Is it useful to go "Rogue One"?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Or Bard One to get the proficiencies then dive into Sorcerer, fighter, or whatever?

Maybe the ability scores don't line up?

[DarkKnightJin]

You're better suited by a 2 level dip for Cunning Action or Jack of all Trades, in that case.
Outside of Sorc and Cleric, you don't really get too much out of a single level dip in most classes.

[Tanarii]

One level of Rogue is a skill proficiency and 2 Expertise. That's not nothing, if the game is using skill checks sufficiently. In some games it may even be more powerful than Cunning Action.

[Hrugner]

It could be, it depends on how much you need skill proficiencies. I have a DM who has brought over "proficient only" checks from previous versions of D&D, so in my case it's pretty important. However, if you're with a full party, and use the rules as written, it probably isn't really important to grab those extra skills. And, as always, a 1 level dip in mystic:Nomad, is a better skills boost choice.

[Spacehamster]

Or Bard One to get the proficiencies then dive into Sorcerer, fighter, or whatever?

Maybe the ability scores don't line up?

Rogue one is really nice for an archer for the sneak attack die as well!

[Laurefindel]

The question is not whether it is useful; the question is choice! Run, hide, plea for mercy, gather your forces! You can wait on an enemy this evil with this much power power, and you condemn an entire galaxy to an eternity of submission. The time to fight is NOW!

oops, wrong Rogue One. carry on...

[Tanarii]

However, if you're with a full party, and use the rules as written, it probably isn't really important to grab those extra skills.How does that follow? Interested in your thinking on this.

[Hrugner]

How does that follow? Interested in your thinking on this.

My thinking is that generally you'll have enough skills for your own needs and a bit to contribute to the party. If the party has enough skills to cover it's bases, then one character shouldn't need to grab any extras. If on the other hand everyone feels the need to grab perception and stealth, rather than letting other party members cover those and relying on non-proficient rolls from everyone else, then everyone comes up short on skills and dipping for skills is a good idea.

My comment on RAW is specifically due to the problem at my table where you often can't roll without proficiency, in which case proficiency is extremely important and worth multiclassing for. As well as ensuring that the DM is using DCs that make sense given bounded accuracy.

[Tanarii]

My thinking is that generally you'll have enough skills for your own needs and a bit to contribute to the party. If the party has enough skills to cover it's bases, then one character shouldn't need to grab any extras. If on the other hand everyone feels the need to grab perception and stealth, rather than letting other party members cover those and relying on non-proficient rolls from everyone else, then everyone comes up short on skills and dipping for skills is a good idea.
But under the general rules, you might expect a DM to call on your character for any ability check. Not just the few you're proficient in or have high ability score in. So "enough to cover the skills for you own needs" may be every skill.

I mean yea, you can try to stay away from your weaknesses. Not stealth if you wear heavy armor, not think if you're low Int with no Lore skills. But unless the DM is doing "one check to rule them all" checks where one person, with the best score, rolls for the entire party, then there's no downside to more skills. You can reasonable expect to use most of your ability scores at some point. So geting to add proficiency has some value.

I don't think you're arguing they are valueless, I just think that you forsee lots of DMs having one person roll one check for the entire party. So it's important to know your DM, which you clearly do.

There's also an opportunity cost to balance against the perceived value. In this case, being a level behind in your primary class.

[Hrugner]

It sounds like we generally agree. The only thing I'd add is that in a "one roll" situation a character could often help the most proficient character regardless of their ability. It's certainly a question that requires knowing the DM and the game.

[OldTrees1]

Rogue 1 as 1st level
Pros:
You gain +2 Skill Proficiencies
2 of your Skills gain Expertise(x2 Proficiency bonus) and thus allow you to excel in those skills
It only takes 1 more level to gain Cunning Action(a good use of a Bonus Action but you only get 1 Bonus Action per turn)

Cons:
You need 13 Dex to be allowed to enter your main classes
Some Classes(like Paladin) might require a different entry stat(Paladin is Str 13 & Cha 13) than you were planning on using(Dex Paladins for example)
You are 1 level behind in class features and spell casting
You gain Dex and Int saves. These might be worse than your main class would have granted
Your main class might not offer as many weapon/armor proficiencies when entered second. This is an easy way to lose Heavy Armor Proficiency


So it can be beneficial to go Rogue 1 / everything else 19 but there are some downsides to consider.

[8wGremlin]

I went Rogue 1 for the skill,expertise and weapon choices then went Arcane Cleric on my Goblin character.
Using a rapier, he Booming blade (with Wis) and then disengages (goblin feature) Dex based. (oh and he's an City Watch:investigator)

Annoys the hell out of attackers, they have to close, and go boom.

He took warcaster at Rogue 1/Cleric 4 - now he can do that when they leave his threat range.

Bard one would have worked, but having Expertise in Perception, and investigation, was very useful. Go Rogue one!

[Specter]

You need to be more specific. But in general, yes.

One skill, plus two expertises, make you an expert at what you want. If you pick Arcana and Stealth, for instance, you're now a lot more knowledgeable about your trade, and can infiltrate places more easily.

As for the Sneak Attack die, it all depends on whether you attack with weapons or not. If yes, great, otherwise don't bother.

[Malifice]

http://a.dilcdn.com/bl/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2017/02/rogue-one-character-line-up.jpg

[Tanarii]

It sounds like we generally agree. The only thing I'd add is that in a "one roll" situation a character could often help the most proficient character regardless of their ability. It's certainly a question that requires knowing the DM and the game.Huh. I'm not used to this feeling of generally agreeing with someone. :smallbiggrin:

And yes, if there is a one character rolling, for the part or just for themselves, help may be possible. If they're doing something for the party, it's IMX fair to say it's typically possible.

I really don't like one roll for the entire party checks as a DM. There's definitely times when they can't easily be avoided. If the party nominated Bardy McFacemaster to negotiate with the Kobold chief, and miraculously ALL the others actually kept their noise-holes shut during the tense negotiations and didn't do something stupid and just stood their quietly ... then it's only fair to let the Face get his single check for the party.

Luckily for my preferences, players can never keep their noise-holes shut or avoid doing something stupid. :smallamused:

(Don't get me wrong I consider that an awesome trait most of the time. It stems from players being engaged and proactive.)