Sorry for the rant but come on...

[Dudewithknives]

Ok, maybe someone can explain something.

I love dnd, I have for 20 years. I played just about everything.
However I have always leaned more toward martials but I love gushes and full casters as well.

What I have a problem with is College of Swords bards.

One of my favorite classes in 5e is the rogue, and the swashbuckler is my favorite subclass of it.

Mike Mearls repeatedly called the COB Bard a swashbuckler during their into video.
Annoying but I can live with it, it is not like I expect him to do something original.

However when a full casting class, with just as many expertise as a rogue, gets a subclass with both an effective second attack and a choice of fighting styles I have an issue when there has yet to be a single subclass for Rogue that gets either one of those.

I would it kill them for rogues to get a little love?

Where is the Duelist class that has been around for decades?

Sounds like a good rogue subclass to me, a solid combat subclass for rogue is long overdue.

[Kane0]

Hmm. If MFoV doesn’t have one already i’d say that would be a fine suggestion for them to make.

Lvl3: fighting style, ribbon
Lvl9: extra attack or similar
Lvl13: skill tie-in ability
Lvl17: reaction or mobility ability

[Unoriginal]

Ok, maybe someone can explain something.

I love dnd, I have for 20 years. I played just about everything.
However I have always leaned more toward martials but I love gushes and full casters as well.

What I have a problem with is College of Swords bards.

One of my favorite classes in 5e is the rogue, and the swashbuckler is my favorite subclass of it.

Mike Mearls repeatedly called the COB Bard a swashbuckler during their into video.
Annoying but I can live with it, it is not like I expect him to do something original.

However when a full casting class, with just as many expertise as a rogue, gets a subclass with both an effective second attack and a choice of fighting styles I have an issue when there has yet to be a single subclass for Rogue that gets either one of those.

I would it kill them for rogues to get a little love?

Where is the Duelist class that has been around for decades?

Sounds like a good rogue subclass to me, a solid combat subclass for rogue is long overdue.

So, you're saying that the Swashbuckler is bad compared to the College of Blade Bard?

[Dudewithknives]

So, you're saying that the Swashbuckler is bad compared to the College of Blade Bard?

No, I am saying that there should not be a subclass for a skill monkey full caster with Jack of all trades and inspiration dice that gets a fancy sword fighting subclass with an extra attack and a fighting style when the the class that is a skill monkey but does does not have full casting backup and the other thing gs that chips away at their classes role, does not have either. With any subclass.

TLDR - dont give a full casting class with super versatility and skills a subclass built on being a graceful swordsman with a second attack and a fighting style when the base class with that role does not even have one and is mostly overshadowed by the same class already.

[Unoriginal]

No, I am saying that there should not be a subclass for a skill monkey full caster with Jack of all trades and inspiration dice that gets a fancy sword fighting subclass with an extra attack and a fighting style when the the class that is a skill monkey but does does not have full casting backup and the other thing gs that chips away at their classes role, does not have either. With any subclass.

TLDR - dont give a full casting class with super versatility and skills a subclass built on being a graceful swordsman with a second attack and a fighting style when the base class with that role does not even have one and is mostly overshadowed by the same class already.

Sorry, I'm not sure I get it. You're saying that the Rogue/Swashbuckler is overshadowed by the Bard/CoS?

[Dudewithknives]

Sorry, I'm not sure I get it. You're saying that the Rogue/Swashbuckler is overshadowed by the Bard/CoS?

I am saying that I'm general a rogue is a skill monkey with an average damage ability, but is focused on o e attack most of the time because it is all or nothing unless you dual wield which you don't get a fighting style for, and competes with an almost vital bonus action from cunning action.

Bard is just as good at skills, they only get one less. However it is much more likely that a bard will be a half elf so they make up for it. On top of it they get jack of all trades so even if they are not trained are still good. The get the same expertise, just a little later.
The biggest issue is that they get full casting backup and inspiration dice on top of being skill monkeys.

Then Mike Mearls goes out and pretty much rips off the swashbuckling fencer subclass, what was already on the rogue, and makes it better and puts in on the bard. To the point he accidently calls the subclass a swashbuckler in interviews.

I have a major problem with the fact that the bard, which already pretty much steals the job of the rogue, gets a dexterous finesse able swordsman subclass that gets multiple attacks, a fighting style, and combat maneuver flourishes that improve over the levels similar to a battle master.

There should have been a combat centered subclass for rogue with at the very least a fighting style and some kind of offshoot of a second attack long before the bard got one.

