Need help deciding class to play?

[Jarmen4u]

Hi all, I'm relatively new to 5e, and I'm joining a friend's game, but I'm not sure which class I should play. Specifically, I was hoping to fill the role of secondary melee, though I'm not sure exactly what our party needs, or what is fun/strong. We currently have a Cleric, Ranger, Barbarian, and Sorcerer. Initially, I wanted to try a Mystic, but that was shot down (apparently it's OP, shame, it seemed really cool). I was thinking Rogue, but I feel like I wouldn't be that useful in combat, and out of combat I wouldn't have much to do. (I'm not familiar with Storm King, but when we did OOTA last year there wasn't a lot of use for our Rogue and they got bored fast.)

So, currently I have in mind: Inquisitive Rogue, Monk, Blade Pack Warlock, Bladesinger, Favored Soul, Swashbuckler, and maybe some others that I can't remember right now. Out of these, and maybe others that I'm not remembering, what are the relative power- and fun- levels of these classes? I want something that can be interesting to play in and out of combat. When I played last, I was a Battlemaster Fighter, which I enjoyed in combat, but once the fighting was over, I was mostly just the party mule. Thoughts?

EDIT: Sorcerer player bailed, so now we're down a full caster. That changes things... a lot.

[MrMcBobb]

I feel like Bladelock would be really cool. They get some excellent abilities and are good for secondary melee. Also with regards to Battlemaster, they get some stick on here for being a bit rubbish but I really love the active role they can take in combat by having the solid damage base of a fighter and also the active abilities that give you some options in combat beyond "I wave my hittin' stick about"

For your out of combat woes Bladelock is still a good fit as they will have high Cha and that will lend itself to you being more useful in social situations. Also Warlock is one of the most interesting classes mechanically (in my opinion) due to the cool and thematic stuff you can do with invocations. It gives you a lot of options for how you want your character to be built and you can remain relevant as a caster due to the short-rest mechanics, you're OK in melee combat (but a little squishy), you're a great consistant damage dealer because Eldritch Blast is banging and you also have good social skills (RP dependant) which means you can be involved in every part of the game.

I have a big love for Charisma classes so Locks and Bards are always a good choice if you ask me (Pallies and Sorcs too, obviously) because they have interesting mechanics and a lot of roleplay wiggle room.

[Spore]

Bard is always a great 5th class and allow you to try out almost anything in the system. Be it combat, spells, skills. And they skew heavily towards social play which is great for interaction with the game world. And you are a great force multiplier. You can be second everything. Second melee. Second healer. Second arcanist/controller. Second buffer.

[JellyPooga]

Cleric, Ranger, Barbarian and Sorcerer? That's a party in need of a Rogue.

Don't make the mistake of thinking Rogues are bad in combat; they are very competitive in the dpr stakes and with Expertise in Athletics, they can even put the likes of Barbarians to shame when it comes to combat shenanigans (i.e. shoves and grapples). That's putting aside Cunning Action; an ability that basically says "You can do more, every turn, than everyone else"; it's essentially the "have more fun in combat" ability! Once you hit level 5, Uncanny Dodge gives you a remarkable durability in a straight up melee and at level 7, Evasion ramps that up even higher. Don't be fooled by that d8 HD; Rogues have more effective HP than Fighters, Rangers and Paladins; second only to Barbarians.

For out of combat utility, the Rogue is second only to the Bard (and even that's debatable). Expertise means you're actually good at your chosen skills, as opposed to merely proficient and you don't have to go for the stereotype of Stealth and Deception; put expertise in Arcana or History to be a loremaster, Persuasion to be the party face, or whatever. Whatever role you want to fill outside of combat, you can fill it better than Classes that appear tailor made for it; Arcana? Stand aside Wizard, the Rogue's got this one! Survival? I don't need a Ranger; I need a Rogue! Religion? Who needs a Cleric? I want a Rogue! Don't make the mistake of thinking of all Rogues as Thieves; yes, they can be the sneaky-sneaky-pick-the-pocket stereotype, but they don't have to be; be an adventuring scholar, a grizzled veteran, a surgeon with a vendetta or a master swordsman; the Rogues suite of abilities covers a lot of roleplaying ground and is, IMO, one of the most versatile Classes in the book.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

First off, Rogue would not be a bad choice, as sneak attack has been revamped, and it is almost impossible to NOT get sneak attack anymore.

There are two things that can grant Sneak Attack: 1) Advantage = sneak attacks, 2) If target has an opponent within 5' of it. So even if you aren't flanking, so long as more than one party member is adjacent to the target, you get Sneak Attack.

Furthermore, immunity to sneak attack is also gone. So two thirds of the encounters you face are no longer immune to you, making it far more attractive.

However, other suggestions are also valid. Personally, I find Bladelock's main problem to be that you are using a caster in melee, and far more fragile than other options. However, if you go Blastlock, it could be quite strong. Hex + Eldritch Blast + Agonizing Blast = good times. This is at-will damage per round, consistently. The disadvantage of Warlock is they have almost no burst DPS. But then, that's what the Sorcerer does, and does extremely well. Your advantage is that you never run out of pew-pew, but your other utility will be limited outside of short rests.

Bard is a solid fifth party member, able to cover a stupendous number of roles in and out of combat. But again, not exactly the sort of fellow you want in the front row. If you want a melee character, I'd look elsewhere.

Have you considered Paladin? You have a Barbarian, but Paladins make an excellent meat shield, and has the ability to dish out some pretty solid battlefield control and damage and tanking. Smite is burst damage, and I wouldn't rely on it (until 11th level when you get bonus smite damage on every attack), but the various Strike spells are all quite useful for a front-line beatstick and gives him a measure of battlefield control. If you go Polearm Mastery and Sentinel, you can excel at making sure no one gets past you, especially if you pick up Tunnel Fighter as your Fighting Style. You and the Barbarian position yourself to give flanking bonuses to each other, you keep them in place, and you play monster-ping-pong back and forth.

Fighter is actually a solid choice in 5e. If you passed it up because 'fighters suck', then I urge you to give them a second look, especially Battle Master or Eldritch Knight fighters. Getting more attacks than anyone else, Second Wind for spot healing, Action Surge for that extra action when you need it the most, and the ability to reroll a failed save... Fighters are pretty awesome. Battle Masters do a great job by doing things like tripping opponents (especially if they wield a weapon which grants disadvantage to resist trips), disarming opponents (some weapons give disadvantage to resist disarms), granting advantage to allies or disadvantage to enemies, dramatically increase your AC as long as you keep moving... the sky is the limit really.

