I'havent homebrewed the other subclasses yet.

Maybe is too powerful, maybe not but is more well designed in my personal opinion...

And stay rogue 20 now have it's appeal.

[Longcat]

- Remove the finesse tag from Sneak Attack. (That way I can play a Str based rogue that SA with a two-hand weapon or a reach weapon, but still I miss medium armor so my CA will be lower)


Not with the way Great Weapon Fighting is currently worded. Players are already rules lawyering left and right about re-rolling every rider effect under the sun, from Divine Smite to Poison and damage enhancing spells. We absolutely do not need to add Sneak Attack to that list.

[CNagy]

While I am not going to call you out on your opinions I do want to say that just because Rogue 20 isn't as good as Rogue 12/ X 8 doesn't make Rogue 20 bad in any stretch. Rogue 20 is perfectly viable in play, I don't see the class not working as intended. Just because you aren't the best doesn't mean that you are bad.

Oh, I never questioned its viability or whether it does what it is supposed to--but those aren't the only facets of design. I think that if you find yourself having to look several levels ahead for something to get excited about, then the design could be better. If you dread having to slog through a stretch of levels, that's certainly a problem with design. Of course, your mileage may vary.

[smcmike]

Well I still think that should be changed that way:

- Add Shield Prof to the class (in 3.5 rogues could use bucklers) that way they can choose from first level to play Sword and Board or TWF or Archery.

- Remove the finesse tag from Sneak Attack. (That way I can play a Str based rogue that SA with a two-hand weapon or a reach weapon, but still I miss medium armor so my CA will be lower)

So you want to play a Sword & Board character, or a TWF character, or a Great Weapon character. Why play a rogue, then? As others have pointed out, you can do roguish things with other classes.

The rogue supports one of the biggest martial archetypes in fiction - the nimble fighter with one weapon. The Dread Pirate Roberts does not cower behind a shield.

Also, it was always dumb that you could sneak attack with a polearm in 3.5. How do you deal "precision damage" with a maul, exactly?

All that being said, I want to play a sword and board barbarian/rogue.

[Deadandamnation]

Well in 3.5 the Blackguards Also had Sneak Attack and I think that most of them were S&B or GW.

From a pure concept A Maul can be aimed at the head, precision don't mean only i'll stab you from behind.

In 5.0 you get to deal your SA damage even when you have only advantage so from RAW a barbarian/rogue can use restless attack (advantage) to deal SA using a finesse shortsword even using Str.

I'm not saying that a rogue "have to" S&B, but they should be able to without multiclassing or using a feat.

Still conceptually shield don't fit the "standard" rogue playstyle but could fit the concept of a scoundrel or a burglar...

As for Great Weapons they can't be Finessed so you will suffer from MAD, and a dirty fighter could like to stab you with his spear instead of using a shortsword...

It's my opinion after all...you can disagree as much as you like :)

[Deadandamnation]

Not with the way Great Weapon Fighting is currently worded. Players are already rules lawyering left and right about re-rolling every rider effect under the sun, from Divine Smite to Poison and damage enhancing spells. We absolutely do not need to add Sneak Attack to that list.

GWF need to be changed...it's another problem...reroll just weapon damage and you'll be fine.
I prefer to simply give them: threat any 1 and 2 as a 3 (for weapon damage dices only).

[ad_hoc]

Assassin subclass:

3rd: Assassinate: Once per short rest, if you hit a target with an attack and deal your SA damage treat SA dices as they have rolled 6. (That way you can't do multiclass shenanigans that roll absurd number of crits dices and the best that you get from that is 12 damage at 3rd but you will have more control on when to use it). Alternatively you can make it an automatic crit but just for an attack, so no more Action Surges power novas.


You are overestimating the secondary benefit of assassinate and also overestimating the benefit of giving up sneak attack dice to be able to action surge.

In order to get an auto crit you have to surprise your enemy, win initiative, then hit them. This isn't going to happen often. With action surge you don't do sneak attack damage again because it is still the same turn.

If you want to do a lot of critical hits and have a sword and board or a great weapon, just be a Champion.

Seriously, assassin is the weakest of the rogue subclasses, it is fine.

[smcmike]

Well in 3.5 the Blackguards Also had Sneak Attack and I think that most of them were S&B or GW.

From a pure concept A Maul can be aimed at the head, precision don't mean only i'll stab you from behind.

In 5.0 you get to deal your SA damage even when you have only advantage so from RAW a barbarian/rogue can use restless attack (advantage) to deal SA using a finesse shortsword even using Str.

I'm not saying that a rogue "have to" S&B, but they should be able to without multiclassing or using a feat.

Still conceptually shield don't fit the "standard" rogue playstyle but could fit the concept of a scoundrel or a burglar...

As for Great Weapons they can't be Finessed so you will suffer from MAD, and a dirty fighter could like to stab you with his spear instead of using a shortsword...

It's my opinion after all...you can disagree as much as you like :)

Why would a burglar use a shield? A burglar is someone who breaks into buildings and takes things. Shields don't help with that. A scoundrel, well, scoundrel is just another word for rogue, so that doesn't really refine much.

A robber? Robbers want to incapacitate a target by force or threat of force as quickly as possible, then take their stuff. Shields don't help with that either.

Also, aiming for the head with a maul doesn't sound very precise to me. That's brute force attacking. I know that diving too deep into simulationist thinking doesn't go anywhere, but all I'm saying is that the finesse weapons only rule makes perfect sense to me aesthetically, and also from a balance perspective.

[Deadandamnation]

You are overestimating the secondary benefit of assassinate and also overestimating the benefit of giving up sneak attack dice to be able to action surge.

In order to get an auto crit you have to surprise your enemy, win initiative, then hit them. This isn't going to happen often. With action surge you don't do sneak attack damage again because it is still the same turn.

If you want to do a lot of critical hits and have a sword and board or a great weapon, just be a Champion.

Seriously, assassin is the weakest of the rogue subclasses, it is fine.

Isn't going to happen often on a +10 initative charachters?
My Assassinate version is better for a rogue and worst for a multiclass that's all and removing the needing to act first but only one/short rest make it more of a Nova Button with more control so...better.

Action Surge still is better but it's probably the best feature of the entire book.

Assassin is the wekest I agree and the most used in multiclassing, so nerfing the third and buffing the others seems reasonable to me

[Shaofoo]

Well I still think that should be changed that way:

- Add Shield Prof to the class (in 3.5 rogues could use bucklers) that way they can choose from first level to play Sword and Board or TWF or Archery.

If you noticed that medium armor proficiency and shields are kinda interlinked, the only thing that can get medium armor solo is Dwarves. That is a reason why they don't have shields is because they aren't proficient with medium armor.


- Remove the finesse tag from Sneak Attack. (That way I can play a Str based rogue that SA with a two-hand weapon or a reach weapon, but still I miss medium armor so my CA will be lower)

You do realize you can totally use Str and Sneak attack in 5e. A finesse weapon means that you can use Str or Dex to make the attack. You can bump up Str and be a brutish Rogue in 5e. Also Rogues aren't proficient in heavy or reach weapons either so it is a moot point in what you want. Of course if you are willing to spend feats to get Weapon Proficiencies then that is another story (but I am sure you'll want to give Rogues proficiency in all weapons now)


- Extra Attack at level 6

People have gone on about this and why it is bad


-Slippery Mind at level 11. (It replace Reliable Talent)

Yeah remove the one true feature that made Rogues unique in skill checks.



-Extraordinary Dodge (replace slippery mind at 15) Your Uncanny Dodge now let you to avoid an attack entirely instead of just halving the damage you get no damage or effect from the attack.

What? Why would you do this? Why give immunity to attacks? I mean what? What are you thinking?


Maybe is too powerful, maybe not but is more well designed in my personal opinion...

Definitely too powerful since you just tacked on buffs without any thought. Unbalanced and missing the point. You just ripped out the parts that made the Rogue more unique than the Fighter in the hopes to match the Fighter's fighting ability. And immunity to a single attack every round, really?

Also it is definitely not well designed, I would still prefer the old Rogue by miles since I value that a Rogue can do more than just combat, and the old Rogue is fine in combat as it is.


And stay rogue 20 now have it's appeal.

They always had appeal, just because you don't like it doesn't mean that everyone doesn't like it.


Oh, I never questioned its viability or whether it does what it is supposed to--but those aren't the only facets of design. I think that if you find yourself having to look several levels ahead for something to get excited about, then the design could be better. If you dread having to slog through a stretch of levels, that's certainly a problem with design. Of course, your mileage may vary.

I haven't played a Rogue yet but I can't see myself thinking of skipping levels. Which level stretch do you dread to slog?

Personally the only thing bad about the classes is the Bard, Monk and Sorcerer capstones and to a lesser extent the Warlock Capstone, they should have some special and unique ability befitting their class, not add a use of Bardic Inspiration or some Ki when you don't have any. So basically I dread getting to level 20 with those classes.

[Fwiffo86]

Isn't going to happen often on a +10 initative charachters?
My Assassinate version is better for a rogue and worst for a multiclass that's all and removing the needing to act first but only one/short rest make it more of a Nova Button with more control so...better.

Action Surge still is better but it's probably the best feature of the entire book.