[Tanarii]

Sorry, I'm not sure I get it. You're saying that the Rogue/Swashbuckler is overshadowed by the Bard/CoS?
Let me see if I can translate. He can let you know if I nailed it. :smallamused:

He's saying don't give the Bard a cool subclass features as part of an archetype even more appropriate to a Rogue, before you give the Rogue a subclass with them.

----------------

Of course, the big problem is Extra Attack on a Rogue is a much larger DPR increase than just another attack, because it typically also adds 20% of sneak attack damage to DPR as well (hit rate for at least one attack 65% --> 84%). It's fine if it's got a counter-cost of 3d6 sneak attack dice (ie multiclassing 5 levels), or using your bonus action to TWF every time you want it. But I'd guess giving it as a subclass feature is potentially unbalanced.

[bronzemountain]

A CoS bard is capable in a fight, sure, but is absolutely not as damaging as a Swashbuckler rogue. The rogue expends no resources at all to keep doing steady, very respectable, scaling damage. While the bard expends resources to do much less damage, even with the second attack - and you're probably overestimating the impact of that last bit.

On top of all that, I don't think it's at all a bad thing to have several directions from which to approach a duellist archetype. That's a feature, not a bug.

[PeteNutButter]

A CoS bard is capable in a fight, sure, but is absolutely not as damaging as a Swashbuckler rogue. The rogue expends no resources at all to keep doing steady, very respectable, scaling damage. While the bard expends resources to do much less damage, even with the second attack - and you're probably overestimating the impact of that last bit.

On top of all that, I don't think it's at all a bad thing to have several directions from which to approach a duellist archetype. That's a feature, not a bug.

I agree with this.

On a math note the rogue usually uses booming blade or TWF which makes his DPR at level 6 ~15.3, with steady increases the next level and every other thereafter. The CoS Bard on the other hand if he goes TWF has ~9.75 DPR, if he boosted dex over cha. The bard can add flourishes for an extra 1d8 damage 3-4/times a short rest.

Regardless, the rogue will continually out damage the bard, and has a MUCH better defensive kit via uncanny dodge, and cunning action. They fulfill different roles in combat, but similar fluff/RP roles. In practice this could only ever be an issue if they both appear on two different PCs in a game where both are trying to RP the same kind of thing. Even then, the two characters should have a natural kinship and could be a great excuse to form a fighting duo. "Hey we both like swashling the buck? Did we just become best friends?"

One last point from a mechanical standpoint, don't expect to get that much from any rogue subclass since the core class is so strong. Giving a rogue extra attack would be decidedly unfair.

[Dudewithknives]

I agree with this.

On a math note the rogue usually uses booming blade or TWF which makes his DPR at level 6 ~15.3, with steady increases the next level and every other thereafter. The CoS Bard on the other hand if he goes TWF has ~9.75 DPR, if he boosted dex over cha. The bard can add flourishes for an extra 1d8 damage 3-4/times a short rest.

Regardless, the rogue will continually out damage the bard, and has a MUCH better defensive kit via uncanny dodge, and cunning action. They fulfill different roles in combat, but similar fluff/RP roles. In practice this could only ever be an issue if they both appear on two different PCs in a game where both are trying to RP the same kind of thing. Even then, the two characters should have a natural kinship and could be a great excuse to form a fighting duo. "Hey we both like swashling the buck? Did we just become best friends?"

One last point from a mechanical standpoint, don't expect to get that much from any rogue subclass since the core class is so strong. Giving a rogue extra attack would be decidedly unfair.

Your math is completely wrong.

Level 6, twf bard.
Assuming a pair of plain shortswords.
2 attacks for 1d6 +4, bonus attack for the same.
22.5 damage at 70% hit rate is 15.75 damage using no flourish at all.
As needed flourishes for bonus damage, and usually bonus AC of roughly 4 or so which is huge for a class in light armor.

If rapier with dueling, 2 attacks of 1d8 + 6 which is 21 damage.

Level 6 rogue
Normal rapier and booming blade, assuming you have it from a feat or playing a high elf.
1d8 + 1d8 + 3d6 + 4 is 23.5 at 70% to hit is almost the same but it is from 1 attack so 30% chance you do absolutely nothing, and that is only if the bard does not flourish at all.

Dual wielding increases the chances of landing a sneak attack and if they are a swashbuckler would probably not have booming blade anyway.
1d6 + 3d6 + 4 and 1d6. = 21.5 which is lower than base bard damage if dual wielding and only .5 below a rapier user.