[Aett_Thorn]

Edit -> Just saw that the DM was not open to Mystic. Shame, as they're not really that OP, but they are fun.

I would agree that the party could use a Rogue. Go Arcane Trickster to get a few more options for out-of-combat stuff as well.

[Rogerdodger557]

tl;dr: Rogue is a stealth based skill monkey, Artificer is a magic item based skill money with similar damage per round, and are both good choices



A lot of people have said go rogue. It's certainly not a bad choice, seeing how the party seems to be in need of a skill monkey. Another option that can deal damage similar to the rogue, with(in my opinion) more versatility, in the Artificer. They get proficiency with thieves' tools, and at least two other tools. The Gunsmith subclass get a ranged weapon that does 2d6 damage, and when the get third they get something similar to the rogue's sneak attack(extra d6 when you hit), or the Alchemist, which lets you craft scalable alchemist's fire and acid, as well as a healing draught, with some other stuff too. Not to mention you can craft magic items at certain levels, as well as a mechanical servant at level 6.

[jaappleton]

I'm going to go slightly off the grid here and suggest Monk.

People suggesting Rogue are making a good suggestion. However, I don't think you'll enjoy that Rogues only get one attack. Wait for your turn to come around... swing and a miss. That can get very frustrating.

Monks in combat are death by a thousand cuts. They don't hit hard, but they hit a lot. Also, your high mobility ensures you can run interference for when anyone tries to attack the Sorcerer or anyone squishy.

And everyone loves Stunning Strike.

Now, what archetype?

Shadow lets you fill in the Rogue role a bit, as far as stealth and scouting is concerned.

Long Death are tough as nails. Having the ability to strike Fear into your enemies can drastically alter a battle.

Sun Soul have the most AoE with Burning Hands as a bonus action at 6th level, but IMO are lackluster outside of that.

Can't really go wrong with Open Hand.

I'd suggest Long Death and park yourself next to the Barbarian and beat on things.

[Jarmen4u]

I actually didn't consider a BFC type melee, how viable is that in 5e? I'd only be concerned that since we're doing a giant-centric campaign, tripping and so on would be limited in usefulness.

I do appreciate the utility of being a skill monkey, but at the same time, I'm already a code monkey, and I don't like that name. :smallbiggrin:

[Puh Laden]

Moon druids aren't bad for secondary melee, and with their spells they have plenty of out-of-combat utility.

[jaappleton]

I actually didn't consider a BFC type melee, how viable is that in 5e? I'd only be concerned that since we're doing a giant-centric campaign, tripping and so on would be limited in usefulness.

I do appreciate the utility of being a skill monkey, but at the same time, I'm already a code monkey, and I don't like that name. :smallbiggrin:

Battlefield Control Melee is absolutely possible in 5E, and IMO, nobody does it better than a Monk. Open Hand does it the best.

It helps if you memorize the conditions and effects. For example, Stunned targets can't take Actions or Reactions, and you have Advantage on attack rolls against a Stunned target. Open Hand can Prone pretty easily, and Prone targets have to use half their movement to stand up, and attack rolls VS a prone target have Advantage.

You can wreak havoc pretty easily.

[Biggstick]

As someone who is currently DM'ing Storm King's Thunder, and having played through half of it myself, I'm going to recommend Rogue. As many folks have explained here, Rogues definitely fill the skill monkey role extremely well, and they bring some decent ranged/melee damage.

The main enemies you're dealing with in Storm King's Thunder are Giants. Of all types (Trolls and Ogres are included in this). They have a pretty high bonus to hit, and do a ton of damage when they connect. Having Uncanny Dodge from Rogue level 5 will be extremely useful in keeping you alive vs the Giants, even more so then the 18-21 AC your typical "tank" has.

It's great that you have a Barbarian in your group, as not much else is really all that effective in tanking Giants.

Another point, Giants don't have the greatest Wisdom or Intelligence scores. Some do, but most don't. This means Illusions are another great way at dealing with Giants. You know who can utilize Illusions? Arcane Tricksters. ^_^

Someone recommended expertise Athletics for shoving and grappling of foes. I wouldn't recommend trying to grapple or shove a Giant. You're not going to win that bout. Instead, focus on your ability to hide.
Now either you've read all that or you haven't. What it boils down to is I'd recommend an Elven Arcane Trickster who grabs Find Familiar and Disguise Self. Expertise Stealth and one of the Charisma skills to help face, even if you have a 10 Charisma. Take Giant as a known language.

But if I were to pick from the list you've chosen, I would definitely go with Swashbuckler. I'd find a way to pick up Long bow proficiency and either the Booming Blade or Green Flame Blade cantrip. Choose Persuasion and Stealth as two of your Expertise skills. And take Giant as a known language.

If your DM is any sort of competent, you'll have a lot of fun with the campaign. Storm King's Thunder is a really fun module and really allows for DM innovation on top of an already huge world.

[Specter]

Listen to JellyPooga.

[Theodoxus]

Listen to JellyPooga.

Eh, having prepped Storm King, to run concurrently with Rise of Tiamat and Out of the Abyss, I'd say listen to BiggStick. You're not going to be grappling very many giants...

Wood Elf or High Elf (depending on what you'd rather have, racially) both grant long bow proficiency. With a barbarian tanking things in melee, this allows you to sneak attack all the things.

The only other option I would suggest, depends on UA availability - and that would be a multiclass between rogue (any flavor, but AT or Thief would be my recommendation) and Kensai monk. This would allow you to be a master of the long bow - flurrying arrows, one of which a turn would deal sneak damage.

But otherwise straight rogue (and think of yourself as a loremaster, not a monkey) is super viable.

[NecessaryWeevil]

It might be useful to know what roles the others intend to play, especially the sorc. Not all sorcs are blasters, not all clerics are healers, not all barbs are tanks, not all rangers are archers. You might be surprised which gaps show up (and which ones don't).

[Jarmen4u]

It might be useful to know what roles the others intend to play, especially the sorc. Not all sorcs are blasters, not all clerics are healers, not all barbs are tanks, not all rangers are archers. You might be surprised which gaps show up (and which ones don't).

Unfortunately, I was just invited by my friend, the DM, and he only gave me a list of classes. Though I know the barbarian is a dwarf battlerager, whatever that's worth.

I appreciate all this feedback, and I'll definitely take it into account. I still have a couple weeks before the official Session 0, so if anyone else has any input, I will still consider this thread "open."

