Assassin, Inquisitive, Thief (Maybe Mastermind?)

[elyktsorb]

Is it just me or do these Rogue archetypes feel underwhelming? Assassin, I've heard people go on about how it's annoying to play around making an Assassin more effective.

Inquisitive feels lackluster since it requires you building your Wisdom (Not that Wisdom is a bad thing to have a high score in by any means.) Not to mention the abilities it come with also just feel very niche and meh? Like Eye for Detail 'you can use a bonus action to make a Wisdom (Perception) check to spot a hidden creature or object or to make an Intelligence (Investigation) check to uncover or decipher clues.' When are you ever going to be in a situation where you couldn't just make most of those checks at a leisurely pace? Like, the only thing that comes to mind is checking for an invisible creature, because if you were checking for say an ambush or guards, wouldn't you not be in combat and it being a bonus action wouldn't matter? Or Ear for Deceit, where that's just objectively only going to see much use in games with more social skill stuff. Even then the level you get it at, not amazing, 8 minimum, assuming you have proficiency (because why would you be Inquisitive without Insight Proficiency?) And a decent Wisdom modifier of +2, that's just a 12 minimum, that you can only use for specifically lying, so it leaves room to be dicked with. And Insightful Fighting just feels very subpar.

I added Thief because it also feels like one of those two above, where your abilities don't really mean anything. Wooh climb speed. Use an Object as a bonus action is legit amazing tho. But for thieves tools and slight of hand, I feel like there's never too many situations where them being bonus actions really matters all that much. Supreme Sneak feels a bit underwhelming because of the A: having to move at half speed, which feels pointless sense usually stealth is the time where you'd be moving slow anyway so why slap that stipulation on there? B: At level 9 I feel like you don't need advantage all that much? Your Dex is likely 20 by this point, with +4 in prof, that's a +9. You've had 4 chances to boost it even further with Expertise to make it a +13. And if it was a situation where you had to make sure you didn't roll too low, you'd likely have a friendly buff from your caster put on you. I mean yeah, obviously having it is good, but it feels redundant and doesn't give much of an impact. Obvs Use Magic Object is amazing, as well as getting two turns, but both are relatively late game abilities you may not even get.

I added Mastermind to this list because I feel like it may also be somewhat underwhelming, but I feel like if you play Mastermind you're almost constantly using the Help action. (I mean you're always probably using Insightful fighting too but it has chances to fail) But otherwise I'm not too versed in it.

Compared to Scout (Good ability right away + more skills in case you have to fill in as the nature/survival person), Swashbuckler (more fighty Rogue) and Arcane Trickster (Magics), these other ones just seem kind of meh to take IMO.

Really only discussing it because I'm currently playing a Rogue (Thief ironically enough, it's a more social game taking place in cities so I figured this would be like the best place for Thief, not to mention we plan on going towards end levels and Use Magic Object and Double turn is pretty cool.) But yeah, just curious to see what other people think of these Rogue types.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

The rogue is the most well designed class in the game and gets some top tier class features.

The subclasses are rather well made and perhaps the only one I don't care for is the assassin.

Even the thief is pretty solid, especially with UMD, though Supreme Sneak is rather weak for a 9th level feature it synergizes with the Rogue very well (though is somewhat useless when reliable talent comes along).

[Segev]

The rogue is the most well designed class in the game and gets some top tier class features.

The subclasses are rather well made and perhaps the only one I don't care for is the assassin.

Even the thief is pretty solid, especially with UMD, though Supreme Sneak is rather weak for a 9th level feature it synergizes with the Rogue very well (though is somewhat useless when reliable talent comes along).

Not to disparage you, SpawnOfMorbo, but this reply comes off as "nuh-uh!" more than as a helpful contribution to the discussion. I think you're earnest in your opinions, but I would really like to see some details or examples as to what works with the subclasses.

Particularly useful would be specific examples of how the things elyktsorb spelled out as being underwhelming are, in fact, well-designed and (in particular) useful.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Not to disparage you, SpawnOfMorbo, but this reply comes off as "nuh-uh!" more than as a helpful contribution to the discussion. I think you're earnest in your opinions, but I would really like to see some details or examples as to what works with the subclasses.

Particularly useful would be specific examples of how the things elyktsorb spelled out as being underwhelming are, in fact, well-designed and (in particular) useful.


All that's needed is to look at any of the hundreds (or more) explanations of the rogue on this, or other forums, going over everything again is pointless.

And as I said, even the theif's weak 9th level feature synergizes well with the Rogue.


Subclasses for the Rogue is just gravy.

Edit: spelling, one = on.

[Man_Over_Game]

Is it just me or do these Rogue archetypes feel underwhelming? Assassin, I've heard people go on about how it's annoying to play around making an Assassin more effective.