The rogue gets better sneak attacks later, and better reaction attacks, the bard gets full casting, more damaging flourishes, and they renew on a short rest.


Even if no second attack, which is fine, they should at the very least get a subclass with fighting style options and based on swordplay.

[PeteNutButter]

Your math is completely wrong.


Derp, I was only giving the bard 2 attacks and not the 3 he'd get from TWF.

I'm not sure boosting dex is best strategy, but even so we are comparing them at the bard's best level. Levels 1-5 the rogue dominates, at level 7 the rogue pulls ahead again. The bard can still do flourishes and cast though.

The rogue build could make good use of his offhand with a shield for the BB route(high elf, boost 17 dex to 18 with feat to get moderately armored), giving him a comparable AC to that granted by the flourishes.

Ultimately, it'll be similar to the champion vs BM debates. The rogue fights all day without cost, but the bard can do more on resources. The rogue isn't behind so much like the champion though.

The problem is power creep though. Giving a fighting style on a rogue subclass would make it decidedly stronger than most other options. A single fighter dip is VERY common because it adds that and shields.

[Tanarii]

I find 60-65% hit rate is a better assumption. If you go with 65% and Dex 18 (ie +6 vs AC 13) you're looking at:

TWF bard with extra attack
3d6+12 @65% ~= 14.6 DPR

TWF rogue with sneak attack
2d6+4 @65% + [email protected] ~= 16.4

As you can see, sneak attack with 2 dice adds about 10% to average DPR against a typical for level 5 CR (around Cr-2 to Cr-3)

Vs AC 18 (hobgoblins) it's:

TWF bard:
3d6+12 @40% ~= 9 DPR

TWF rogue:
2d6+4 @40% + [email protected] ~= 11.1

Or 25% higher DPR for the rogue.

Edit: forgot TWF style for bard adding now.
Fixed. It's fairly close assuming TWF style for the bard, and equal Dex.

[Biggstick]

How come my Bard doesn't have Uncanny Dodge or Evasion? I think it's unfair that Rogues get such AMAZING defensive options while I as a Bard only have medium armor. Sure, I have full spell casting progression of spells known (and not spells prepared) and 2-3 Inspiration Dice (because if you're playing a Swords Bard the way you're describing OP, you're boosting Dexterity instead of Charisma), but I really deserve to have Uncanny Dodge and Evasion.

That's what you sound like. It's definitely a rant and you're complaining about Bards being capable of doing damage when they burn resources.

As a Rogue, you're built to do a few things incredibly well. You have Expertise in skills, plus eventually Reliable Talent at level 11. You automatically gain proficiency in Wisdom saving throws (albeit a bit late, but you still gain them). You are able to stand up to some of the scariest creatures in the game (as long as they only swing once) with Uncanny Dodge, and have the ability to straight up ignore aoe damage when it involves a Dexterity Save. You have one of the most coveted abilities in the game with Cunning Action and are able to keep yourself a good distance from your enemies for ranged attacks. Not only are you able to keep distance for ranged attacks, but you're also one of the only classes that can successfully get into melee and get out without incurring opportunity attacks, and not expend any meaningful resources in doing so.

You're complaining about fighting styles, a second attack, and full spell casting progression. Realize that Bards get full spell casting progression to help deal with the weaknesses they have as a class. Bards have practically 0 defensive capabilities. If a Bard is going into melee range, they're one of the MOST VULNERABLE CLASSES IN THE GAME! If you put a Bard and a Rogue in the same situation in melee range, the Rogue is going to be able to more consistently survive the situation compared to the Bard.

Overall, if you really want a second attack for your Rogue, some spell casting, and a Fighting style, go 1-3 levels of Rogue (Arcane Trickster preferred), 5-6 levels of Fighter (Eldritch Knight), and then go back to Rogue.

[Theodoxus]

so, if there was a roguish archetype that granted extra attack at 9th level, but required you to "exchange" 3d6 sneak dice for the round, that'd be balanced? I could get behind that.

I'd imagine it'd go something like:

Attack, miss, Bonus Action offhand attack, miss - decide to burn sneak dice to attack one last time, hit and get weapon+2d6 sneak at 9th level.

Of course, you'd better get something to compensate not having martial weapon proficiencies, medium armor prof (or heavy + con saves, if starting with 1st level fighter), second wind, action surge, a fighter archetype (EK for a few spells, or BM for a few maneuvers)... A fighting style and extra attack are nice, but not worth the loss of all that happiness for a few measly d6 of damage once a turn.

As noted, you're not getting uncanny dodge or evasion, you're not getting other roguish archetype benefits like spells or CHA to initiative or fast hands or mobility-lite.