Assassin is the wekest I agree and the most used in multiclassing, so nerfing the third and buffing the others seems reasonable to me

So.... you base the value of a class on its use in combat alone? Is that what I am understanding? You appear to be attempting to modify a utility class to combat only, and then seeking approval from everyone else to justify doing so. All of which is perfectly fine, that's one of the many reasons people homebrew.

But I just have to ask this question. Why? Why do you think the rogue absolutely needs to be more combat oriented? Are you seeking to deliver the absolute most damage per round? Do you feel the rogue should be more like WoW rogues? What is it your are actually after?

[Deadandamnation]

So.... you base the value of a class on its use in combat alone? Is that what I am understanding? You appear to be attempting to modify a utility class to combat only, and then seeking approval from everyone else to justify doing so. All of which is perfectly fine, that's one of the many reasons people homebrew.

But I just have to ask this question. Why? Why do you think the rogue absolutely needs to be more combat oriented? Are you seeking to deliver the absolute most damage per round? Do you feel the rogue should be more like WoW rogues? What is it your are actually after?

Because I (and it's a personal opinion for sure) think that if you want to roleplay, D&D is the worst game to do so...
So since is an hack and slash game (at least for me) combat classes should be well balanced...to do things in combat.

What a Rogue can do aside damage in combat?

Is he a powerful caster? I don't think so...mediocre at best
Ok so he is a tank right? Nope, he escape danger...
Nice, Is a support for others I think..? Oh well...He can heal you as a bonus action...
Oh crap...So is role Is a tactical one right? He stand there shoving people, give allies advantage, open spots for them...? Nope neither of those...
Maybe he is the party scout right? Nope we have a Shadow Monk for that matters...but sometimes we let the rogue disarm some traps...
Well so he is not a tank, is not a priest, is not a fighter nor a mage what is he then?

Maybe is a Dpr right? Or at least an Ambusher...yes he deal damage...when he manage to hit with is only attack...only one guy at a time...only from the shadows...when he start first and are not sleeping in a corner...but most of the times he simply stand still waiting to roleplay since is damage is pretty marginal...

10d6 is 35 damage...round that up to 50 ok? The Fighter can do that damage at level 5 and will be tactical with manouvers, when buffed he gets 4 times the bonus a rogue can get if not more...

Rogues got skills right, Fighter got Armors, Weapons and Tactical manouvers...
But both should be good at dealing damage to monsters... the rogue probably should be one step ahead since is not so easy for him to survive a straight fight nor is set up the conditions to deal that damage.

And if we don't wanna give them some damage because he is not a damage class then they should be stronger in something else...and the only thing that I can find to supply that from the book is: Shield Master, Mage Slayer and Sentinel...that stops him to be evasive...

Last thing, someone will say: "Rogue get good damage" that sentence is partially true as they starts pretty strong with 3d6 damage...and are average in the mid levels.

So if you play from 1 to 10 probably rogue is an ok class...a tier 3 one but still ok.

[ad_hoc]

Because I (and it's a personal opinion for sure) think that if you want to roleplay, D&D is the worst game to do so...
So since is an hack and slash game (at least for me) combat classes should be well balanced...to do things in combat.


Modern board games are awesome.

You should check them out.

[SharkForce]

rogue damage is fine. they're about as tough as a fighter, do slightly less damage, but are massively superior in skill usage (some of which do have combat applications). the existence of the shadow monk does not mean that nobody else is ever allowed to perform in a stealth capacity, and in fact having multiple stealthy party members is great because you can do a lot more with two scouts than you can ever hope to do with one. for example, if you should ever get spotted, two scouts have a much better chance of surviving.

[JellyPooga]

What a Rogue can do aside damage in combat?

Is he a powerful caster?
Ok so he is a tank right?
Nice, Is a support for others I think..?
So is role Is a tactical one right?
Well so he is not a tank, is not a priest, is not a fighter nor a mage what is he then?
You're quite correct that he's not really any one of these things (and note that I took out Scout; Rogues are better scouts than Shadow Monks. Shadow Monks just have a better SFX budget), but he can stand in for any and all of them in a pinch;

Expertise in Athletics gives Rogues the best Grapple and Shove (and disarm if you're using those optional rules) modifier in the game. Fighters etc. get more goes at it and can do those things and some in a single turn, but a lvl.5 Rogue has the same chance of success as any other Class (bar Bard) at lvl.20.

Cunning Action means you're always where you need to be on the battlefield, whether that means out of harms way or up in someones grill, giving them a bad day.

Uncanny Dodge and high AC (if not the highest) makes Rogues solid Tanks.

UMD and/or Fast Hands gives a vast amount of versatility; being able to use items like the Rod of Ressurection, saving the Cleric from being the only one who can, or being able to use things like Caltrops or alchemical items as a bonus action gives Rogues a considerable battlefield control capability.

This on top of a solid damage output. Which brings us to...

Maybe is a Dpr right? Or at least an Ambusher...yes he deal damage...when he manage to hit with is only attack...only one guy at a time...only from the shadows...when he start first and are not sleeping in a corner...but most of the times he simply stand still waiting to roleplay since is damage is pretty marginal...

10d6 is 35 damage...round that up to 50 ok? The Fighter can do that damage at level 5
Let's correct a few misunderstandings;
1) Rogues are no worse at hitting than anyone else (save those with the Archery Fighting Style). If anything they tend to be better at it because they go out of their way to find Advantage on their attack rolls.
2) So what if he can only kill one guy at a time? If what you're fighting is so weak that a Fighter can take it out in a single attack, it's probably not worth giving much consideration anyway and clearing mooks is not a Rogues job anyway.
3) Why only from the shadows? Rogues get Sneak Attack just for having an ally standing next to their target or from Advantage granted by any other means.
4) Marginal damage? Really? Rogues are the single biggest single-hitters in the game. No-one, bar no-one, does more damage with a single (non-spell) attack. Sure a Level 5 Fighter can deal 50 damage in a round...but he probably won't; that -5 to hit from GWM hurts. A Level 5 Rogue might only be dealing around 20 DPR, but at least he's doing it reliably.

since is not so easy for him to survive a straight fight
I've seen more Rogues survive "straight up fights" than Fighters. Cunning Action + Uncanny Dodge means that most of the time a Rogue doesn't even get attacked in the first place and when he does actually get hit, he only takes half damage. A Rogue might only have three-quarters of the base HP of a Fighter, give or take, but his effective HP are doubled (by and large), giving him more effective HP than a Fighter. 5ed Rogues are hard as nails.

So if you play from 1 to 10 probably rogue is an ok class...a tier 3 one but still ok.
You've either been playing with poor Rogue-players or are missing the utility of the Rogues best combat features. Sneak Attack is what gives Rogues a respectable damage output, or an excellent one if they manage a Crit, but it's Expertise and Cunning Action that make them kings of the battlefield.

[Fwiffo86]

10d6 is 35 damage...round that up to 50 ok? The Fighter can do that damage at level 5 and will be tactical with manouvers, when buffed he gets 4 times the bonus a rogue can get if not more...


I'm going for basic damage, minus feats because honestly, we don't use them. This is just for basic numbers as a comparison, and is probably not accurate, but it will ballpark it for you.

Fighter (20) base no archetype no fighting style

(2d6+5) = 12 [basic hit for a fighter]
(4d6+5) = 19 [basic crit for a fighter]
(12 x 4) = 48 (assuming a 100% hit ratio with 4 attacks)
(19 x .05) = .95 (additional damage for crit)
48 + 0.95 = 48.95 damage per round

Rogue (20) base no archetype no fighting style

(1d6+5+10d6) = 43.5 [basic sneak attack hit]
(2d6+5+20d6) = 82 [basic sneak attack crit]
(82 x .05) = 4.1 (additional damage for crit)
43.5 + 4.1 = 47.6 damage per round

Fighter = 48.95 damage per round
Rogue = 47.6 damage per round

This ignores feats, fighting styles, comparing 4 attacks at 100% hit ratio with Sneak attack with 100% hit ratio.

As you can see.... the damage is within 2 points of each other. I am not seeing your argument that the fighter does double the damage of the rogue. Largely because it isn't true.

Even if you add in enhanced crit (champion) GWF (fighter) you are sure to see a damage improvement. But then, that is what a fighter does. He fights. He "should" be the best at it in comparison to anyone else.

I am also choosing to ignore the fact that you attempted to declare the shadow monk as a superior choice for stealth missions, when they must spend resources to be as effective as the rogue doing it for free. Even as the "scout" roll, I feel the rogue is superior due to proper expertise skill choices (stealth, perception, investigation), meaning the rogue will have better chance to notice important details than the monk.

[Mellack]

If you want a strength based thug you can already make one. They are the best grapplers in the game. Grab, knock down, then SA with a dagger or short sword. They can't get up and since you have advantage you are getting SA damage every turn. Works wonderfully.

[Deadandamnation]

I'm going for basic damage, minus feats because honestly, we don't use them. This is just for basic numbers as a comparison, and is probably not accurate, but it will ballpark it for you.