Honestly, they're all kind of underwhelming in term of combat contribution. The

Take a look at Scout. You get it's power at level 3. How does it compare to the Rogue feature at level 5? Which would you rather use more? Unfortunately, it's kind of a trap feature, since it basically comes down to "You can move 15 feet away, if that'd prevent more damage than halving one successful attack or spell"



Take a look at the Swashbuckler. Consider the fact that the only things it really does are:
Melee Attacks against enemies means they can't make Opportunity Attacks against you.
You can Sneak Attack an enemy if there's nothing adjacent to him.

Coincidentally, both of those things are fairly irrelevant compared to the fact that a ranged weapon can avoid both of those problems just by shooting at the guy who's adjacent to your tank. The difference between melee damage and ranged damage is that melee deals about +1 more damage per attack (which the Rogue makes one of), and melee damage is better if you're cornered. If you're cornered, there's little benefit to the mobility of the Swashbuckler. If you're not cornered and using your Sneak Attack bonus from Swashbuckler, you're likely needing to use your Bonus Action to flee. The only times you'd be able to afford to use an off-hand attack as a Swashbuckler is if an enemy didn't have means of approaching you, generally due to an ally blocking your approach. That is, an ally adjacent to the enemy.

Swashbuckler's combat benefit is mostly thematics. Tactically, it's only noticeably better if your party had a lot of means of knocking targets prone or had zoning effects to prevent an enemy's approach, or in a 1-on-1 fight. Otherwise, you'd do just as well just relying on your base Rogue features.


Arcane Trickster is probably the only one that reliably offers different benefits than the base Rogue class...as a 1/3 caster. How much as your Eldritch Knight's powers contributed to the party's success beyond "hit it harder" and "don't hurt so bad"?

I say reliably, because I feel that each Rogue subclass can circumstantially be better, usually by DM discretion. Who's to say how effective an Assassin, Inquisitive or Thief could be? With a good, enabling DM, I'd say Spectacularly, but that's not always the case. Many DMs consider the players responsible for their own success, and that might include your build options.

One interesting thing of note about the Inquisitive, as an interesting benefit, is that it can "spot" a target at long range and snipe those targets without an ally's assistance. With a Longbow and Sharpshooter, that's a great way of picking off targets before they'd reach you in 10 rounds. Or use a Shortbow and just Cunning Action and kite backwards each round. There's not really any other way of accomplishing this without granting yourself Advantage or putting a Familiar in harm's way.

Overall, I'd say the Rogue SHOULD be a good class, but most of its features are either done better by someone else (want damage, go Fighter), or require some hefty DM discretion to work properly. Outside of combat, Rogues focus on skills, which are not just difficult to compete against the power of magic, but also has to compete against everyone else that has skills. Your biggest piece of your unique, Roguish playstyle comes at level 1, and it basically just says "+2-6 on this specific skill roll". Or the equivalent of a feat. They are, unfortunately, easily duplicated for cheap. A Sorcerer can feel like a Rogue with just two levels into Bard, Fighters can have all the feats they'd need and still pump out more damage, a Monk doesn't need help running, jumping or climbing when he can do those without a check.

Sure, sometimes affordable mobility is useful, and affordable damage is useful, and affordable skills are useful. But, in the end, you don't really do anything all that unique. For the most part, the Rogue's benefit is "You can attack while doing X", which is basically the description of a few feats.

Rogues are good because of Rogue players and the DMs that enable them. If everyone was a Rogue player while still playing various classes, I think the game would be a lot better. But as-is, there's not really much reason someone couldn't do roguish things without roguish levels. Heck, even Thieves' Tools is just a background.

[clash]

As stated above they are all very good subclasses but let me go into why a little bit.
Lets start with what scout gets actually as a baseline to compare against:

Scout Level 3:
* 2 bonus skill proficiencies
* Free disengage as a reaction.
basically some extra skills and something that has a mild effect on combat

One thing to note as we go through this is that none of the Rogue subclasses are balanced against getting damage boosts at level 3. That will become important with assassin.

The biggest problem with the assasin level 3 ability is that people take the bonus ability and try to make it the main one because if it becomes reliable it is stupid broken. Again the rogue is not balanced against subclasses offering extra damage at level 3. That being noted lets ignore the automatic critical hit on surprised enemies ability and see what else it gets.