[Specter]

Eh, having prepped Storm King, to run concurrently with Rise of Tiamat and Out of the Abyss, I'd say listen to BiggStick. You're not going to be grappling very many giants...

Wood Elf or High Elf (depending on what you'd rather have, racially) both grant long bow proficiency. With a barbarian tanking things in melee, this allows you to sneak attack all the things.

The only other option I would suggest, depends on UA availability - and that would be a multiclass between rogue (any flavor, but AT or Thief would be my recommendation) and Kensai monk. This would allow you to be a master of the long bow - flurrying arrows, one of which a turn would deal sneak damage.

But otherwise straight rogue (and think of yourself as a loremaster, not a monkey) is super viable.

I'll rephrase: other than trying to grapple giants, listen to JellyPooga.

[JellyPooga]

I'll rephrase: other than trying to grapple giants, listen to JellyPooga.

Hey! With the right support, a budding young Rogue can easily beat some giants at their favourite sport! :smallbiggrin:

[ImproperJustice]

Being a fifth party member does open the door to some fun possibilities. Here are some oddball ideas to run with:

Half-Elf Battlemaster with Magic Initiate.
Grab minor illusion, friends, and faerie fire.
Grab stealth, persuasion, deception and thieve's tools.
Fight, sneak, and confound theenemy. Buff your buds with Faerie Fire.

If UA is allowed, grab everybody's friend, prodigy, and elven accuracy to create the ultimate versatile Half Elf.
Drop friends for Prestidigitation.

Make a Shadow Monk, because Ninja are always cool.

I'm currently running a human Deep Stalker Ranger with the Dungeon delver feat who was raised by Dwarves, and gained his trap resilience from trying to fit in with his fellow bretheren. He currently acts as the party rogue.

You could also do something crazy like a tavern brawler champion who only fights with whatever he has on hand "for the challenge".
See if you can kill a Lich with an everburning candle.....:)

[Jarmen4u]

Alright guys, change of plans. The sorcerer dipped out, so we're down a dedicated magic user. I'm even less familiar with magic in 5e :smalleek::smallfrown:

What's the general opinion on full casters (arcane)? Or is there a class better suited for what I want/we need?

[Chugger]

Moon druids aren't bad for secondary melee, and with their spells they have plenty of out-of-combat utility.

I agree, moon druids are amazing. I've read that after lvl 10 or so they don't have quite as good choices for animals to be - but then higher up it gets better again. I've also seen fresh choices from additions to the game which may or may not be usable at your table. The group has a ranger, so pass w/out trace can be cast already (iirc) - but - moon druid is really versatile and amazing. But not for everyone.

Look, make up a character. Get out your dice and Monster Manual. Have the character duel some monsters (i.e. give it a test drive - do some mock fights on your own). See how it goes. See what you like. Mostly do you like what you're playing?

[Herobizkit]

Being down a Sorcerer isn't so bad. It does mean that dealing with groups of creatures could suddenly be a little more difficult.

Rogue is always fun no matter what. They hit hard. They can also fight with two (light, finesse) weapons if you're super-worried about number of attacks.

Monks are delicious but can seem very blah in the early levels. Their strengths and play style are (often) similar to Rogue, but they lack the free ability to disengage or heavy Sneak Attack hits.

Bards are also full casters and have a nice suite of offensive and area-affecting magic, plus a few that just plain hit hard. You could easily go Valorbard and strap on a two-hander or sword & board your way to victory. Bards also are teh smart and good at skills even if you don't pump your Int (I usually do, but I like skills). Half-Orc and Dwarf Bards (or any class, really) are often very resilient and Half-Elf Bard is the perfect marriage by design.

Someone also mentioned Druids. Druids are great. While initially it may seem you're stepping on Cleric's toes, you're not. Druids also have a great suite of various magic like the Bard but focus more on AoE-style effects. If you choose the Moon Druid option, you're suddenly VERY resilient and while you're DEE PEE ESS might not be top-tier, you're a great sidekick for your melee guys (ex. Wolf gives you a potential prone with every hit; Panther gives you fast move and a kind of charge/double-hit; Bear gets you gross hit points) and/or a very reliable scout (using Tiny animals).

Only you can make your own fun for your own character, tho... follow your gut. Inquisitive Rogue is pretty decent so long as you anticipate a lot of social/exploration encounters (not sure how well 5e's module design fills the skills role).

[Puh Laden]

Alright guys, change of plans. The sorcerer dipped out, so we're down a dedicated magic user. I'm even less familiar with magic in 5e :smalleek::smallfrown:

What's the general opinion on full casters (arcane)? Or is there a class better suited for what I want/we need?

They are great. Do you like specializing in a few spells and being strong in them? Sorcerer. Do you like having a full library of spells for both in-and-out-of-combat purposes? Wizard. A few more spells than the sorcerer with a lot of skills plus healing? Bard. Warlock's are also good but I think having at least one normal arcane caster is probably more important here.

If you decide you want to go with wizard, something I like to do (to make up for the fact that the spell sheet is limited on space) is to write the spells in a stapled-together paper book.

[Citan]

Hi all, I'm relatively new to 5e, and I'm joining a friend's game, but I'm not sure which class I should play. Specifically, I was hoping to fill the role of secondary melee, though I'm not sure exactly what our party needs, or what is fun/strong. We currently have a Cleric, Ranger, Barbarian, and Sorcerer. Initially, I wanted to try a Mystic, but that was shot down (apparently it's OP, shame, it seemed really cool). I was thinking Rogue, but I feel like I wouldn't be that useful in combat, and out of combat I wouldn't have much to do. (I'm not familiar with Storm King, but when we did OOTA last year there wasn't a lot of use for our Rogue and they got bored fast.)

So, currently I have in mind: Inquisitive Rogue, Monk, Blade Pack Warlock, Bladesinger, Favored Soul, Swashbuckler, and maybe some others that I can't remember right now. Out of these, and maybe others that I'm not remembering, what are the relative power- and fun- levels of these classes? I want something that can be interesting to play in and out of combat. When I played last, I was a Battlemaster Fighter, which I enjoyed in combat, but once the fighting was over, I was mostly just the party mule. Thoughts?

EDIT: Sorcerer player bailed, so now we're down a full caster. That changes things... a lot.
All of your choices are fine ones.
Since you have one full caster less, it does change things indeed.