Fighter (20) base no archetype no fighting style

(2d6+5) = 12 [basic hit for a fighter]
(4d6+5) = 19 [basic crit for a fighter]
(12 x 4) = 48 (assuming a 100% hit ratio with 4 attacks)
(19 x .05) = .95 (additional damage for crit)
48 + 0.95 = 48.95 damage per round

Rogue (20) base no archetype no fighting style

(1d6+5+10d6) = 43.5 [basic sneak attack hit]
(2d6+5+20d6) = 82 [basic sneak attack crit]
(82 x .05) = 4.1 (additional damage for crit)
43.5 + 4.1 = 47.6 damage per round

Fighter = 48.95 damage per round
Rogue = 47.6 damage per round

This ignores feats, fighting styles, comparing 4 attacks at 100% hit ratio with Sneak attack with 100% hit ratio.

So you are basing your comparison of a naked fighter against a full setted rogue and still the fighter edges :)

Is like saying that a Lamborghini whitout wheels go faster than a pimped car.

Fighter Damage base is 1d10(7)+18 (25) x5 (Haste) + 1d4(3)+18 (146 average damage) another 25 on a reaction

Rogue is 12d6+8 (50) + Haste (62)

And that's only two feats and haste...and the rogue is at 1/3 damage.

My calc still aren't perfect since fighter take a -5 to hit that's -25% chance to hit vs the rogue so probably I can round down that to 1/2 the fighter damage but still you are dealing half the damage.

And that is doable all day long, since we are not taking into account manouvers that are the signature of the Battlemaster.

And probably fighter is not the best damage dealer of the game is just a good one, since a dedicated Smiter Paladin should deal more damage.

[Flashy]

So you are basing your comparison of a naked fighter against a full setted rogue and still the fighter edges :)

Is like saying that a Lamborghini whitout wheels go faster than a pimped car.

Fighter Damage base is 1d10(7)+18 (25) x5 (Haste) + 1d4(3)+18 (146 average damage) another 25 on a reaction

Rogue is 12d6+8 (50) + Haste (62)

And that's only two feats and haste...and the rogue is at 1/3 damage.

If you're adding the reaction attack to the fighter you really need to add it to the rogue, since the rogue's reaction also applies sneak attack. You also seem to have given the the fighter great-weapon mastery AND the duelist fighting style (because I have no idea why you're using +18 instead of +15), but haven't given the rogue sharpshooter. SO, using your circumstances but applying the numbers fairly...

Fighter with halberd damage base is 1d10+15 (21) x5 (Haste) + Reaction (21) = 132 dpr. I have no idea where you got that 1d4+18 from. Polearm Mastery? Allowing GWM on that attack is probably DM dependent, but let's assume it's allowed so + 21 there for 147 total DPR.

Rogue with heavy crossbow damage base is 1d10+10d6+15 (56) + Haste 1d10+15 (21) + Reaction 1d10+10d6+15 (56) for 133 DPR.


So yes, in your model a 20th level single class fighter cheesing multiple feats together who's also under the effects of a spell he can't cast is probably doing ~14 more DPR than a rogue, in exchange for all of the rogue's extensive out of combat utility.

EDIT: It occurred to me that you might have gotten the +18 for damage by assuming both characters would have a +3 weapon? Including +3 magic weapons definitely will lightly skew the damage numbers because 5e never assumes that a character has access to weapons with an enhancement bonus. The system is agnostic on magic items in general.

[Regitnui]

The four Core RPG classes; Warrior, Mage, Priest and ROGUE. How in Olladra's name do you find the rogue poorly designed for being a rogue? Rogues don't do sword and board. Rogues don't do crowd control. Rogues don't do magic. Rogues slip in, take the valuables, seduce the wife, slit the husband's throat and leave chocolates in the children's pillows all without being seen or heard.

The rogue is the pirate pointing a cutlass at the ship captain pronouncing his death. The rogue is the assassin dangling upside down dropping poison in the king's soup. The rogue is the quiet guy who get the lord to marry his daughter to the King's son. The rogue is the expert locksmith bending over a chest while the fighter keeps the tentacles off him. The rogue is the person with exactly the right trick at exactly the right time.

You wanna sword and board? Go fighter or paladin. You wanna crowd control? Mage. You wanna crush your enemies with a maul while screaming insults? Go barbarian. You wanna whine about people not catering to you? Go to tumblr. But if you wanna be the smart, indispensable, tricky bloke with a well-worded dagger and a precisely placed question? Be a rogue.

[VoxRationis]

Because I (and it's a personal opinion for sure) think that if you want to roleplay, D&D is the worst game to do so...


I'm really not sure how the system, flaws and all, makes roleplaying harder. This idea crops up again and again on this forum, but I don't know where it's coming from. Nothing about 5th stops you from coming up with an idea, as complicated as you like, for how your character thinks and feels about the world and acting, both in and out of combat, accordingly.

@JellyPooga: Could you please remind me how Uncanny Dodge works in this edition again? I'm currently several thousand miles AFB and all I can think of is the way it worked in 3.5, so this "rogues take half damage" thing is confusing me.

[Flashy]

@JellyPooga: Could you please remind me how Uncanny Dodge works in this edition again? I'm currently several thousand miles AFB and all I can think of is the way it worked in 3.5, so this "rogues take half damage" thing is confusing me.

When hit with an attack by someone you can see you can use your reaction to take half damage.

[Deadandamnation]

Yep damage was from a +3 weapon and GWM+Polearm Master since at level 20 you are supposed to have something magical...

The reaction itself was a plus...and I know that rogues get SA on reaction...that stop them to take uncanny dodge and happen only if someone leave your space that...is not gonna happen.

While someone entering your reach is pretty common...

I haven't give the rogue sharpshooter because it was a melee one...but anyway crossbow expert and sharpshooter can give you 30 more damage when Hasted...

So we can agree that the only way for a pure Rogue to be effective in dealing a reasonable amount of damage is the Archery style and 2 feats...while melee rogue get really less love...(maybe a trickster with SCAG material but aside from core)

Almost any class with 2/3 rogues levels can be effective as a rogue on most of the things a rogue can with 20

But that conversation isn't going anywhere, build me a rogue that is actually useful in combat (not at damage dealing) like Jack Sparrow that's one of the coolest rogue imho and find out what we get.

[coredump]

Well I still think that should be changed that way:

- Add Shield Prof to the class (in 3.5 rogues could use bucklers) that way they can choose from first level to play Sword and Board or TWF or Archery.

- Remove the finesse tag from Sneak Attack. (That way I can play a Str based rogue that SA with a two-hand weapon or a reach weapon, but still I miss medium armor so my CA will be lower)

- Extra Attack at level 6

So basically..... just get everything... yeah, that sounds balanced...


You *can* be a Str based rogue and still get SA.... just use your Str when wielding a rapier.

The SA damage is the trade off for the ton of SA damage.....
etc

[Shaofoo]

Yep damage was from a +3 weapon and GWM+Polearm Master since at level 20 you are supposed to have something magical...

The system never assumes any magic weapons or magic anything. Not even potions are assumed.



But that conversation isn't going anywhere, build me a rogue that is actually useful in combat (not at damage dealing) like Jack Sparrow that's one of the coolest rogue imho and find out what we get.

Thief or Swashbuckler Rogue 20. Thief is the most versatile Rogue in combat since he can use items as a bonus action.

[RazDelacroix]

Ladies, Gentlemen, Multi-Gendered Afficiandos, Non-Reproductive Progressives; I humbly submit to the gathering here in this fine playground that the class under question, the Rogue, is not poorly designed.

For many of the reasons already stated, the Rogue functions quite well in it's chosen tasks, and indeed, may take up a variety of different subtle and wonderful traits to distinguish one Assassin from the Swashbuckler and so on. There has, of course, been some hubbub concerning the apparent lack of a refined rapscallion risking raunchy rubes with radical reforms referring righteous beat downs granted through grand muscle. Or, for the less space-waste inclined, the burly rogue ideal.

My comrades, I submit to you, that the idea of a fine and strong clever sorts, is not out of the question. Nay, indeed, in this modern age of Dungeons & Dragons, we have a variety of resources to flesh out this ideal without even requiring a dedicated archetype to the base Rogue Class!

Observe.

Criminal Background - Fighter Class.
Charlatan Background - Barbarian Class.
Pirate Background - Ranger Class.

This, is a tip of the iceberg of what I can pull straight from my buttock pockets. Flavor, with brutish functionality! Is it the perfect ideal for trouncing the famed Tomb of Horrors? Perhaps not. Does it require multi-classing? Not by necessity.

Friends of the Playground, we need not duel with mathematics, derogatory commentary, nor the quintessential humduggery of a sudden competition of fine dog breeding! Nay, we must use our resources to support classical and new character types that we enjoy telling stories about!


And if you thought all of that was too long and thus did not read it, my thoughts may be summed up as such.


Rogue is bad designed? No, but that question would give my English teachers a few headaches.

[Shaofoo]

Friends of the Playground, we need not duel with mathematics, derogatory commentary, nor the quintessential humduggery of a sudden competition of fine dog breeding! Nay, we must use our resources to support classical and new character types that we enjoy telling stories about!



Pfft, telling stories oh what a kidder. We all know that D&D is all about DPR competitions and numbers. If you aren't playing D&D to do the highest number then you are obviously not playing D&D right.

[RazDelacroix]

Pfft, telling stories oh what a kidder. We all know that D&D is all about DPR competitions and numbers. If you aren't playing D&D to do the highest number then you are obviously not playing D&D right.