Assassin level 3:
* 2 bonus tool proficiencies that could actually prove useful
* advantage on creatures that haven't taken a turn yet (this can be achieved fairly reliably)
2 free proficiencies and a minor combat bonus, so far pretty equivalent

Inquisitive level 3:
* A light weight reliable talent for insight checks to see if creatures are lying 8 levels before reliable talent comes online
* Find hidden creature in combat as a bonus action
* Sneak attack from one bonus action for a whole minute on a creature

The first two abilities kinda suit the needs of improved skills but lets talk about what make insightful fighting great. First you dont need high wisdom to pull it off. If you have a +1 or +2 in wisdom and proficiency and expertise you will already have +5-6 on your insight check at level 3. It might not be as good as your stealth but your also going up against deception which most guys wont be proficent in and charisma which lots of baddies have a low score for. This ability is great though for 2 reasons.
1. It lets you sneak attack without being sneaky which opens up all kinds of rogue concepts
2. Most rogues spend their bonus action trying to get sneak attack a majority of the time. This frees up your bonus action to do other things like dash, disengage, or two-weapon fighting or crossbow expert if your first attack misses.

Mastermind level 3:
* 2 tool proficiencies and 2 languages
* Help as a bonus action
2 free proficincies and help as a bonus action at 30 ft range. This opens up lots of fun stuff in combat. The only downside to mastermind is that help action will compete with hide in order to get sneak attack but as long as its a team player and you have a mellee on the team it does just fine at supporting others.

Thief level 3:
* Bonus action object interactions
* Second-story work
Thief doesnt really change the way rogue plays but where it really shines is in complex combats. Anything where the stage moves or you have multiple objectives in the combat or need to rescue somone etc. The other way to get good mileage out of it is maximizing what objects you have on hand to interact with. That just takes a bit of creativity

So I wouldnt say any of them are particularly weak or unbalnaced. At least not in the low levels where it matters. Thief might be a little boring, but it's kinda you base Rogue if you just want to play a rogue as your theme.

[Segev]

Arcane Trickster actually feels like it contributes to a difference in playstyle through one of its class features more than through its 1/3 caster progression. Yes, it relies on a cantrip, mage hand, to do so, but the subclass could have given the cantrip without other spellcasting and still given us this feature. The ability to have it be invisible is spiffy; the ability to have it use bonus actions to do things a mage hand normally can't is the real game-changer. Not in a super-powerful sense, but in the literal but low key sense that it can really change how the rogue plays the game.

Assassins really need something like what some monsters get: the ability to just apply poison damage to all their attacks. Or even poison effects. Something that let them stretch a single dose of poison, possibly indefinitely, so that it's a minimal cost and is applicable to most of their attacks, or their attacks under certain circumstances, or something, would go a long way.

Thieves feel like they were designed early. The main problem with their abilities is that some races just overwhelm them. The climbing thing could be really cool, and could change up the way a thief plays in exploration and combat, but takes some work and thought. Use Magic Device is a legacy thing trying to be relevant, but I am unsure if it actually manages it. Might've been cool to have what it is plus one more perk: an additional attunement slot.

Mastermind...I kind-of glaze over every time I read it, because its abilities seem so boring. They also don't really seem like some devious Moriarty-type so much as a wannabe-bard who couldn't quite inspire anybody to follow him. For a "mastermind," I'd expect features with names like "plans within plans" and "false-loss gambit," though off the top of my head I don't know how you'd implement such a thing. Maybe something like, "Agents Everywhere."


Your machinations reach far and wide, to the point where even you don't necessarily know the full extent of your shadowy web, and these agents may not even know your true face or name. As an action, you may utter a code phrase that seems innocuous to those not in the know. Choose a target creature, and all creatures within 30 feet that can hear you who are not already allied with you in your current endeavor and are not leaders of a group opposed to your goals make Charisma saving throws equal to your Mastermind DC [which is probably 8+Int+Proficiency]. If your target creature failed, he is revealed to be your secret ally as long as he is not one of the leaders aforementioned as one who need not make a save. If he made it, the DM chooses one of those which failed.

Your newly revealed secret ally will do his best to assist you, surreptitiously or through overt betrayal to your side as the DM deems suitable. The agent will try to maintain cover, or will seek a new position elsewhere to be under cover, after helping you with one task; he will not join you on your quest lest the nature of your relationship become too obvious to the world.

Once you have uncovered a secret ally in this manner, you cannot do so again until you take a long rest.

This is a bit gamist, but at least could capture the right feel for things. It feels like something a Mastermind would pull off in a work of fiction, having an ally just when he needs it, or getting his way with a well-timed betrayal by an apparent enemy.

[Lord Raziere]

I mean.....

it really says something about the Rogue Assassin's effectiveness when the best way to be an effective assassin in character is start by being a dex battlemaster fighter for 2 levels (https://www.enworld.org/threads/guide-dealing-death-handbook-of-the-true-assassin.469125/) then dip into rogue for 3 levels then go fighter, paladin or warlock for the rest.

at least with pure battlemaster fighter you both good damage and survivability.