I'd say:
- Monk: Sun Soul or 4E will fit the bill perfectly, and also allows you to cover AOE when it's the most needed. It's a bit complex to play for the first few levels though (you don't have that good of an AC, and Ki consumption is a bit tricky when you only have a handful).
- Bladesinger Wizard: very squishy at first due to low HP, but can fill the secondary melee role very well. Also, you are a frigging Wizard fullcaster, so nearly anything apart from healing you can provide.
- Bladepact Warlock: a different feel: if you are allowed to use UA, then Hexblade will be perfect for you (even a tad too strong honestly). Otherwise, a bit tricky to play because of only few slots and spell known, and not that good AC. Unless you are fine with using always the same tactic, in which case once you have decided it becomes very simple to play. XD
- Druid: you didn't consider it, but Druids can be very nasty. You don't even need to go Moon Druid either (although they do have spikes in power at 2 and 10): they get all available spells of any level, you can prepare as you wish, and Wild Shape can be very useful for scouting/spying etc. Also, some of their exclusives are tremendously good for small parties, namely the Conjuration spells.

Honestly, I'd say the best choice for your party would be Bladesinger, by far. Because Cleric is still heavily geared towards healing/buff, Ranger has only a few limited tricks as AOE/debuffs, Barbarian has nothing.
So having a fullcaster with...
- interchangeable spells that cover AOE, buff, debuff, utility,
- potential to learn all spells from a given level,
- plus ritual casting half of all great rituals available,
- AND AC and offense comparable -aka not far behind- to other martials up to level 10 (weapon cantrips, Extra Attack)...
Is really the best mix for you. Just be aware of the difference between "attacking in melee" and "staying in melee". Mobile feat or a 2-level dip in Rogue should be strongly considered, and you will let your Barbarian take the brunt of attacks in the end (at least until you get Mirror Image / Blur / Haste). :)

Second choice would be actually Monk, because properly played it can take hits well enough (clearly not like a Barbarian XD, but you can take some fire thanks to Dodge when it's really needed) and both suggested archetype provide decent AOE/ranged/control options. Resource management and low-level survival is a tad more difficult than for other classes though. :)

Third choice would be (Moon) Druid: contrarily to some others say, don't expect to do any decent tanking as a Moon Druid, unless you choose a high DEX form and took a dip into Monk or otherwise spend precious resources on buffing your AC. At least until you get level 10: Elemental Forms are indeed good all-around.
But that's not that big of a problem: at first level, use Fog Cloud to apply some battlefield control, or Faerie Fire to quickly dispatch enemies by providing advantage. Then you get Heat Metal, Hold Person and Flaming Sphere to cast before Wild Shaping (Moon) or doing positioning control with THorns Whip (Land). Then you get the all-useful Conjure Animals which will make a great shift in balance thanks to the added action economy, at least for a few levels (beasts are still frail creatures in the end, so don't expect miracles either ;)). Along with Plant Growth.
Etc etc. Druids, Land and Moon alike, are very fun to play. If you expect going as far as 10 and like the Wild Shape and Druid fluff, Moon Druid is the way to go (more versatility in beasts, Elemental Forms). Otherwise, Land Druid (great combo with Plant Growth, extra spells).

Or, now that I think about it... Why not go Sorcerer yourself? ^^ Nobody seems ready to take care of the CHA-related skills in your party, Sorcerer can cover several roles thanks to Metamagic, and has fun abilities to go with. Less versatile than Wizard though. ;)

[Spore]

Imagine instead of my post here is a rolling neon sign telling you to go Lore Bard. Actually let me do that for you.

http://i.imgur.com/GlnBde1.jpg

[Stoloc]

Go with a lore bard with a criminal background (to pick up thieves tools) and pick up one of the melee cantrips like green flame blade if you need an effective melee attack. Concentrate on charisma and Dex for stats with con secondary.

Skill monkey, pseudo caster (use the magic secrets to pick up some more needed arcane spells), and can throw down a little in melee for a round or two if needed.

[Citan]

Cleric, Ranger, Barbarian and Sorcerer? That's a party in need of a Rogue.

I'm glad for you that you love Rogue that much, but it's not a reason to make it bigger than it is.


Don't make the mistake of thinking Rogues are bad in combat; they are very competitive in the dpr stakes and with Expertise in Athletics, they can even put the likes of Barbarians to shame when it comes to combat shenanigans (i.e. shoves and grapples).

Very wrong until level 8 (optimized Rogue) or 11 (Reliable Talent). Very true after that up until level 18-20. ;)

Let's take starting characters: a usual Rogue (16 DEX, 12 STR because I'm nice) with a usual Barbarian (16 STR). Rogue is Expert, Barbarian is proficient. Barbarian gets advantage when raging.
Rogue gets proficiency + proficiency + str = 2+2+1 = 5. Let's go out of our way and say instead it's an unusual Rogue that went Moderately Armored way to get 16 STR, 14 DEX and lower CON (irrelevant here): then it gets a +7.
Barbarian would get 2+3 = 5. But then gets advantage.

Let's say the opposing creature rolled a contest check of 14 (arbitrary choice because seems reasonable to me, roll of 10 with +4 bonus, feel free to take other comparison levels).
Basically DC 14 to reach or beat. Taking this precious source (http://andrewgelman.com/2014/07/12/dnd-5e-advantage-disadvantage-probability/) as reference...
Rogue would need a roll of (14-7 in best case) = 7:
Barbarian would need a roll of (14-5) = 9, with advantage.
Optimized Rogue has 70% chance to pull it off (normal Rogue would have 60%).
Barbarian has 84% chance to pull it off.


Let's compare at level 10.
Normal Rogue would have a bonus equal to 4+4+1 = 9.
Optimized Rogue (going STR, neglecting defense) would get 4+4+5 = 13.
Barbarian would get 4+5 = 9 but still advantage.

Taking a DC 17 as a cap to reach (higher CR creatures, so higher bonus).
Normal Rogue would need to roll a 8 min: 65%.
Optimized Rogue would need a 4: 97% chance.
Barbarian would need to roll a 8 with advantage: 87% chance.
Optimized Rogue beats Barbarian here, at the price of very low AC.

Let's compare at level 11.
Now Rogue indeed plain beats Barbarian, by far. But not that much thanks to Expertise. Much more thanks to Reliable Talent.
Normal Rogue would always get a 10+9 min = auto-success up to DC 19.
Optimized Rogue would always get a 10+13 min = auto-success up to DC 23.
Barbarian still has the same chance.

Finally at level 20.
Normal Rogue has minimum roll of 10+6+6+1 = 24.
Optimized Rogue would have minimum roll of 28.
Barbarian would get 6+8 = 14 bonus (STR 24), but can still fail starting from DC 15 (although risk is very low until DC 20).
BUT, Barbarian gets Indomitable Might at level 18, and any optimized Barbarian will end with STR 24. So Barbarian now auto-succeeds on up to DC 24.