If you're not allowed to MC, I could see it being an issue. But rare are those games (and there's better alternatives anyway). A fighter 5/Rogue 3 with just about any combo of archetypes, will be better than anything you could come up with that was balanced, but single classed rogue.

[Kane0]

Ooh, better yet a limited resource version of extra attack. Like dex mod times per short rest.

[Dudewithknives]

so, if there was a roguish archetype that granted extra attack at 9th level, but required you to "exchange" 3d6 sneak dice for the round, that'd be balanced? I could get behind that.

I'd imagine it'd go something like:

Attack, miss, Bonus Action offhand attack, miss - decide to burn sneak dice to attack one last time, hit and get weapon+2d6 sneak at 9th level.

Of course, you'd better get something to compensate not having martial weapon proficiencies, medium armor prof (or heavy + con saves, if starting with 1st level fighter), second wind, action surge, a fighter archetype (EK for a few spells, or BM for a few maneuvers)... A fighting style and extra attack are nice, but not worth the loss of all that happiness for a few measly d6 of damage once a turn.

As noted, you're not getting uncanny dodge or evasion, you're not getting other roguish archetype benefits like spells or CHA to initiative or fast hands or mobility-lite.

If you're not allowed to MC, I could see it being an issue. But rare are those games (and there's better alternatives anyway). A fighter 5/Rogue 3 with just about any combo of archetypes, will be better than anything you could come up with that was balanced, but single classed rogue.


I would be fine with just a subclass that actually got a fighting style.
Extra attack is not as big a deal to me but when full casters start getting weapon based subclasses that include fighting styles and some martial classes do not even have one that gets it yet, I have an issue with.

TWF, Dueling and maybe Archery should be included in there somewhere.

A subclass for rogues that get archery and are specialized snipers.
A subclass that are expert swordsmen with the choice fo TWF or Dueling.

[Biggstick]

A fighter 5/Rogue 3 with just about any combo of archetypes, will be better than anything you could come up with that was balanced.

I 100 percent agree with this.


I would be fine with just a subclass that actually got a fighting style.
Extra attack is not as big a deal to me but when full casters start getting weapon based subclasses that include fighting styles and some martial classes do not even have one that gets it yet, I have an issue with.

TWF, Dueling and maybe Archery should be included in there somewhere.

A subclass for rogues that get archery and are specialized snipers.
A subclass that are expert swordsmen with the choice fo TWF or Dueling.

All the Rogue archetypes are rewarding for Snipers. Cunning Action Hide and being able to take a shot with advantage on the attack roll, thereby automatically qualifying you for Sneak Attack damage is available to every Rogue archetype from level 2 on.

Complaining that Rogeus don't have an archetype for expert swordsmen? Swashbuckler has something it'd like to say to you. It allows for the Rogue to attack twice and not have to worry about using it's Bonus Action to disengage. Or, you can use the ability after a regular Attack action, and utilize your Bonus Action for something else if there are too many enemies around to attack them all. There is most definitely an expert swordsman subclass for Rogue, you're just not seeing past fighting styles for some reason.

The full caster that is getting fighting styles is a single Bard archetype. As I outlined before, Bards have very few defensive spells to keep themselves safe in the middle of melee combat, and they're getting a slight buff to offensive capabilities in melee. It is so much more risky for a Bard to go into melee range compared to a Rogue, and I don't think you're really comprehending how tough it is for them in melee. It feels like you're looking at it from a white-room perspective in which the Bard is able to walk up to a single enemy and unload everything on it, and be able to take a short-long rest immediately afterward. That's not how combat is designed in 5E, and not how you should assume classes play.

[Easy_Lee]

To be realistic, we should compare the bard who took warcaster or resilient con at level four and casts Haste on himself to the rogue firing from range with consistent advantage from bonus action: hide. 84% 4d6+4 (shortbow) vs 65% 3d8+15 (dueling rapier), if I'm not mistaken, taking differences in hit chance into consideration. That's what the two can do when fully invested in a fight.

The rogue should have about 15 DPR and the bard should have about 18-19 DPR. Note that the bard had to cast Haste on himself and can't do so every fight. The rogue is safer at range and can cut damage from the odd attack in half with uncanny dodge. If we give the bard a 10% chance of an opportunity attack, it doesn't change things much.

Neither compares to a build actually built for damage. At level 8, you can create a Variant Human Alert + Sharpshooter Gloomstalker 5 / Assassin 3 who opens many fights with approximately 65 damage against a chosen target. In conclusion, I think this is a moot point.