[Man_Over_Game]

2. Most rogues spend their bonus action trying to get sneak attack a majority of the time. This frees up your bonus action to do other things like dash, disengage, or two-weapon fighting or crossbow expert if your first attack misses.

Just to clarify for anyone reading, Rogues spend their Bonus Action to Hide, which gives them Advantage. You don't need Advantage for a Sneak Attack if an ally is adjacent to the target, so you won't need to spend your Bonus Action to get a Sneak Attack on that same target. The Inquisitive's combat feature may as well be "You can spend a Bonus Action to not need an ally adjacent to that target for Sneak Attack".

When given a choice, using your Bonus Action to Hide is still probably more beneficial since it gives you Advantage on your attack. A good way of going about it is to Spot your target at the start of a fight, then Hide to try and gain Advantage, using your Spotted target or a target engaged with an ally as backup targets for when you fail to Hide.

Unfortunately, the Inquisitive falls into the same slot as the Scout and Swashbuckler, where your subclass feature only matter as a backup for when the default Rogue features are less effective. The problem is that the default Sneak Attack and Evasion features are very effective 70% of the time, leaving you with a very slim niche of a 30% power gain, unless you happen to use your features because they feel cool (that is, using the Swashbuckler's melee features when a ranged attack would do fine).

[clash]

Just to clarify for anyone reading, Rogues spend their Bonus Action to Hide, which gives them Advantage. You don't need Advantage for a Sneak Attack if an ally is adjacent to the target, so you won't need to spend your Bonus Action to get a Sneak Attack on that same target. The Inquisitive's combat feature may as well be "You can spend a Bonus Action to not need an ally adjacent to that target for Sneak Attack".

When given a choice, using your Bonus Action to Hide is still probably more beneficial since it gives you Advantage on your attack. A good way of going about it is to Spot your target at the start of a fight, then Hide to try and gain Advantage, using your Spotted target or a target engaged with an ally as backup targets for when you fail to Hide.

Unfortunately, the Inquisitive falls into the same slot as the Scout and Swashbuckler, where your subclass feature only matter as a backup for when the default Rogue features are less effective. The problem is that the default Sneak Attack and Evasion features are very effective 70% of the time, leaving you with a very slim niche of a 30% viability chance.

Thanks for the clarification on that. However, attacking twice with two-weapon fighting is mechanically superior to spending your bonus action for advantage, assuming you dont need to advantage to qualify for sneak attack. It also lets you pick your targets in case you want to take out the squishy caster in the back. But even just with two weapon fighting or in my case crossbow expert 90% of the time it is better than advantage

[Man_Over_Game]

Attacking twice with two-weapon fighting is mechanically superior to spending your bonus action for advantage, assuming you dont need to advantage to qualify for sneak attack. It also lets you pick your targets in case you want to take out the squishy caster in the back. But even just with two weapon fighting or in my case crossbow expert 90% of the time it is better than advantage

I mentioned it in another thread, but you can almost accomplish the same as long as you're holding a single knife at the start of a fight.

Draw a knife, throw a knife. If you miss, throw your one backup you've held for the encounter.

Sure, a swashbuckler could attack twice every round, but with a ~65% hit chance throughout all the levels (missing once every 3 rounds), the Swashbuckler doesn't get a whole lot more than a little bit of damage beyond that. Maybe about +5 damage per round , and a 65% chance to land Sneak Attack for every time your main attack missed past the first (so relevant about every 1/6 rounds), more than a ranged rogue doing anything else. That's a lot at level 3, but that won't be worth a subclass pick by level 7. Thankfully, you'll get a number of other cool features from the subclass by that time, but it does mean that those level 3 features aren't quire as impactful as they might appear.

[jas61292]

In my experience, people on forums like this put way too much emphasis on rogues hiding and trying to gain advantage. Not only is the ability to hide reliably and repeatedly a very DM dependent thing, but in most parties I find it is highly unnecessary. Rogues are balanced around having Sneak Attack on most of their attacks. They are not balanced around having advantage on most of their attacks. The easiest way to get Sneak Attack is usually through having an ally in melee. And when you utilize that to its fullest, that is when Rogues really start to shine. So much of what makes the Rogue, both as a base class and individual subclasses, shine is in their varied uses of the bonus action.

Of the subclasess mentioned in the thread title, only Assassin doesn't explicitly have their own quality use for bonus actions. Masterminds can Help, from range. That is honestly pretty amazing. So many melee characters love having advantage, and getting it at no cost to themselves is great. Inquisitives can use their bonus action to let them Sneak Attack when they don't have an ally in melee, and the also get the option to use it to locate hiding (including invisible) creatures, saving them their action. And then you have Thiefs that can do with their bonus action more things that you could ever think of, and can take advantage of intricate and detailed battle environments perhaps better than any other class because of it. Sure, their abilities are underwhelming in a white room, but are astoundingly useful in actual play, especially when an encounter has a goal other than "kill everything dead as fast as possible."