Oh? Sorry then. I thought I was on the right forum... How embarrassing! Right, I will do this then, the CORRECT way!

*ahem* 1 + 1 = PUNPUN! I believe I win any and all arguments henceforth no?

[Deadandamnation]

Ladies, Gentlemen, Multi-Gendered Afficiandos, Non-Reproductive Progressives; I humbly submit to the gathering here in this fine playground that the class under question, the Rogue, is not poorly designed.

For many of the reasons already stated, the Rogue functions quite well in it's chosen tasks, and indeed, may take up a variety of different subtle and wonderful traits to distinguish one Assassin from the Swashbuckler and so on. There has, of course, been some hubbub concerning the apparent lack of a refined rapscallion risking raunchy rubes with radical reforms referring righteous beat downs granted through grand muscle. Or, for the less space-waste inclined, the burly rogue ideal.

My comrades, I submit to you, that the idea of a fine and strong clever sorts, is not out of the question. Nay, indeed, in this modern age of Dungeons & Dragons, we have a variety of resources to flesh out this ideal without even requiring a dedicated archetype to the base Rogue Class!

Observe.

Criminal Background - Fighter Class.
Charlatan Background - Barbarian Class.
Pirate Background - Ranger Class.

This, is a tip of the iceberg of what I can pull straight from my buttock pockets. Flavor, with brutish functionality! Is it the perfect ideal for trouncing the famed Tomb of Horrors? Perhaps not. Does it require multi-classing? Not by necessity.

Friends of the Playground, we need not duel with mathematics, derogatory commentary, nor the quintessential humduggery of a sudden competition of fine dog breeding! Nay, we must use our resources to support classical and new character types that we enjoy telling stories about!


And if you thought all of that was too long and thus did not read it, my thoughts may be summed up as such.


Rogue is bad designed? No, but that question would give my English teachers a few headaches.

Haha right...the sentence was wrog partially because I'm not English and partially because I've added the question mark after...At the start was: "Rogue Is Bad Designed".

Anyway thanks to anyone that have Answered the question...I Still think that rogues need some other tweakings but in the end they are not necessarily Bad Designed

[RazDelacroix]

Glad we could have a friendly bit of banter overall! Take care and remember that the DMG does have a general tweaking guide near the back!

[Nu]

I do think there is one element to the rogue that is currently poorly implemented, and that is that there is very little reason for a rogue to engage in melee combat. Yes, the rogue has design elements that make it easier to do so, but... why? Ranged combat is safer, it's easy as all hell to get Sneak Attack when you just need an adjacent ally to the target (no need for flanking anymore!), and it's much easier to hide from foes when you're not in their face.

I noticed this when playing a rogue and trying two different styles--as a halfling rogue with a shortbow, I could duck behind a back-line mage and use Cunning Action to Hide, which would all but guarantee advantage. It's much harder to do this in melee, since foes can maneuver around much more easily than in 3rd/4th because you only provoke OAs when leaving reach rather than simply moving through reach. Dual wielding is about the only benefit... but that's iffy, when you have to give up your Cunning Action to make an off-hand attack. Rather just take the Crossbow Expert feat and use my bonus action to get an extra attack with a Hand Crossbow in that case.

Melee rogues are flavorful and fun, but even while playing my swashbuckler there is always a niggling doubt in the back of my mind that ranged combat is safer and more effective for the rogue class. The advantages for being in melee are simply too few, far, and in-between, and don't stack up well with being able to hide more easily and being safer. Other classes don't have as much of an issue here since they have big two-handed weapons which, along with GWF/GWM, can dish out some serious pain, but the rogue's Sneak Attack works just as well from super long-range as it does in melee combat.

[Zalabim]

The advantages for a rogue being in melee are going to be party and situation specific. Melee can use TWF, but Crossbow Expert can bypass that. You need a clear line of fire to make ranged attacks without facing some penalty for shooting past cover, or else spend another feat on that. If you hide behind the wizard, and the wizard hides behind the barbarian, then the target the barbarian is fighting will almost certainly have cover from you.

Speaking of barbarians, another big factor in jumping into melee is what your other melee PCs are doing. The open hand monk flurries and everyone falls down. You can only sneak attack prone enemies from melee range. The first wolf totem gives advantage only to melee attacks. The paladin's aura is a nice boost, but only if you're within its short radius. The fighter has sentinel so he wants someone else around to be attacked, and you take half damage on one hit. The barbarian has polearm master, so you want to hide within his reach to punish enemies for chasing you.

On a number standpoint, a hasted rogue is a terrifying thing, as they can attack with the hasted action, use their bonus action, then ready an attack for the next victim who is eligible to sneak attack to get a Reaction attack every round.

[JellyPooga]

I do think there is one element to the rogue that is currently poorly implemented, and that is that there is very little reason for a rogue to engage in melee combat.

For me, this is as it should be. Rogues don't get into "straight fights" if they can possibly help it; they're thinking combatants. Leave stand-up brawling to the Barbarians and Fighters. Rogues, if they engage in melee at all, should be ducking and diving, moving in and out, maneuvering for position etc. If a Rogue is in melee it's because he's either forced to be there or he has chosen to take advantage of the terrain or situation in some way (such as to draw a particular enemy out, force an even worse melee fighter like a Wizard into melee, etc.).

Having said that, I completely agree with everything Zalabim says above; Rogues proc off of a lot of other classes features and are an excellent "2nd/3rd man" in melee. The big burly guy takes point and draws the aggro, whilst the Rogue takes advantage of everyone being distracted by the other guy(s).

[smcmike]

Haha right...the sentence was wrog partially because I'm not English and partially because I've added the question mark after...At the start was: "Rogue Is Bad Designed".

Anyway thanks to anyone that have Answered the question...I Still think that rogues need some other tweakings but in the end they are not necessarily Bad Designed

The problem is "bad" is an adjective, and you are using it as an adverb. You want "badly." (This isn't meant as criticism).

[Fwiffo86]

Yep damage was from a +3 weapon and GWM+Polearm Master since at level 20 you are supposed to have something magical...

This is absolutely not true. The entire game is designed so that magical equipment is not needed. There is no reason to assume that this is anything other than an option (not necessarily the same at every table, and thus, not comparable reliably).

Did I or didn't I say, my calculations were devoid of feats, fighting styles, etc. I also stated that the Fighter "should" be superior to the rogue in fighting. That is what he does. The rogue is not a fighter. It isn't meant to be a fighter. It shouldn't be on equal footing with the fighter when fighting. I don't expect the fighter to be as mobile or skill monkeyish because he "isn't" a rogue. You have done nothing but reinforce my own point.

My calculations show that the baseline damage (again, baseline, the damage guaranteed at all tables regardless of chosen optional rules), is very similar per round. Within one or two points. You claimed that the fighter can do almost double the damage a rogue can on a per round basis. In order to even begin to support what you are saying, we have to add the fighting style, magical weapons, feats, and spells.

I suggest you recalculate with the exact same bonuses to both sides. +3 weapons for both. Max STR vs. Max DEX (you can only sneak attack with a finesse weapon or a ranged weapon, so dex mod is added to the weapons damage), Haste for both targets, add in whatever fighting style you want, assume 100% hit percentage and 100% sneak attack hit percentage.

I am willing to bet the numbers are not 2:1. Certainly, the fighter will deal additional damage, but nothing coming close to double the damage the rogue is doing. Your claim is patently false.

[PoeticDwarf]

I was looking at the rogue class and i felt a little disappointed by design.

1) They don't get shields and have to use finesse weapons that entirely make brutish or defensive rogues unplayable from the beginning.

2) Two-Weapon Style is good if you are a Ranger, Barbarian or Fighter but if you are a Rogue it really sucks.

3) Archery seems the only style a rogue can play effectively.

4) Only the Assassin got a good power but after level 3 you don't gain anything spectacular. The other two simply sucks.

5) Cunning Action is a good ability and incentive a nice playstyle but...can't be used in conjunction with an old staple TWF style.

6) Rogues don't get Extra Attack...ok can be a balancing choiche but: Bard, Sorcerer, Warlock, Monk all get they extra attack why rogues don't?

7) Multiclassing is the only way to optimize many classes but you can still perform good getting 20 levels.
With rogue seems to me that multiclassing is not an option is simply a thing that is better in any case.

Am I wrong?
1. brutish? A monk can't be brutish too, and defensive can a rogue easily be
2. Dual wielding rapiers is almost always better than just a rapier (no shields)
3. Not true
4. Arcane Trickster makes the rogue a jack of all trades and spells are very nice in almost any case, the thief IS some weaker but the elemental monk IS weaker than the others and the champion fighter (before lv. 18) IS also weaker
5. I don't see why not, of course you don't have the bonus action but dual wielding rapiers (feat) means you get 1d8 damage more sometimes and Always +1ac
6. Because sorcerer, bard, warlock sometimes get extra attack and can't do much with it, if rogue would get it rogues would deal way more damage
7. I dont see the problem here

[JellyPooga]

I suggest you recalculate with the exact same bonuses to both sides. +3 weapons for both. Max STR vs. Max DEX (you can only sneak attack with a finesse weapon or a ranged weapon, so dex mod is added to the weapons damage), Haste for both targets, add in whatever fighting style you want, assume 100% hit percentage and 100% sneak attack hit percentage.