[Doug Lampert]

so, if there was a roguish archetype that granted extra attack at 9th level, but required you to "exchange" 3d6 sneak dice for the round, that'd be balanced? I could get behind that.

I'd imagine it'd go something like:

Attack, miss, Bonus Action offhand attack, miss - decide to burn sneak dice to attack one last time, hit and get weapon+2d6 sneak at 9th level.

Of course, you'd better get something to compensate not having martial weapon proficiencies, medium armor prof (or heavy + con saves, if starting with 1st level fighter), second wind, action surge, a fighter archetype (EK for a few spells, or BM for a few maneuvers)... A fighting style and extra attack are nice, but not worth the loss of all that happiness for a few measly d6 of damage once a turn.

As noted, you're not getting uncanny dodge or evasion, you're not getting other roguish archetype benefits like spells or CHA to initiative or fast hands or mobility-lite.

If you're not allowed to MC, I could see it being an issue. But rare are those games (and there's better alternatives anyway). A fighter 5/Rogue 3 with just about any combo of archetypes, will be better than anything you could come up with that was balanced, but single classed rogue.

Balance it by declaring that any round where you use the extra attack option from the sub-class you only get d4's for your sneak attack.

That's all it takes. Suddenly, your sneak damage hitting 84% of the time rather than 65% of the time still only doing 92.3% of normal sneak attack (it gets even worse if your "normal" is TWF).

There's a cost, but it's small enough that the extra weapon damage makes up for it and the ability is nearly a ribbon.

[Citan]

I am saying that I'm general a rogue is a skill monkey with an average damage ability, but is focused on o e attack most of the time because it is all or nothing unless you dual wield which you don't get a fighting style for, and competes with an almost vital bonus action from cunning action.

Bard is just as good at skills, they only get one less. However it is much more likely that a bard will be a half elf so they make up for it. On top of it they get jack of all trades so even if they are not trained are still good. The get the same expertise, just a little later.
The biggest issue is that they get full casting backup and inspiration dice on top of being skill monkeys.

I have a major problem with the fact that the bard, which already pretty much steals the job of the rogue, gets a dexterous finesse able swordsman subclass that gets multiple attacks, a fighting style, and combat maneuver flourishes that improve over the levels similar to a battle master.

There should have been a combat centered subclass for rogue with at the very least a fighting style and some kind of offshoot of a second attack long before the bard got one.
Let me stop you right here, as you are mistaken on both accounts. ;)

1. Bard > Rogue in skills?
Errr... Between levels 2 and 10, very possibly.
At level 11, Rogue gets Reliable Talent and swipes the floor with everyone else. Even Enhance Ability is inferior in the long run, and it costs a slot too (considering, obviously, both Rogue and Bard gets the same Expertise).
Only Lore Bard can hold their own with a Rogue once level 14 kicks in, and only as long as their Bardic Inspiration supply last. May be enough in some games, not in some others, YMMV.

Besides that, sure, Bard is better than Rogue whenever a non-proficient check is required but, let's be honest, in a group, how often will there be *nobody* competent to try a check? In a 2-man party, very often. In a three-man party, probably commonly. In a 4-5 party? Probably fairly rare.

2. Bard takes Rogue job?
Rogue's job is obviously something we can debate on... But its strengths are known, and can be summarized as such...
- Great mobility...
- Plus great single-target damage...
- Plus very good resilience (as long as you don't try and face groups ^^)...
- Plus extreme reliability in a handful+ of skills...
All day, every day.

You could build a Bard to do the job of a Rogue, sure, but it will force you to shoehorn your character in a specific set of spell choices, and you will still consume many resources to do so.
For example, you could beat a Rogue by combining Pass Without Trace with Expertise, but then you're dependent on your concentration. Or you could use Silence / Greater Invisibility, but these also cost resources.
The point of a Rogue is that you don't need anything special to be great at what you do. ;)
So, sure, if your games tend to allow you to blow resources without too much risk of getting short, obviously a Rogue would be grumpy with a Bard building himself as a scout. But *theorically* casters have to pay attention to how and when they use magic. ^^

Your complaint is essentially a variant of Champion VS Battlemaster: if in general there is no pressure on resource management, the first will feel overshadowed ("they are stealing our jobs"). With normal pressure, it should be fine. :)

Plus, well, this is a totally personal view of course, but I think Extra Attack is a concept that would really go against the notion of Sneak Attack (putting all your focus, dexterity and strength into making ONE powerful, precise attacks that seals the deal).