[elyktsorb]

I feel like I should more so highlight how I felt about the class, and these specific archetypes. I mainly started the discussion because Assassin's abilities don't really help you be a better Assassin. Compare it to Thief and Thief does give you things that might make it easier for you to get into position to be able to actually assassinate people (Climb speed, unlocking doors with a bonus action lets you do more in a single turn if there are active guards in the area at least) so theoretically, if you wanted to choose the class that had better options for getting to X person (you'd choose Arcane Trickster because they get invisibility, but heck even that takes until 7th lvl) Assassin just makes you better at killing things you happen to get the drop on, but if you went through all the planning to be able to get to this X person, wouldn't you already have a means if taking them out?

Inquisitive feels like you want to be a detective, but I don't know when you'd ever get to be one really! Unless the campaign is centered around that sort of stuff, all the additional things for Inquisitive seem off to the wayside.

I already mentioned Thief's latter 2 abilities, Use Magic Item, and 2 turn, are pretty sweet (but are also very late game), but can anyone think of a time ignoring Climb speed was ever remotely relevant? Even if you were scaling a cliff or building, you'd likely still have to use ropes, and pitons to not fall off (a cliff) Not to mention the whole running jump thing, where you're jump range is increased by your dex modifier, which would only ever be an extra 5 feet, and chances are you'd still have to roll to make whatever jump your making. Then the whole sleight of hand thing, how many people just randomly sleight of hand npc's? Or important characters? You don't because you don't want to screw it up and then you've done 1 thing that royally screws with a lot of stuff.

The one time I Sleight of Handed anything remotely interesting/important was when our Barbarian's head got cut off mid-battle, and the big bad dude that did it kept the head on him, so while we were trying to retreat I Sleight of Handed (as an octopus by the way, there is a complicated story behind this) the head off of him, and then swam away which let me take it, along with my companions having taken the body earlier and we met up later and got him revived. Otherwise, any other time I've used sleight of hand, it was just for meaningless meh stuff.

Arcane Trickster, Swashbuckler, and Scout all feel very much like you're becoming a different kind of Rogue. Where as Assassin, Inquisitive, and Thief all feel like the exact same class and subclass with really niche things they do, and seemingly not doing anything to make you more like the Archetype you've chosen. Assassin only feels like an assassin, when you actually get to assassinate someone. Thief never gets to feel anything like it unless the campaign is super designed around it, otherwise you're making a huge risk that could effect your whole party for probably something not worth it. And Inquisitive never feels like a detective or anything.

[Biggstick]

I feel like I should more so highlight how I felt about the class, and these specific archetypes. I mainly started the discussion because Assassin's abilities don't really help you be a better Assassin. Compare it to Thief and Thief does give you things that might make it easier for you to get into position to be able to actually assassinate people (Climb speed, unlocking doors with a bonus action lets you do more in a single turn if there are active guards in the area at least) so theoretically, if you wanted to choose the class that had better options for getting to X person (you'd choose Arcane Trickster because they get invisibility, but heck even that takes until 7th lvl) Assassin just makes you better at killing things you happen to get the drop on, but if you went through all the planning to be able to get to this X person, wouldn't you already have a means if taking them out?

Inquisitive feels like you want to be a detective, but I don't know when you'd ever get to be one really! Unless the campaign is centered around that sort of stuff, all the additional things for Inquisitive seem off to the wayside.

I already mentioned Thief's latter 2 abilities, Use Magic Item, and 2 turn, are pretty sweet (but are also very late game), but can anyone think of a time ignoring Climb speed was ever remotely relevant? Even if you were scaling a cliff or building, you'd likely still have to use ropes, and pitons to not fall off (a cliff) Not to mention the whole running jump thing, where you're jump range is increased by your dex modifier, which would only ever be an extra 5 feet, and chances are you'd still have to roll to make whatever jump your making. Then the whole sleight of hand thing, how many people just randomly sleight of hand npc's? Or important characters? You don't because you don't want to screw it up and then you've done 1 thing that royally screws with a lot of stuff.

The one time I Sleight of Handed anything remotely interesting/important was when our Barbarian's head got cut off mid-battle, and the big bad dude that did it kept the head on him, so while we were trying to retreat I Sleight of Handed (as an octopus by the way, there is a complicated story behind this) the head off of him, and then swam away which let me take it, along with my companions having taken the body earlier and we met up later and got him revived. Otherwise, any other time I've used sleight of hand, it was just for meaningless meh stuff.