Whilst I agree with your post in principle, I don't agree with your assessment of "fair grounds".

Haste is a benefit both Fighter and Rogue have access to, sure, but at the expense of other options. If it's to be a part of the equation, then we must assume that this is an Eldritch Knight vs. an Arcane Trickster comparison, which forgoes any claims about Battlemaster Maneuvers or the like further modifying things.

I also think that hit ratios should be accounted for; a Rogue need only hit once to get the bulk of his damage, whilst the Fighter (who deals less damage per hit) suffers more from a lower attack bonus. This is an important consideration.

[Malifice]

We have a swashbucker 5 in the party who TWF with 2 shortswords, and routinely deals 20-25 DPR. He moves in, swings twice and moves back out. On the rare occasions he finds himself targeted in melee, he halves the damage of one hit per round with uncanny dodge. He has expertise in acrobatics and stealth (and boots of elvenkind) making him the stealthiest badass going around, and is also the party face.

I honestly think hes doing just fine.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Rogues and fighters, at the baseline for any given fighting style, do very similar average damage vs a given AC.

http://s17.postimg.org/wv4142ssf/Damage_comparison_graph.gif

However, due to the methods of delivery, the Fighter will be inherently more reliable and efficient. For example, more attempts to do less damage means you're more likely to do at least some damage on a given round, and spreading out damage into smaller packets means less damage is wasted due to overkill.

Additionally, fighters have access to action surge and aren't dependent on other characters or advantage in order to maximize damage. Fighters also gain more damage than a rogue from any bonuses or magical equipment just from being able to exploit those bonuses more times in a round.

Rogues for their part do have additional ways to generate advantage and ignore disadvantage. Also, if there's a way to generate off-turn attacks, a rogue's damage explodes.

[JellyPooga]

http://s17.postimg.org/wv4142ssf/Damage_comparison_graph.gif

Sorry to be a stickler but a graph, no matter how pretty, without any kind of explanation is only some lines on a page. A labelled axis or two, for a start, might help.

Now, I'm not an idiot and can take some inferences about what's gone in to the calculations, but the graph alone doesn't actually prove anything. Does it, for instance, account for the massive damage spike a Rogue gets for rolling a crit?

[Fwiffo86]

Whilst I agree with your post in principle, I don't agree with your assessment of "fair grounds".

Haste is a benefit both Fighter and Rogue have access to, sure, but at the expense of other options. If it's to be a part of the equation, then we must assume that this is an Eldritch Knight vs. an Arcane Trickster comparison, which forgoes any claims about Battlemaster Maneuvers or the like further modifying things.

I also think that hit ratios should be accounted for; a Rogue need only hit once to get the bulk of his damage, whilst the Fighter (who deals less damage per hit) suffers more from a lower attack bonus. This is an important consideration.

I agree with your statement. But all we are comparing here is average damage in a ballpark fashion. Please don't make me math anymore. I hate having to math.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Sorry to be a stickler but a graph, no matter how pretty, without any kind of explanation is only some lines on a page. A labelled axis or two, for a start, might help.

Now, I'm not an idiot and can take some inferences about what's gone in to the calculations, but the graph alone doesn't actually prove anything. Does it, for instance, account for the massive damage spike a Rogue gets for rolling a crit?

It's damage vs target AC. Yes it does take crits into account. It accounts for some common feats, but not any of the -5/+10 feats, or the polearm master or great weapon master bonus attacks.

[Nu]

The advantages for a rogue being in melee are going to be party and situation specific. Melee can use TWF, but Crossbow Expert can bypass that. You need a clear line of fire to make ranged attacks without facing some penalty for shooting past cover, or else spend another feat on that. If you hide behind the wizard, and the wizard hides behind the barbarian, then the target the barbarian is fighting will almost certainly have cover from you.

Speaking of barbarians, another big factor in jumping into melee is what your other melee PCs are doing. The open hand monk flurries and everyone falls down. You can only sneak attack prone enemies from melee range. The first wolf totem gives advantage only to melee attacks. The paladin's aura is a nice boost, but only if you're within its short radius. The fighter has sentinel so he wants someone else around to be attacked, and you take half damage on one hit. The barbarian has polearm master, so you want to hide within his reach to punish enemies for chasing you.

On a number standpoint, a hasted rogue is a terrifying thing, as they can attack with the hasted action, use their bonus action, then ready an attack for the next victim who is eligible to sneak attack to get a Reaction attack every round.

The problem is, of course, there's little benefit to getting advantage from the wolf totem barbarian feature or enemies being prone if you already have advantage because you are hidden. Cover isn't extremely relevant, as you're going to take a feat to bypass that as it helps you in other ways, or at least dip one level in fighter for the fighting style to cancel cover with the +2. The paladin's aura is a nice boost, but my preference would be to not be making saves in the first place because I'm off the enemy's radar rather than getting a boost to them (not always possible, I know, but I think at worst these two benefits will even out).

It's been personal experience for me in this case, and I understand it may not come into play at every table, but so far I've been unimpressed with the melee rogues capability after switching from ranged. They are very good at dashing into combat, striking, and getting out, but doing so often doesn't leave them any actions with which to hide (or not enough distance), which makes its benefits dubious to me. Sometimes it works, but it's easier when you're using a missile weapon. As a ranged rogue, I had advantage more often than not when attacking. As a melee rogue, I almost never have advantage.

Of course, as for the last point, a ranged rogue can use Haste just as well as a melee rogue.

[CNagy]

As a ranged rogue, I had advantage more often than not when attacking. As a melee rogue, I almost never have advantage.

That also depends on how lenient your DM is with the hide rules. If all your DM requires is that you are behind some other party member, then yeah, hiding is going to be easy and you're going to have advantage all the live-long day. But if the DM has the enemies fan out (or just happen to be far enough to the left or right of your covering member), then any one of them that can see into your space without having to look through your party member's space has an unobstructed line of sight on you, and you can't hide from creatures that can see you. The difference between "you're close enough to this person to hide" and "you're close enough to this person to hide and no enemies can clearly see you" can make the difference between getting advantage almost all the time and getting it almost never.

As a ranged rogue, I didn't have advantage most of the time--instead I was attacking creatures who were next to my allies, using my Cunning Action if needed to Dash and swing out wide enough for an unobstructed shot. If we needed to put pressure on an enemy mage (or another target with no party members within 5'), I'd dive into some bushes (or scale a tree--gotta love Wood Elf stealth), Hide as my bonus action, and then take the shot on the target with advantage.

[DanyBallon]

Little side treck here:
On the "Hide" topic, would you allow a creature to effectively hide from someone that can't see it, while others have a clear line of site on the hiding creature? As in a situation where you would lose sight of someone in a crowd, and while your friend point you where he just seen him, it fade out of your sight again before you get to locate him.

This kind of interpretation would allow rogue to hide from a creature and get advantage even if other creatures can see him. Maybe the target would get advantage on perception for being pointed out by allies.

[Nu]

That also depends on how lenient your DM is with the hide rules. If all your DM requires is that you are behind some other party member, then yeah, hiding is going to be easy and you're going to have advantage all the live-long day. But if the DM has the enemies fan out (or just happen to be far enough to the left or right of your covering member), then any one of them that can see into your space without having to look through your party member's space has an unobstructed line of sight on you, and you can't hide from creatures that can see you. The difference between "you're close enough to this person to hide" and "you're close enough to this person to hide and no enemies can clearly see you" can make the difference between getting advantage almost all the time and getting it almost never.

As a ranged rogue, I didn't have advantage most of the time--instead I was attacking creatures who were next to my allies, using my Cunning Action if needed to Dash and swing out wide enough for an unobstructed shot. If we needed to put pressure on an enemy mage (or another target with no party members within 5'), I'd dive into some bushes (or scale a tree--gotta love Wood Elf stealth), Hide as my bonus action, and then take the shot on the target with advantage.

A halfling rogue (which is what I played) hides behind its allies--that's kind of its shtick, that's what that racial ability does. If the DM takes that away from you all the time, that's a very different issue. Granted, some of it requires utilizing terrain, other party members, and the monsters themselves--monsters aren't going to always "fan out" for a variety of reasons. "Focus fire" tactics are much more effective than spreading out, so monsters that spread out just to spite the rogue is a sign the DM is being an ass. Now, if the enemies favor ranged attacks and are spreading out to better utilize them, that's a different matter.

Edit: I also was easily able to hide by party spellcasters utilizing darkness/illusions for their own benefit, which I would then use to obstruct enemy vision in order to get my Hide on. Even if you're not a halfling, I still think it's generally easier for a ranged rogue to find a way to hide than a melee rogue--not always, but in general. A melee rogue has to make use of terrain where the enemy happens to be, while a ranged rogue can use terrain anywhere within range of their weapon, for example.

[SharkForce]

The problem is, of course, there's little benefit to getting advantage from the wolf totem barbarian feature or enemies being prone if you already have advantage because you are hidden. Cover isn't extremely relevant, as you're going to take a feat to bypass that as it helps you in other ways, or at least dip one level in fighter for the fighting style to cancel cover with the +2. The paladin's aura is a nice boost, but my preference would be to not be making saves in the first place because I'm off the enemy's radar rather than getting a boost to them (not always possible, I know, but I think at worst these two benefits will even out).