TL;DR: indeed, Rogues beat Barbarians high and dry: but that's true only from level 11 onwards and until level 20 (unless Rogue went STR as attack stat), and at the price of either being limited in archetype choice (Swashbuckler) or always using TWF's bonus action to Shove/Grapple instead of using it on Cunning Action.
Because once you get multiclassing, Barbarians with a single dip in Rogue stay competitive for a much higher time (although Rogue do beat them still in the end, Reliable Talent being just too much). And Barbarians with a 2-level dip can much more easily combine movement, grapple and attack (hence why Barbarian / Rogue is so good).



That's putting aside Cunning Action; an ability that basically says "You can do more, every turn, than everyone else"; it's essentially the "have more fun in combat" ability! Once you hit level 5, Uncanny Dodge gives you a remarkable durability in a straight up melee and at level 7, Evasion ramps that up even higher. Don't be fooled by that d8 HD; Rogues have more effective HP than Fighters, Rangers and Paladins; second only to Barbarians.

Nop. Please stop with that. That is plain wrong. Rogues will start with lesser or similar AC to Barbarian, probably lesser CON.
Barbarian gets resistance against all instances of physical damage. And Bear gets resistance against most damage.
Paladins get Aura of Protection, Ancients get Aura of Warding, in addition to buffs and heals.
Uncanny Dodge gives only half-damage on ONE instance of damage per round, and costs you a potential Sneak Attack opportunity attack.

If you play your Rogue "as a Rogue", always staying out of melee except when you deliver your own strike, while Barbarian plays "as a Barbarian" (inciting people to attack him by using Reckless Attack systematically -which is not the optimal way of play-) or a Paladin plays "as a Paladin" (sticking into melee to aggro people), of course you will survive well.

But try to play a Rogue "as a Barbarian" or "as a Paladin" (aka trying to get as many attacks aimed at you as possible) and you will fall down as quickly as a Monk, or even worse.


- Barbarian can get starting 19-20 AC (16 STR, 14 DEX -or reverse-, 16 CON, wielding a shield) and ramp up to 24.
- Paladin can start with 20-21 AC and buff himself up to 23.
- A Fighter also can start with 21 AC (heavy armor + Defense + shield).
- A Rogue starts with 11+3 = 14 (light armor + 16 DEX), and has probably 12+4 (better armor, DEX bump) = 16 at level 5 and up to level 8.

Starting creatures have a +4 to hit, but let's take creatures that you face once you get Uncanny Dodge, which usually have a +6 to hit at the very least, like a Helmed Horror.
Chance to hit Rogue: 16-6 = 10: 55% chance.
Chance to hit normal Barbarian (let's say he bumped STR and not CON): 19-6 = 13: 40%.
Chance to hit Reckless Attack Barbarian (which focus on tanking, raised his CON): 20-6 = 14. With advantage: 57%.
Chance to hit Fighter: 21-6 = 15: 30%.
Chance to hit Paladin (Shield of Faith): 23-6 = 17: 20%.

Rogue and Barbarian having a very similar chance to get hit, let's say both are hit by 2 attacks, each dealing the average 8 damage.
Rogue: uses its reaction on Uncanny Dodge, so takes only 4+8.
Barbarian: automatically takes half damage, so takes only 4+4. And still has reaction available in case the enemy goes away.

The difference between all of those stay comparable as you progress in level, unless you are an Arcane Trickster who can chooses to use Shield instead, or Mirror Image, to get much better defense for a while. In spite of that...

>>> The fact is here: unless you are always threatened by only a very few attacks per round (so usually one hit max per round), Rogue is very significantly inferior to any of those you quoted in terms of survivability, because the others are either that much harder to hit, or get permanent damage reduction, in addition of getting higher HP (hit die and often better Constitution) and self-heal or emergency save. The only ones Rogue beats in survivability are Rangers throughout (probably, did not think much about it though) and low-level Monks (higher level Monks have better AC and can blow a ki on Dodge when really threatened).
To say otherwise: Rogue has never been, and will never be a "tank" (except for an Arcane Trickster dedicating himself to that aspect maybe). Uncanny Dodge is that one great tool that limits the consequence of an unforeseen attack, but you still have to be very smart and actively avoid threats to survive. Not anything more.

And let's not forget about the saves (at least the most important ones).
Let's take Dexterity saves:
Normal Rogue (DEX way) starts with 2+3, has 3+4 at level 7, 4+5 at level 10 (provided only DEX bumps).
Barbarian (STR way, medium armor) starts with 2 with advantage, stays the same all the way unless he takes Resilient: Dexterity (but Resilient: Wisdom is much better) or Shield Master (which is certainly doable) so +4.
Normal Paladin starts (STR way, heavy armor) starts with 0, but then gets Aura of Protection. At level 7, it's +5.
Tank Paladin (DEX way, heavy armor -doesn't care about speed loss-) starts with 3. At level 7, it's +8.
Rogue clearly beats most people in normal cases, because of the costfree no damage on successful save. Bear Barbarian and Ancients Paladin would come damn close though, thanks to half-damge of half-damage.

Now let's take Constitution saves:
Rogue will have +2, +3 at most, Barbarian will have starting +5 and up to +12 at least, Paladin will have +7 or +8.
Rogue has nothing against those, nor Paladin (except Ancients), except Bear Barbarian.
Rogue is on par or very inferior.

Now let's take Wisdom saves.
Rogue will get proficient, but only at level 14. Until then, it's +1, +2 at most.
Barbarian is the worse of all: +0 at most.
Paladin is the big winner: proficient + Aura: starts at +2 (WIS 10), gets +7 at level 6 (Aura), ends at +11 at level 20.
Rogue is just a tad better than Barbarian but plain worse than any Paladin. Not even accounting for special benefits from archetypes (Frenzy, Devotion).

>>> Once you start taking saves into account, Rogue is much better in only one save (DEX), comparable in another when level 14 (WIS), and still much more frail than any Bear Barbarian or Ancients Paladin overall (too lazy to include Monk too now, but covered in detail in an older thread). And only if those other classes didn't try to optimize the defense aspect. ;)



For out of combat utility, the Rogue is second only to the Bard (and even that's debatable).
I'd actually say the opposite on this one. Or rather...
- Bard plain beats Rogue clearly up to level 10, thanks to having the same number of Expertise (although getting them later) and getting Jack of All Trades otherwise.
- Rogue plain beats Bard at level 11 and until the end, because having a minimum 10 is absolutely marvelous.
With the exception of Lore Bard that can be better than Rogue in "spike" situations, thanks to Peerless Skill, but provided both the initial roll and Bardic Inspiration were good. So inferior overall by far since relying on luck.