Arcane Trickster, Swashbuckler, and Scout all feel very much like you're becoming a different kind of Rogue. Where as Assassin, Inquisitive, and Thief all feel like the exact same class and subclass with really niche things they do, and seemingly not doing anything to make you more like the Archetype you've chosen. Assassin only feels like an assassin, when you actually get to assassinate someone. Thief never gets to feel anything like it unless the campaign is super designed around it, otherwise you're making a huge risk that could effect your whole party for probably something not worth it. And Inquisitive never feels like a detective or anything.

Arcane Trickster can easily be the most unique, so I won't contest you there.

How does Swashbuckler make you feel like you're becoming a different Rogue? At level 3, you can achieve the same effect on any other Rogue if you have the Mobile feat and an ally within 5' of the enemy. If you aren't a Human, pick up Mobile at level 4. You're now bringing the exact same things a Swashbuckler Rogue brings to the table while still receiving all of your particular archetype's features.

Scout gets a couple extra sets of Expertise. Skirmisher competes with Reaction economy as a weaker choice, as if an enemy is ending it's turn within 5' of you, they're likely to have already attacked you. If they've attacked and hit for any serious amount of damage, you've likely used your Uncanny Dodge. If they didn't hit for a serious amount of damage, you're likely not threatened enough to have to burn your Reaction on moving 15' away from them.

It feels like you're valuing certain things about these particular classes without seeing the real merit of the other archetypes. As the second reply by Spawn stated, there are dozens of unique threads available to be searched as to the strength of each archetype. I'll spend time defending one though.

The Inquisitive Rogue is the only Rogue that can be completely independent of any party members and doesn't require you to work out with your DM if you're eligible to apply Sneak Attack. Inquisitive Rogues make an Insight check versus a Deception check (which almost any creature you come against is going to be bad at) and you're now eligible for Sneak Attack against said creature. As a Player who prefers to be able to transition to range as my Rogue gains levels, this is invaluable. I talked earlier about the merits of other Rogue archetypes; I'm sure you'll find dozens of threads arguing about DM rulings on whether a Rogue qualifies for Sneak Attack or not. Inquisitive Rogues are the ONLY Rogue archetype that never has to argue with a DM over whether they qualify for Sneak Attack from either melee or range.

All the other features of the Inquisitive Rogue are meant as tools for non-combat portions of the game. The quality of the non-combat portion of D&D varies greatly from one DM to the next, and you need to keep that in mind when choosing a Rogue archetype imo. Depending on how the DM runs their non-combat portions of the game will determine whether you will enjoy the non-combat aspects of the Rogue archetype you've chosen.

[Segev]

I haven't played with any rogues, but the climbing thing strikes me as something that is meant to be more useful than it winds up being because of disparate expectations of what climbing entails.

The climbing rules are that it takes double movement. If the walls "lack handholds," the DM might require an athletics check or that you use climbing equipment. There is literally no advice on how hard an athletics check it should be, because this is 5e and actually telling the DM how to adjudicate a DC might make the skill system useful.

It strikes me that the expectation of the writers of the Thief's ability probably was that, unless it's more difficult than city building's wall, any PC can just climb it with no check as long as they spend double movement. The Thief then can scurry up such walls parkour-style without needing a check or slowing down.

This is, unfortunately, less obvious than the monk's eventual ability to just run up walls. And the question of clinging to walls and ceilings arises. How many hands? Can he attack from there? Can he cling? Can anybody (thief or not) use the jump rules to leap up onto a wall and cling to it a la climbing?

I get the impression the writers of the Thief ability to climb expected climbing to be easy to do except for the slow-down bit. And this was meant to make thieves into pseudo-spiders without needing magic.

[elyktsorb]

Arcane Trickster can easily be the most unique, so I won't contest you there.

How does Swashbuckler make you feel like you're becoming a different Rogue? At level 3, you can achieve the same effect on any other Rogue if you have the Mobile feat and an ally within 5' of the enemy. If you aren't a Human, pick up Mobile at level 4. You're now bringing the exact same things a Swashbuckler Rogue brings to the table while still receiving all of your particular archetype's features.

Scout gets a couple extra sets of Expertise. Skirmisher competes with Reaction economy as a weaker choice, as if an enemy is ending it's turn within 5' of you, they're likely to have already attacked you. If they've attacked and hit for any serious amount of damage, you've likely used your Uncanny Dodge. If they didn't hit for a serious amount of damage, you're likely not threatened enough to have to burn your Reaction on moving 15' away from them.

It feels like you're valuing certain things about these particular classes without seeing the real merit of the other archetypes. As the second reply by Spawn stated, there are dozens of unique threads available to be searched as to the strength of each archetype. I'll spend time defending one though.