It's been personal experience for me in this case, and I understand it may not come into play at every table, but so far I've been unimpressed with the melee rogues capability after switching from ranged. They are very good at dashing into combat, striking, and getting out, but doing so often doesn't leave them any actions with which to hide (or not enough distance), which makes its benefits dubious to me. Sometimes it works, but it's easier when you're using a missile weapon. As a ranged rogue, I had advantage more often than not when attacking. As a melee rogue, I almost never have advantage.

Of course, as for the last point, a ranged rogue can use Haste just as well as a melee rogue.

well, the melee rogue can get advantage on 2 attacks, while the ranged rogue hiding all the time only gets one attack. cover is relevant, because sharpshooter is not worth it on a rogue (-5 to hit +10 to damage gives up the most important part of attacking for a rogue. it is far more important that you hit at all than it is that the weapon portion of your attack deals a lot of damage). the melee rogue can make better use of shield proficiency than the ranged rogue, and can potentially leverage expertise into nearly unstoppable CC as a bonus action (at the cost of making a second actual attack, though it does also gain them advantage to do so), so the fighter splash is still plenty valuable for the ranged rogue too. and meanwhile, other fighting styles can also be quite useful (especially if the various new fighting styles we're seeing in playtest in UE become official).

rogues don't really need to hide all that much either. they're surprisingly tough. obviously, if you can become untargetable and you've also already done your damage, then it's not a bad idea to do so, but rogues really are not squishy targets. they're not as tough as a barbarian of course, but they're not squishy any more than a fighter is squishy.

ultimately, ease of getting advantage and an extra attack is a pretty big deal. that makes for a substantial increase in the likelihood of landing sneak attack, which should not be discounted. meanwhile, not needing a feat for offense frees you up to choose other more interesting options... for example, mobile means you don't need a bonus action to disengage. or alert which can be very useful for someone expecting to make a lot of solo scouting missions. or skulker. or dungeon delver. or healer. or lucky. or heck, even magic initiate for greenflame blade and/or booming blade.

[Kane0]

The thing that rubs me the wrong way is that rogues don't get any short or long rest abilities apart from AT casting.

So in that small way I think rogue is bad designed.

[CNagy]

A halfling rogue (which is what I played) hides behind its allies--that's kind of its shtick, that's what that racial ability does. If the DM takes that away from you all the time, that's a very different issue. Granted, some of it requires utilizing terrain, other party members, and the monsters themselves--monsters aren't going to always "fan out" for a variety of reasons. "Focus fire" tactics are much more effective than spreading out, so monsters that spread out just to spite the rogue is a sign the DM is being an ass. Now, if the enemies favor ranged attacks and are spreading out to better utilize them, that's a different matter.

Edit: I also was easily able to hide by party spellcasters utilizing darkness/illusions for their own benefit, which I would then use to obstruct enemy vision in order to get my Hide on. Even if you're not a halfling, I still think it's generally easier for a ranged rogue to find a way to hide than a melee rogue--not always, but in general. A melee rogue has to make use of terrain where the enemy happens to be, while a ranged rogue can use terrain anywhere within range of their weapon, for example.

The racial ability allows you to hide when only obscured by creatures that are one size larger than you. Replace creatures with plants/weather that is lightly obscuring and you've got the Wood Elf ability. The point of that being that for Halfings and Wood Elves, they don't have a magical ability to disappear in those given conditions, they simply have a wider variety of scenarios where they can attempt to hide. It's not a question of the DM taking it away--hide requires that you not be seen when you hide. If the DM is enforcing that strictly, then your ally is basically no different than a 5' stone block--anything that can see around it to see you can keep you from hiding.

Intelligent monsters may indeed fan out after you've pulled your disappearing act a couple of times and vanished behind a cloak. Unintelligent monsters that don't have pack tactics might just engage the first party member to hurt them. When the field is a bit wide and the enemy placement is not concentrated, it can get quite hard to hide under the normal rules.

The only reason I brought this up as a possibility is because while a ranged Rogue is in a position to get advantage more often than a melee Rogue, how often is entirely dependent on how strictly or loosely the DM is running the stealth rules. If your DM decides that hiding behind allies is a Halfling schtick that remains in place even when enemies who aren't mostly opposite of you should be able to see you clearly, then you're going to get advantage a lot more often than you would if your DM treats your allies as trees or rocks for the purpose of your hiding.

[Malifice]

The thing that rubs me the wrong way is that rogues don't get any short or long rest abilities apart from AT casting.

So in that small way I think rogue is bad designed.

Intentional design. Them and the champion are plug and play and rest neutral to a large extent.

[Gwendol]

Agreed. Their resilience vs rests is likely intentional. I think the rogue is done right; a very well-made class all around.

[djreynolds]

Skills aside.

The rogue is designed for one thing, land a big hit with sneak attack when we really need it. No one is immune to a sneak attack. Because of your high dexterity, you have real options in melee and range. TWF gives you two chances to hit and land big damage and if you hit the first time move out and reposition yourself for another sneak attack. You have access to a hand crossbow for a reason. And crossbow expert allows you to fight with a short sword and hand crossbow.

Your job is not to land multiple strikes, your job is to land that sneak attack. You don't need TWF style with an off hand crossbow, because you get its dex damage bonus with crossbow expert. It doesn't matter if it does 1d6, what matters is if it lands a sneak attack it does ?d6 of damage.

If you want to play an archer, hunter ranger will give you the most bang for your buck, as will battlemaster and both of those make great chassis for a dedicated rogue sniper.

But most rogue's are fine moving in and out of combat. You live in that world between the tanks on the front line and the casters and archers in the back. Crossbow expert and mobile were made for the rogue so he stab with his sword or shoot his hand crossbow in melee and then reposition or attack again.

And like the fighter, the rogue is easily multiclassed, it is a strength not a weakness.

[Deadandamnation]

What I was saying was that (I'll try to revamp the sentence because was probably misunderstandable):

Rogue is a very good class to play and get plenty of options, nice resistance, average damage with no feat requirements and can work as a lvl 20 rogue, no one will put that in doubt.

But it have no reasons (except flavourness) to deep into his class.

So from an optimization side rogue 1/any class can work as a trapfinder and scout since abilities and expertise are both given at the first level.

After few rogue levels (7/8 is a good capstone but 12 is the real level cap) the main thing that you get is SA increment, while multiclassing can open up many other options and you sacrifice nothing to do so.

Rogue 12/Anyclass 8 is better in 90% of the cases, not just from a damage point of view but from a versatility point too.

Arcane tricksters/Wizard is worst than a pure trickster or better? In most cases will be better.

That's the main goal of the question "Is Rogue badly designed?" The answer is: "No, but he could be better past 12"

[djreynolds]

What I was saying was that (I'll try to revamp the sentence because was probably misunderstandable):

Rogue is a very good class to play and get plenty of options, nice resistance, average damage with no feat requirements and can work as a lvl 20 rogue, no one will put that in doubt.

But it have no reasons (except flavourness) to deep into his class.

So from an optimization side rogue 1/any class can work as a trapfinder and scout since abilities and expertise are both given at the first level.

After few rogue levels (7/8 is a good capstone but 12 is the real level cap) the main thing that you get is SA increment, while multiclassing can open up many other options and you sacrifice nothing to do so.

Rogue 12/Anyclass 8 is better in 90% of the cases, not just from a damage point of view but from a versatility point too.

Arcane tricksters/Wizard is worst than a pure trickster or better? In most cases will be better.

That's the main goal of the question "Is Rogue badly designed?" The answer is: "No, but he could be better past 12"

Unfortunately you may be correct. But really only a few classes are well designed to go 20 levels, and who gets to play at level 20, not many players.

[Deadandamnation]

Unfortunately you may be correct. But really only a few classes are well designed to go 20 levels, and who gets to play at level 20, not many players.

True, personally I've never get past 15 th (3.5 speaking) since the game become simply too much unreal even for a fantasy game (and unbalanced).

We was speaking just thoretically since is not a tabletop cooperative game but a game that involve a Master that is there to let you show your strength and weaknesses, so he can make anyone shine or suck simply by fit challenges for your class :)

[djreynolds]

True, personally I've never get past 15 th (3.5 speaking) since the game become simply too much unreal even for a fantasy game (and unbalanced).

We was speaking just thoretically since is not a tabletop cooperative game but a game that involve a Master that is there to let you show your strength and weaknesses, so he can make anyone shine or suck simply by fit challenges for your class :)

I feel, IMO, some will say moon druid, but to me the Barbarian just feels like a full class every level, the best class. Paladin was well made, 4 distinct archetypes that are just cool and give lots of ideas and invokes cool images. Casters are casters, you are there for your spells really.

But at the end of the day, I still love to play the champion or thief, I find them more challenging to play and to stay relevant in the game. Often though we talk of things in the laboratory, like sports analysts speaking of football, but like I tell my players on any given Sunday even a goblin can roll a 20. The dice is 5e can be very fickle.

[JellyPooga]

That's the main goal of the question "Is Rogue badly designed?" The answer is: "No, but he could be better past 12"

To be fair, similar claims could probably be made of most Classes. The Fighter, for example, doesn't get much past 11th when it gets his 3rd attack. Does it really need tweaking for a power boost? No.