At least... When you don't take spells into account.
Because then, Enhance Ability makes the Bard that much better, and much closer to even Reliable Talent Rogue (although still behind, as illustrated above in the Shove/Grapple illustration) as long as both have Expertise in the same skill.

[JellyPooga]

I'm glad for you that you love Rogue that much, but it's not a reason to make it bigger than it is.

I'm glad for you that you seem to take everything I say about Rogues as saying "Rogues are better than everyone at everything", but that's simply not what I'm saying. Go re-read my post without assuming that I'm saying that and get back to me. In a party with a Blaster, a Healer, a Tank and a Striker, wanting to play a secondary combat role, Rogue is a solid recommendation regardless of my own general class preferences.

[
TL;DR: indeed, Rogues beat Barbarians high and dry: but that's true only from level 11 onwards and until level 20

So...you're saying that Rogues can put the likes of Barbarians to shame in the Athletics department. Huh, funny, I'm sure someone else said something along those lines. Oh wait. It was me. You quoted it.


Nop. Please stop with that. That is plain wrong.

Only if you make some false assumptions and bad comparisons.


Rogues will start with lesser or similar AC to Barbarian, probably lesser CON. Ok, first off, I did say that Rogues are second to Barbarians in this regard. That aside; why? Why does a Rogue "probably" start with less Con? False assumption. True comparison assumes equal Con and compares HD and average HP in light of relevant features. Comparing the Rogues d8 and UD against the d10 and 1/short rest Second Wind of the Fighter, the Rogue does have more effective HP, regardless of the number of incoming attacks per round. Compared to the Barbarian, yeah, the Rogue loses out. That's why he's second.

As for AC, the Rogue isn't as bad as you make out. At least two Races give the option of Medium Armour proficiency from level 1. At level 4, a Feat gives the same. Arcane Trickster gives the option of taking Mage Armour, as does Magic Initiate. The Shield spell is also an option. That's putting aside multiclassing. A Rogue can easily get AC at least as good as any Barbarian and with only minimal effort match that of your average Fighter.


Uncanny Dodge gives only half-damage on ONE instance of damage per round, and costs you a potential Sneak Attack opportunity attack.

The loss of a potential OA or other reaction is the significant cost to UD, I don't deny. It doesn't make my statement that Rogues are remarkably durable in a straight fight any less true.


>>> The fact is here: unless you are always threatened by only a very few attacks per round (so usually one hit max per round), Rogue is very significantly inferior to any of those you quoted in terms of survivability, because the others are either that much harder to hit, or get permanent damage reduction, in addition of getting higher HP (hit die and often better Constitution) and self-heal or emergency save. The only ones Rogue beats in survivability are Rangers throughout (probably, did not think much about it though) and low-level Monks (higher level Monks have better AC and can blow a ki on Dodge when really threatened).
To say otherwise: Rogue has never been, and will never be a "tank" (except for an Arcane Trickster dedicating himself to that aspect maybe). Uncanny Dodge is that one great tool that limits the consequence of an unforeseen attack, but you still have to be very smart and actively avoid threats to survive. Not anything more.

Setting aside AC, which as discussed, a Rogue can be built to excel at, even close to, if not equally as good as an EK, number of attacks has nothing to do with it. Assuming an equal number of incoming attacks connecting, it only takes (roughly speaking) one attack in an entire day, dealing two plus twice your level, for Uncanny Dodge to make the Rogues d8 HD equal to a d10. Factoring in abilities like Second Wind only increases the number of hits required for it to equal out, so unless either is taking an insignificant number of hits each adventuring day, the Rogue wins. The more incoming damage taken, the more work UD does.

For instance; a level 5 Rogue with 28hp compared to a Fighter with 34 (both have Con 10 and average HP). One attack dealing 12 damage leaves both on 22hp. No matter how many more attacks either takes that round, they're both in the same boat. Next round (assuming both are standing), if they both take a hit for basically any amount of damage, the Rogue is better off than the Fighter. His HP are more efficient, despite his HD being lower.

You paint a very pretty picture with all those numbers, but your numbers are wrong if you want to paint a fair picture. Put those numbers right and my claims about the Rogue all come into focus; they can challenge Barbarians (and their like) in Athletics, their HP are more effective other things being equal (which they can be) and as for out-of-combat Rogue vs. Bard? Well, you cover both sides of that argument pretty comprehensively, proving that there's room for debate on that particular topic.

[Finger6842]

Lore Bard, Half Elf variant wood elf for long bow/speed, dip 1 level wizard for shield, find familiar and a good nuke. With magical secrets at level 6 take haste and counterspell or swift quiver.

If you don't want sneak instead start with 1 warrior for con saves, plate and shield/long bow. 1 wizard for shield, find familiar and a good nuke then run the rest of the way as a Lore Bard. Variant Human with war caster works well here though I think half elf skills and stats plus race bonuses are far better. Charm resist and sleep immunity are amazing traits. You will have proficiency in 10 skills by bard level 3 with expertise in 2. Your DPR will be low but utility is off the charts. You can background for thieves tools or learn them in game. You still have 9th level spells in the end and 8 free spells from any table.

[Citan]

I'm glad for you that you seem to take everything I say about Rogues as saying "Rogues are better than everyone at everything", but that's simply not what I'm saying. Go re-read my post without assuming that I'm saying that and get back to me. In a party with a Blaster, a Healer, a Tank and a Striker, wanting to play a secondary combat role, Rogue is a solid recommendation regardless of my own general class preferences.

So...you're saying that Rogues can put the likes of Barbarians to shame in the Athletics department. Huh, funny, I'm sure someone else said something along those lines. Oh wait. It was me. You quoted it.

NO. NOT AT ALL. I did never say that "Rogue put Barbarians to shame".
I did agree with you on the fact that Rogues are much better than Barbarians, from level 11 up to level 20, thanks to Reliable Talent.

That is significantly different: Barbarians are as good or better than Rogues until at least level 8. Which is a good part of the player experience in many games. And while they are not as good as Rogues, they are still good enough in most occasions. So saying they are put to shame is plain stupid and just shows how far your love for Rogues deforms your view of it.
Just "Rogues are much better in the second half" is far enough.




Only if you make some false assumptions and bad comparisons.