The Inquisitive Rogue is the only Rogue that can be completely independent of any party members and doesn't require you to work out with your DM if you're eligible to apply Sneak Attack. Inquisitive Rogues make an Insight check versus a Deception check (which almost any creature you come against is going to be bad at) and you're now eligible for Sneak Attack against said creature. As a Player who prefers to be able to transition to range as my Rogue gains levels, this is invaluable. I talked earlier about the merits of other Rogue archetypes; I'm sure you'll find dozens of threads arguing about DM rulings on whether a Rogue qualifies for Sneak Attack or not. Inquisitive Rogues are the ONLY Rogue archetype that never has to argue with a DM over whether they qualify for Sneak Attack from either melee or range.

All the other features of the Inquisitive Rogue are meant as tools for non-combat portions of the game. The quality of the non-combat portion of D&D varies greatly from one DM to the next, and you need to keep that in mind when choosing a Rogue archetype imo. Depending on how the DM runs their non-combat portions of the game will determine whether you will enjoy the non-combat aspects of the Rogue archetype you've chosen.

I'm disregarding feats since it's not really what I'm trying to convey with how a class happens to be handled by a player, and I can only speak from personal experience. But the fact that you mention feats does work into my argument of hardly any of the Rogue archetype's feeling all that different from one another. I suppose my bigger point is that you could take Assassin, or Thief, and realistically see basically no differences in how you would play either of them for an entire game.

It is cool that the Inquisitive can have Sneak Attack whenever (provided you succeed on the check), but I'm not arguing that that's not a good ability (it is) in fact that really has little to do with the argument since having Sneak Attack has almost never been an issue for me playing as a Rogue (I mean at the end of the day all the Inquisitive's bonus action Sneak Attack button does is make it so you don't have to Hide as a bonus action to get the next Sneak Attack, good for places where you can't hide all that much but at the end of the day, it's just another d20 roll you make to be able to use your sneak attack, just like using the hide action would be, I mean at the very least Swashbuckler doesn't have to make any bonus action checks to be able to have sneak attack, as far as scout goes, if you go with scout chances are you are acting more like an actual scout and I like the fluff of getting nature and survival which helps with the role, so it makes feeling more naturesq easy and feels more distinguishing to me than Inquisitive who's additional stuff barely does anything even in situations where it would be more applicable). But it's non-combat abilities are just that, non-combat and they are so very niche in terms of non-combat ability. Having slightly better odds of telling if someone is lying doesn't really feel all that good? Like heck, Assassin might need to be set up, but at least it's an ability worth setting up for.

I am definitely valuing certain things more than others, because a lot of the merit of these classes (the ones I've mentioned) feel like their hardly that big of a deal? I will say that Scout does fall into my view of 'goes about combat and out of combat game play basically the same as several other types of rogues' I just happen to enjoy the nature/survival stuff since I wager that's a big reason of why you'd pick it over anything else.

[Grek]

I mean.....

it really says something about the Rogue Assassin's effectiveness when the best way to be an effective assassin in character is start by being a dex battlemaster fighter for 2 levels (https://www.enworld.org/threads/guide-dealing-death-handbook-of-the-true-assassin.469125/) then dip into rogue for 3 levels then go fighter, paladin or warlock for the rest.

at least with pure battlemaster fighter you both good damage and survivability.

The flip side of this is that rogues are mysteriously the best cavalier option in 5e. After all, if you're melee attacking from a mount, you will definitionally have an another enemy of the target within 5 feet - your mount. And if you're a Lightfoot Halfling, you can even spend your bonus action to Hide while being obscured by your Riding Dog. If your group uses feats, Mounted Combatant gives your mount Evasion (just like you have) and allows your to force enemies to attack you instead of the mount, which you then halve using Uncanny Dodge.

[Man_Over_Game]

Inquisitive feels like you want to be a detective, but I don't know when you'd ever get to be one really! Unless the campaign is centered around that sort of stuff, all the additional things for Inquisitive seem off to the wayside.

The problem here is that making a Perception Check is usually through the Search Action (that is, it requires your Action), where many DMs forget this and offer you to make a check for free.

The problem isn't necessarily that the Inquisitive needs to be a detective, but that the Search Action is habitually a bad choice to do in combat. If DMs made it more valuable to take the Search Action than it is to take the Attack or Cast a Spell Actions, the Inquisitive would feel a lot more impactful.

Same thing with the Thief and using his Quick Hands feature to make improvised actions. They aren't bad features, but they're made bad through DM's bad habits. I'm guilty of this, too. It's difficult to always come up with a way for the less-obvious actions to be more relevant than the basic ones.

If someone takes the Search Action, I now have to think of 1-3 new elements to the environment who's intel is more valuable than taking the Attack Action. If the intel is not valuable, I am making that decision that the player should have just attacked.