I still think you're underplaying the abilities of Rogues, pre- and post-12th level. I'll tentatively agree that the Rogue is front-loaded, but their high-level abilities are definitely comparable to other Classes high-level abilities.

For example; A Thief multiclassing out after 12th. Let's go with a solid choice and MC to Fighter (Battlemaster).
- you lose 4d6 sneak attack for a start. You'll pick up Extra Attack for what; 1d8+5 extra damage? On the regular damage front, you've traded 14 damage for 9 (on average).
- 8 levels of Fighter gives you 3 ASI's, but Slippery Mind is about the equivalent of a Feat, so you're not really getting much on that front; just a little more choice in the matter.
- You gain the very powerful Action Surge but lose the even better Thief's Reflexes.
- It sounds a bit snide, but the closest comparison I could find in the Battlemaster to UMD is Student of War; trading away "use any item" for "artisan tool proficiency" sounds like a bad deal. Even if you throw Know Your Enemy into the deal, I'd still rather have UMD.

So as far as I can see, the only thing you've really gained from 8 levels of Fighter instead of Rogue is a few bum deals for Combat Superiority and Maneuvers. Medium Armour and Martial Weapon prof is a non-feature in this scenario; with Dex 20 you've got AC 18 (at least) anyway and you're already proficient with all the melee weapons you're ever going to use anyway.

I'd take the trade, myself, if I thought it fit the character concept, but really speaking it's probably a bad deal in the long run. If you want to have a little fun, reverse the situation and take a look at a Battlemaster Fighter multiclassing to Thief Rogue after 12th; the deal looks a lot sweeter to me. Which one is "badly designed" at high levels again? :smallamused:

[djreynolds]

To be fair, similar claims could probably be made of most Classes. The Fighter, for example, doesn't get much past 11th when it gets his 3rd attack. Does it really need tweaking for a power boost? No.

I still think you're underplaying the abilities of Rogues, pre- and post-12th level. I'll tentatively agree that the Rogue is front-loaded, but their high-level abilities are definitely comparable to other Classes high-level abilities.

For example; A Thief multiclassing out after 12th. Let's go with a solid choice and MC to Fighter (Battlemaster).
- you lose 4d6 sneak attack for a start. You'll pick up Extra Attack for what; 1d8+5 extra damage? On the regular damage front, you've traded 14 damage for 9 (on average).
- 8 levels of Fighter gives you 3 ASI's, but Slippery Mind is about the equivalent of a Feat, so you're not really getting much on that front; just a little more choice in the matter.
- You gain the very powerful Action Surge but lose the even better Thief's Reflexes.
- It sounds a bit snide, but the closest comparison I could find in the Battlemaster to UMD is Student of War; trading away "use any item" for "artisan tool proficiency" sounds like a bad deal. Even if you throw Know Your Enemy into the deal, I'd still rather have UMD.

So as far as I can see, the only thing you've really gained from 8 levels of Fighter instead of Rogue is a few bum deals for Combat Superiority and Maneuvers. Medium Armour and Martial Weapon prof is a non-feature in this scenario; with Dex 20 you've got AC 18 (at least) anyway and you're already proficient with all the melee weapons you're ever going to use anyway.

I'd take the trade, myself, if I thought it fit the character concept, but really speaking it's probably a bad deal in the long run. If you want to have a little fun, reverse the situation and take a look at a Battlemaster Fighter multiclassing to Thief Rogue after 12th; the deal looks a lot sweeter to me. Which one is "badly designed" at high levels again? :smallamused:

Wholeheartedly agree, fighter rogue are made to go together, you could even sprinkle in some ranger. All abilities mesh like the charisma based classes do. And hunter, battle-master and now swashbuckler could be an awesome combo.

7 battlemaster/ 13 swashbuckler works perfect. 3 hunter/7 fighter/ 10 thief. And any multiclass in powerful right off the bat.

[Shaofoo]

I think this is why multiclassing is so desired now a days, it is because the way most classes are designed so that they gain the majority of their power in the first half of their levels and the second half being either increasing the established powers or gaining some good but not as good as the first set of powers.

Of course I think the reason for this design is because we are supposed to play characters so they give us more powers at the beginning to get excited and by the time we are at the halfway point in levels we should be invested in our character.

And I am pretty sure that this design to give more power to the beginning than the end is a reason why multiclassing is DM choice restricted by RAW.

And like I said again, just because you can create any class combination that could theoretically beat any full 20 class doesn't mean that the full 20 class is somehow bad in and of itself. Just because you aren't the best doesn't mean that you are bad. I can live without being the best DPR or having the most toys around as long as I can get to do some things on my own. Even though I was kidding there is this mentality that somehow if you can't be the best then it is a futile exercise to try playing the game.

[DanyBallon]

I think this is why multiclassing is so desired now a days, it is because the way most classes are designed so that they gain the majority of their power in the first half of their levels and the second half being either increasing the established powers or gaining some good but not as good as the first set of powers.

Of course I think the reason for this design is because we are supposed to play characters so they give us more powers at the beginning to get excited and by the time we are at the halfway point in levels we should be invested in our character.

And I am pretty sure that this design to give more power to the beginning than the end is a reason why multiclassing is DM choice restricted by RAW.

And like I said again, just because you can create any class combination that could theoretically beat any full 20 class doesn't mean that the full 20 class is somehow bad in and of itself. Just because you aren't the best doesn't mean that you are bad. I can live without being the best DPR or having the most toys around as long as I can get to do some things on my own. Even though I was kidding there is this mentality that somehow if you can't be the best then it is a futile exercise to try playing the game.

[out of topic]
If you want to prevent multiclassing abuse, one can restrain MC to no more than 2-3 levels difference between classes, this way you'll see far less level dip. Still to accomodate players who reallywant to dip in an other class for some nice level 1-2 abilities that fit the concept he has in mind, a "dual class" style of MC could be used, where character gain a few level in a given class (the class he want's to dip in) then pick an other class, and as long as this new class isn't 1 level higher than the first, he don't get to use the abilities of the former. i.e. a Fighter 2/Wizard 1, would have 2d10+1d6 HD, but won't be proficient in armor, martial weapons, won't have action surge and second wind, until he is a fighter 2/wizard 3. In order to lessen the harshness of such methode, maybe allowing the character to use all (or any combinaison of 2) saving throws of both classes as soon as the new class is of a higher level than the former.
[/out of topic]

[Shaofoo]

[out of topic]
If you want to prevent multiclassing abuse, one can restrain MC to no more than 2-3 levels difference between classes, this way you'll see far less level dip. Still to accomodate players who reallywant to dip in an other class for some nice level 1-2 abilities that fit the concept he has in mind, a "dual class" style of MC could be used, where character gain a few level in a given class (the class he want's to dip in) then pick an other class, and as long as this new class isn't 1 level higher than the first, he don't get to use the abilities of the former. i.e. a Fighter 2/Wizard 1, would have 2d10+1d6 HD, but won't be proficient in armor, martial weapons, won't have action surge and second wind, until he is a fighter 2/wizard 3. In order to lessen the harshness of such methode, maybe allowing the character to use all (or any combinaison of 2) saving throws of both classes as soon as the new class is of a higher level than the former.
[/out of topic]

Multiclassing doesn't break the game, grabbing a bunch of starting powers isn't going to suddenly make you solo encounters and pretty sure you will be suffering as you try to get to where you want to be. But I do want people to multiclass to fit a concept not because some other class gives them nice powers, but of course if you want to be at a mechanical advantage then that is one way to play the game, roll and role playing aren't superior to one another. Of course people are more than willing to multiclass in speak because they don't make characters they make statblocks that only live as long as they are needed to make a point and then discarded as soon as they aren't needed.

[CNagy]

For example; A Thief multiclassing out after 12th. Let's go with a solid choice and MC to Fighter (Battlemaster).
- you lose 4d6 sneak attack for a start. You'll pick up Extra Attack for what; 1d8+5 extra damage? On the regular damage front, you've traded 14 damage for 9 (on average).
- 8 levels of Fighter gives you 3 ASI's, but Slippery Mind is about the equivalent of a Feat, so you're not really getting much on that front; just a little more choice in the matter.
- You gain the very powerful Action Surge but lose the even better Thief's Reflexes.
- It sounds a bit snide, but the closest comparison I could find in the Battlemaster to UMD is Student of War; trading away "use any item" for "artisan tool proficiency" sounds like a bad deal. Even if you throw Know Your Enemy into the deal, I'd still rather have UMD.

So as far as I can see, the only thing you've really gained from 8 levels of Fighter instead of Rogue is a few bum deals for Combat Superiority and Maneuvers. Medium Armour and Martial Weapon prof is a non-feature in this scenario; with Dex 20 you've got AC 18 (at least) anyway and you're already proficient with all the melee weapons you're ever going to use anyway.

I'd take the trade, myself, if I thought it fit the character concept, but really speaking it's probably a bad deal in the long run. If you want to have a little fun, reverse the situation and take a look at a Battlemaster Fighter multiclassing to Thief Rogue after 12th; the deal looks a lot sweeter to me. Which one is "badly designed" at high levels again? :smallamused:

You lose 4d6 (average 14) damage from Sneak Attack, but if damage is your main concern then you either a) take the dueling fighting style (1d8+7, average 11.5 damage) or b) you drop to short swords and take two weapon fighting style (3d6+15+6d6 <average 45.5 damage> vs 1d8+5+10d6 <average 44.5 damage>). The Rogue edges out slightly with two weapons, but when you consider the Rogue's all-or-nothing damage style versus the Fighters all-some-or-none style, the Fighter-Rogue will deal more consistent damage.