Ok, first off, I did say that Rogues are second to Barbarians in this regard. That aside; why? Why does a Rogue "probably" start with less Con? False assumption. True comparison assumes equal Con and compares HD and average HP in light of relevant features. Comparing the Rogues d8 and UD against the d10 and 1/short rest Second Wind of the Fighter, the Rogue does have more effective HP, regardless of the number of incoming attacks per round. Compared to the Barbarian, yeah, the Rogue loses out. That's why he's second.

As for AC, the Rogue isn't as bad as you make out. At least two Races give the option of Medium Armour proficiency from level 1. At level 4, a Feat gives the same. Arcane Trickster gives the option of taking Mage Armour, as does Magic Initiate. The Shield spell is also an option. That's putting aside multiclassing. A Rogue can easily get AC at least as good as any Barbarian and with only minimal effort match that of your average Fighter.

And then again you are wrong. You can mask the facts by...
- Telling "Rogue can get medium armor" (that's a steep cost, and a net loss by the end of leveling for most Rogues that want to keep one hand free for another weapon or spellcasting, since it means you wouldn't wield a shield)...
- Or that Rogue "has more effective HP" (which has no real meaning, because you could tell exactly the same thing of a Barbarian -because he gets always-on resistance- or Paladin -because this pool is used less often since lower number of hits due to higher AC, so it has better attacks launched / actual HP loss ratio)...
- Or tell me that my numbers are wrong (which they aren't at all, considering how most people would build pure classes: Barbarians will favor STR > CON > DEX, Paladins STR > CHA > CON, Fighters STR/DEX > CON -INT tertiary for EK, Rogues DEX > CON & WIS or CON & CHA or CON & INT depending on archetype. And by the way, I DID consider the Rogue had between 14 and 16 Constitution, so you are just plain biting in void here)...

The fact is, at the end of the day, Rogue has far lesser survivability than any Barbarian, Paladin, and most Fighters should he try to "tank". Because you are only good at halving one instance of damage per round, on top of a "just good enough" AC and just great DEX save, bad saves otherwise (until level 14 for WIS which is very late), and no built-in way to compensate for it.
And saying "there is multiclassing/feats" is not so much shoring up the weakness as plain admitting it (especially since, you know, ANYONE can multiclass or take feats, but you always talk about pure Rogues in the first place before cowering behind this argument).

By the way...


Setting aside AC, which as discussed, a Rogue can be built to excel at, even close to, if not equally as good as an EK....

Sure, you can come close by grabbing Moderately Armored feat, then grab a shield with medium armor for a very respectable starting 18 AC (and soon enough 19). Now you has to be pretty sure that you will succeed on your Sneak Attack, because no chance to apply it as TWF. Tough luck. Or you can keep the other hand free because you are a Rogue after all, you want extra chance to land your damage. And then you just have AC 17.
Fighter can start with 21 AC effortlessly, by just grabbing the relevant choices provided right into its class.


... Number of attacks has nothing to do with it.

That's the big fallacy, the one big fail in thinking here.
Any normal Rogue will have a difference in AC of ~5 compared to a S&B Fighter. That's 25% more chance to get hit.
Even a "defense-geared" Rogue, with the aforementioned big drawbacks that come with it, has 19 AC so still has 10% more chance to sustain attacks.
Also, the Fighter's Second Wind can be used as a bonus action. It is obviously of lesser benefit than 1/round half-damage HP-wise, but it does provide some tactical flexibility when in a pinch, whereas Rogue would probably have to instead rely on Disengage/Hiding as a bonus action and use a potion as an action.

More generally, for the same number of attacks sustained, the Fighter will have been hit less often. (Obviously that would hold even more true for a Paladin). So sure the Rogue will have cushioned a good amount of damage. But that doesn't hide the fact that you cannot stand as the primary target for enemies (your whole class urges you not to do so in the first place) because you are still an (much) easier target so you just cannot sustain chained attacks as well. And over a day, you would probably realize that Fighter lost a comparable percentage of his HP overall, just because he got hit by a lesser number of successful attacks.

[ruy343]

OK, so I'm going to step away from the flame war here for a second, with just a quick statement: Both rogues and barbarians are awesome (for their own reasons). You should at least play them at least once in your D&D career.

And now, for something completely different...

Given your party balance, you can't really make a wrong choice - I've played with a party of two rogues and a wizard (me) against a killer DM, and it totally worked out. Don't worry so much about filling in the blanks as finding a class that you'll enjoy playing.

That said, a rogue or bard would fit right into this party without breaking a sweat. However, I would also consider wizard if I were you (pick a school that sounds fun - I can't decide that for you psst: Conjuration). Why wizard? Because you've got the perfect party to buff! I love casting Haste on a raging barbarian, casting Jump to help the same barbarian reach places he normally couldn't, casting Flame Arrows on your Ranger's quiver to boost his DPS, or casting Enlarge on your cleric when he needs to lay down the smack. You could have some serious fun as a wizard by always having just the right spells for any situation (including rituals) and helping your teammates accomplish more than they could on their own with awesome buff spells. If that's the kind of character you enjoy playing, then by all means, go for it.

[Finger6842]

OK, so I'm going to step away from the flame war here for a second, with just a quick statement: Both rogues and barbarians are awesome (for their own reasons). You should at least play them at least once in your D&D career.

And now, for something completely different...

Given your party balance, you can't really make a wrong choice - I've played with a party of two rogues and a wizard (me) against a killer DM, and it totally worked out. Don't worry so much about filling in the blanks as finding a class that you'll enjoy playing.

That said, a rogue or bard would fit right into this party without breaking a sweat. However, I would also consider wizard if I were you (pick a school that sounds fun - I can't decide that for you psst: Conjuration). Why wizard? Because you've got the perfect party to buff! I love casting Haste on a raging barbarian, casting Jump to help the same barbarian reach places he normally couldn't, casting Flame Arrows on your Ranger's quiver to boost his DPS, or casting Enlarge on your cleric when he needs to lay down the smack. You could have some serious fun as a wizard by always having just the right spells for any situation (including rituals) and helping your teammates accomplish more than they could on their own with awesome buff spells. If that's the kind of character you enjoy playing, then by all means, go for it.

A great answer. I haven't tried full Wizard yet but I'm looking forward to it. If only I could decide which school.

[Citan]

A great answer. I haven't tried full Wizard yet but I'm looking forward to it. If only I could decide which school.
Well, good thing there are 8 official Schools (ok 9, Bladesinger is making a mess here).
Take 1d10.
On a 1, reroll.
2 = Abjuration
3 = Bladesinger
4 = Diviner
etc...