If you aren't as concerned with damage, then Medium armor does become a feature in the scenario--both Rogues will have maxed out Dex scores, but only one of them will have a shield. And possibly the defensive fighting style. Or he opted to go middle of the road and took the dueling style to narrow the damage gap and a shield to have a better AC.

Going the feat route to recreate Slippery Mind ends up netting you a +1 to Wisdom--and you can take it 14 levels ahead of schedule (as a variant Human) or 11 levels ahead of schedule (as everyone else) without creating a dead level in your progression.

Admittedly, Thief's Reflexes is better than action surge. You'll get to use it, on average, twice as often as action surge. But in a sense, it is also comparing tangerines to tangelos; sometimes you are going to want the single-turn burst of activity that action surge provides more than the 2 full turns that Thief's Reflexes provides, because a lot can happen in a 10-count on the initiative order.

UMD and Know Your Enemy are both unique abilities possessed by no other class. UMD is potentially much more useful, but dependent entirely on your campaign. The fewer magic items the party finds, the less it gets used--especially if the party finds items that other party members can use. I'd still rather have it than Know Your Enemy, and with the additional 1d6 Sneak Attack damage it could easily be worth giving up the 8th level Fighter feat... it depends on your DM.

But this talk of Battlemasters barely even mentions the main draw of the Battlemaster; the superiority dice. This floating versatility can add a little damage across several encounters each short rest, or very significant damage (if, for example, you use them mostly on Riposte to get an attack), or spell-like effects (the goading and frightening maneuvers), etc.

The deal strikes me as, without-a-doubt, worth it.

[JellyPooga]

The deal strikes me as, without-a-doubt, worth it.

I don't particularly disagree with anything you say; as I said, I'd take the deal myself. I do think I'd be missing out on a modicum of power, but I'm willing to accept that in favour of the versatility of choice I'll gain from the multiclass. The same applies to other multiclass options;
- An Arcane Trickster MCing to Wizard after 12th gains heaps of utility with his spellcasting and Arcane Traditions.
- A Strength Rogue MCing Barbarian gains on-demand advantage on attack rolls and tanking ability (almost) on par with a Moon Druid.
- A Thief MCing Shadow Monk rivals Olidamarra (or Mask for those in the Forgotten Realms) on sheer Stealth power.

The list goes on for the way MCing helps. But, on the flipside, you're still losing out on those high level features; the Wizard MC falls behind in the DPR stakes, the Barbarian MC has MAD issues from the get-go and becomes more short-rest reliant, the Monk MC becomes very short-rest reliant and also has MAD problems and so on and so forth.

One of the things I like about 5ed is that Multiclassing is always a hard choice*; for everything you gain, you're missing out on something that's probably a slight bit better, but not by so much that you'd actually miss it compared to whatever you gained from MCing. The Rogue is no exception.

*Caveat: for sensible Multiclasses. MCing Wizard and Barbarian is just asking to be underpowered, for example.

[Shaofoo]

One of the things I like about 5ed is that Multiclassing is always a hard choice*; for everything you gain, you're missing out on something that's probably a slight bit better, but not by so much that you'd actually miss it compared to whatever you gained from MCing. The Rogue is no exception.



It is only a hard choice because in play you actually have to earn your levels and the thing that you were working so hard might not come online in your game but from what I see most theorycraft builds have some level of multiclassing, it doesn't seem like it is a hard choice when it comes to theory, just impractical. I haven't seen many builds going to 20, the only one that there seems to be a general consensus to not multiclass is the Druid and only because of the infinite HP shenanigans.

[SharkForce]

rogue is not doing particularly poorly in the level 12+ abilities field.

at level 14, blindsense. in essence, hiding no longer works very well against you for the most part. depending on DM interpretation, you may even be able to act as if you can see, making it even better than blindsight.

at level 15, free saving throw proficiency. rogues join the small group of classes that can potentially gain proficiency in all 3 major saves (you can gain proficiency in wisdom saves with resilience, but since you can only choose it once you'll be missing out on con saves).

at level 18, you gain the ability to never be attacked with advantage unless you're incapacitated. not when you're prone, not when you're blind, not when your opponent has foresight, not against barbarians, not against monsters with pack tactics. that isn't amazing, but it's not awful either.

at level 20, your infrequent failures become successes once per short rest. you don't know the meaning of the word impossible any more. DC 30 checks are child's play, and DC 35 is probably within your reach, guaranteed, for multiple skills.

at level 13, you get UMD (potentially amazing, a very unique and interesting ability to gain), the ability to almost infallibly imitate anyone if it is even remotely plausible, or gain guaranteed advantage on attacks against a target of your choice at the cost of a bonus action. no saves, no checks, no way to resist it, mind you... this is what is widely considered to be the barbarian's most powerful offensive ability, and you're getting it without the massive defensive drawback from your archetype. oh, and also level 3 spell slots 4 full levels than you'd get them with a multiclass (including haste 3 levels early, which is kind of a big deal for a rogue, particularly since by this point the average caster views hasting someone as being roughly equivalent to chopping off their arm and replacing it with a knife as their concentration slot becomes more and more precious). assassin's is arguably the weakest, but in the right situation it is quite powerful.

at level 17, you potentially gain a floating spell known (just need a friend to cast a spell and you can steal it) plus more spells and slots (but i'm sure you weren't looking forward to improved invisibility or anything like that) or two full actions (on different turns; so you get two actions, two moves, two bonus actions, and you can sneak attack with each action separately), or ridiculous burst against a surprised creature (and hey, guess who happens to be a scout that probably can't roll less than 27 on a stealth check even before buffing is taken into consideration?).

and, of course, constantly increasing sneak attack dice.

yeah, there are things to be gained by multiclassing. but generally speaking, i think there are fairly compelling reasons to remain a single-classed rogue as well.

really, the only classes where i'd say you're losing too much by multiclassing is if you intend to be a primary full spellcaster. and even then, a dip might gain you something worth the cost, if you choose well.

[TopCheese]

Isn't going to happen often on a +10 initative charachters?
My Assassinate version is better for a rogue and worst for a multiclass that's all and removing the needing to act first but only one/short rest make it more of a Nova Button with more control so...better.

Action Surge still is better but it's probably the best feature of the entire book.

Assassin is the wekest I agree and the most used in multiclassing, so nerfing the third and buffing the others seems reasonable to me

Though action surge is mechanically the best feature in the game (more or less) I think that is exactly why it is the worst feature in the game. It is too good and it causes issues when you try to make other classes.

But with the OP..

The rogue is the best designed martial class... Up until level 8. After that it stops growing. It never really gets enough to be anything other than low level martial. Sadly.

[Malifice]

The rogue is the best designed martial class... Up until level 8. After that it stops growing. It never really gets enough to be anything other than low level martial. Sadly.

Yeah, nah.

The 11th level Rogue ability is the absolute balls taking bounded accuracy into consideration (borderline broken), and they have a ton of amazing abiliites (plus ever increasing sneak attack) to follow and a capstone of a 1/ short rest ability that translates into 'I succeed'.

[djreynolds]

Rogues and fighters, at the baseline for any given fighting style, do very similar average damage vs a given AC.

http://s17.postimg.org/wv4142ssf/Damage_comparison_graph.gif

However, due to the methods of delivery, the Fighter will be inherently more reliable and efficient. For example, more attempts to do less damage means you're more likely to do at least some damage on a given round, and spreading out damage into smaller packets means less damage is wasted due to overkill.

Additionally, fighters have access to action surge and aren't dependent on other characters or advantage in order to maximize damage. Fighters also gain more damage than a rogue from any bonuses or magical equipment just from being able to exploit those bonuses more times in a round.

Rogues for their part do have additional ways to generate advantage and ignore disadvantage. Also, if there's a way to generate off-turn attacks, a rogue's damage explodes.

This a good point, I think people don't get it. But the way you show it is good. Everyone is doing "comparable damage", but the rogue's job in a fight is too focus that damage on one opponent and the fighter spreads it out. A good fighter is cracking the shell for the rogue to stab the soft stuff. Or a rogue hurts someone and the fighter finishes him off, and the rogue moves on to the next opponent. The rogue's don't have splash damage of an AoE, a fighter can spread out his attacks or focus on one opponent.

It is why rogue's are designed with mobility in mind, to pick targets and hurt them, one at a time and move on.

For me, in my humble opinion, you really have to understand your place in a party. A rogue fills a certain niche in regards to the damage they provide for the party. Yes they can "tank" sure, any class can soak up hits. I feel some players who do not understand the inner workings of the rogue are better off playing a ranger or monk who give the feel of a roguish PC darting in and out of combat but also have the feel of a fighter-type with extra attacks. But remember rogues are not rangers or monks, rangers and monks are great at crowd control, rogues are there to kill the crowd members one at a time, and the fighter is almost stationary anchoring the group and softening up the enemy. Its why the hit point spread is the way it is.