Wouldn't that be a fitting way to choose? :smallbiggrin:
(Also, weren't you the one thinking about Bladesinger at first? It's really a balanced school so you cannot go wrong here. Although I understand why you'd hesitate, most of them give great benefits!).

[Finger6842]

Well, good thing there are 8 official Schools (ok 9, Bladesinger is making a mess here).
Take 1d10.
On a 1, reroll.
2 = Abjuration
3 = Bladesinger
4 = Diviner
etc...

Wouldn't that be a fitting way to choose? :smallbiggrin:
(Also, weren't you the one thinking about Bladesinger at first? It's really a balanced school so you cannot go wrong here. Although I understand why you'd hesitate, most of them give great benefits!).

Great idea, I rolled twice so it appears I will choose between conjurer and transmuter. Investigation is now required. I'm not a fan of Gish characters. Straight 20 or small dips only for me.

[ZorroGames]

Sometimes it is the subclasses that give me the hardest time deciding archetypes.

[furby076]

Fyi, mystic is not OP...it has lots of prejudice against it. You said you are new to d&d, so for now stay away from UA stuff. Once you become knowledgeable then you can argue mystic and why its not OP... in short: its versatile, but at around level 9 it falls behind because its spells stop gaining power.

[furby076]

I'm going to go slightly off the grid here and suggest Monk.

People suggesting Rogue are making a good suggestion. However, I don't think you'll enjoy that Rogues only get one attack. Wait for your turn to come around... swing and a miss. That can get very frustrating.

Monks in combat are death by a thousand cuts. They don't hit hard, but they hit a lot. Also, your high mobility ensures you can run interference for when anyone tries to attack the Sorcerer or anyone squishy.

And everyone loves Stunning Strike.

Now, what archetype?

Shadow lets you fill in the Rogue role a bit, as far as stealth and scouting is concerned.

Long Death are tough as nails. Having the ability to strike Fear into your enemies can drastically alter a battle.

Sun Soul have the most AoE with Burning Hands as a bonus action at 6th level, but IMO are lackluster outside of that.

Can't really go wrong with Open Hand.

I'd suggest Long Death and park yourself next to the Barbarian and beat on things.


Monk plus street urchin background = rogue minus the SA.

[Dudu]

(...)I was thinking Rogue, but I feel like I wouldn't be that useful in combat, and out of combat I wouldn't have much to do. (I'm not familiar with Storm King, but when we did OOTA last year there wasn't a lot of use for our Rogue and they got bored fast.)
Boy, are you WRONG.

Rogues can be beasts in combat. If you are willing to Multiclass, they are truly wonderful combatants. Tanks even, if needed be.

My favorite rogue archetype is the overlooked Thief, followed closely by Arcane Trickster.
And fun thing is, with a Rogue, you can not only fulfil the role of the second melee, but also adress a whole new role. The skillmonkey. Open locks, disarm traps, scout ahead, your team might need it. Pick pockets, fool guards, place traps as well.
Oh, and the Thief can be a fantastic healer if you pick the Healer feat. So there you are, three roles and you are competent on all of them.


EDIT: Sorcerer player bailed, so now we're down a full caster. That changes things... a lot.
I'm a caster at heart. Sorcerer is fun to play. Wizards as well. Bards can even fulfill the role of skillmonkeys just like rogues do, while being fullcasters.

In fact, Bards are one of the most powerful classes in 5.0. It seems exactly what the group needs.

[Finger6842]

Rogues can be beasts in combat. If you are willing to Multiclass, they are truly wonderful combatants. Tanks even, if needed be.

My favorite rogue archetype is the overlooked Thief, followed closely by Arcane Trickster.
And fun thing is, with a Rogue, you can not only fulfil the role of the second melee, but also adress a whole new role. The skillmonkey. Open locks, disarm traps, scout ahead, your team might need it. Pick pockets, fool guards, place traps as well.
Oh, and the Thief can be a fantastic healer if you pick the Healer feat. So there you are, three roles and you are competent on all of them.


I'm a caster at heart. Sorcerer is fun to play. Wizards as well. Bards can even fulfill the role of skillmonkeys just like rogues do, while being fullcasters.

In fact, Bards are one of the most powerful classes in 5.0. It seems exactly what the group needs.

I agree the Thief is a blast to play. DPR far exceeds the Bard and the entry barrier is easier in my opinion as well. Bards play very differently but the feel is very similar. Really, short of gimping yourself mechanically, in this case you can't go wrong.

[JellyPooga]

NO. NOT AT ALL. I did never say that "Rogue put Barbarians to shame".
I did agree with you on the fact that Rogues are much better than Barbarians, from level 11 up to level 20, thanks to Reliable Talent.

"Can", dude, can. Read. My. Lips. I didn't say they "always do". I'll say it again; go back and read that first post you decided to bring me up on. I'm not advocating Rogues as Tanks here (that was another thread!); I'm saying (among a few other things) that Rogues make solid melee fighters with good damage output, the ability to perform shoves more than admirably and a solid pool of HP that, all other things being equal (an assumption I should, perhaps, have pointed out), is actually higher than the d10 HD crew. I could also have said "Rogues are remarkably durable" instead of the contentious "Rogues have more effective HP..." line. Would you be happy with that, or do I still love Rogues too much? :smallannoyed:

[jaappleton]

Now you're down a full spellcaster, eh?

Bard, and there's no second choice. I played a Bard for quite awhile, and it was a blast. I thought I'd be relegated to standing in the back, just buffing people, not being a really contributing all that much.

I was totally wrong.

It was awesome. You have so many skill proficiencies that you're always helpful outside of combat, and you can turn hits into misses, failures into success, your spell list is pretty damn good to boot.

Bard. Bards rule.

[Finger6842]

Now you're down a full spellcaster, eh?

Bard, and there's no second choice. I played a Bard for quite awhile, and it was a blast. I thought I'd be relegated to standing in the back, just buffing people, not being a really contributing all that much.

I was totally wrong.

It was awesome. You have so many skill proficiencies that you're always helpful outside of combat, and you can turn hits into misses, failures into success, your spell list is pretty damn good to boot.

Bard. Bards rule.

How do I upvote a post on this board :D

[Rhedyn]

Since neither rogue nor fighter feel like they have out of combat options, i'll assume skills basically don't matter in your game.

Which means you'll want ritual spells, but you also want to be secondary melee. They leads me to one suggestion.

Moon druid