On the other hand, if I want to account for someone to make an attack, I just add about 10 HP to a creature's already existing HP. It's a lot easier to jack up numbers you are already using than it is to create a bunch of new, moving parts.

Which is part of the reason for my gripe with the Rogue. Many of its features are...unreliable. Just because it's good with a good DM doesn't mean it's good with a different DM. However, Fireball shouts something that every table understands.

[Zuras]

I don’t think it’s that the non AT Rogue subclasses are lacking, it’s more that the Arcane Trickster is just far better than all the others.

1/3 spell progression is rather unimpressive in general, but Rogues get so much more out of their spells than a Wizard does if they use them to supercharge their abilities. Minor Illusion, Mage Hand and Disguise Self are all 5x more effective if you have expertise in stealth and deception.

I’ve played a Mastermind Rogue that doubled as a low-budget AT by taking Magic Initiate-Wizard with Find Familiar, Minor Illusion and Mage Hand as the spell picks. It was extremely effective and provided most of the non-combat power of the AT.

I haven’t seen anyone happy with their Rogue PCs unless they get good, reliable use out of the level 3 ability. If you can use Fast Hands reliably (as with a Healers Kit and healer feat), or can get Assassinate to trigger in at least 1/3 of encounters, or have Master of Tactics help a solid ally attack, they feel worthwhile.

Arcane Trickster and Swashbuckler take much less work and preparation to use their core subclass features effectively, so players are generally happier with them.

[Man_Over_Game]

1/3 spell progression is rather unimpressive in general, but Rogues get so much more out of their spells than a Wizard does if they use them to supercharge their abilities. Minor Illusion, Mage Hand and Disguise Self are all 5x more effective if you have expertise in stealth and deception.

To be fair, I could still do that by dipping one level into Rogue, and then start my full spellcasting progression a level before you start your 1/3.


On one mage hand, it's invisible and usable as a Bonus Action.

On the other mage hand, full casting for 19 levels.

[Segev]

Things a bonus-action Search might be good for:

Investigating illusions
Looking for Hiding foes
Looking for traps
Looking for secret doors and their triggers

Possibly other stuff.

The question is how useful these are in combat, and how useful these are in general.

Hiding foes and illusions are things I think this would shine against, but it would require that they come up often enough that having a feature to help with them feels worth the opportunity costs of investing in it.

Traps...eh, maybe, but again it depends on the DM and the environment, and whether the monsters and the environment use the traps against the aprty if the party doesn't know they're there.

Secret doors probably aren't needed to find in a fight.

There might be more things, but I can't think of any.

[Zuras]

To be fair, I could still do that by dipping one level into Rogue, and then start my full spellcasting progression a level before you start your 1/3.


On one mage hand, it's invisible and usable as a Bonus Action.

On the other mage hand, full casting for 19 levels.

Sure, but you have to have the stats and skills to support it if you want to do Rogue type stuff. I also would say you need two levels to get cunning action to feel truly Rogueish.

To be fair, if you are going for the stealth and deception only, there are single class Bard builds that will do that.

My main point was simple low level spells and cantrips like Mage Hand and Minor Illusion make you so much better at being a Rogue that the effect is striking even with just Magic Initiate, much less 20 levels of full 1/3 caster progression.

[Man_Over_Game]

There might be more things, but I can't think of any.


See things that the players can react to, such as a flask of Alchemist's Fire worn on an enemy's belt.
Determining who appears to be a caster.
Get insight into an enemy's future tactics ("You have a hard time hearing him shout orders over the sounds of violence, but you catch the word 'reinforcements').
Get a clue about an enemy's weakness ("The ent sapling seems to have its roots in the earth at all times, almost like it's being dragged through the ground" [a savvy player might suspect the sapling can't move out of the earth])
Get a clue about the enemy's goals and desires ("Their equipment, likely stolen from guards and Lords Alliance soldiers, is especially ragged. Their desperation is obvious in how their weapons shake when lifted, and in how wide their swings are")

[Segev]

See things that the players can react to, such as a flask of Alchemist's Fire worn on an enemy's belt.
Determining who appears to be a caster.
Get insight into an enemy's future tactics ("You have a hard time hearing him shout orders over the sounds of violence, but you catch the word 'reinforcements').
Get a clue about an enemy's weakness ("The ent sapling seems to have its roots in the earth at all times, almost like it's being dragged through the ground" [a savvy player might suspect the sapling can't move out of the earth])
Get a clue about the enemy's goals and desires ("Their equipment, likely stolen from guards and Lords Alliance soldiers, is especially ragged. Their desperation is obvious in how their weapons shake when lifted, and in how wide their swings are")


Most of those sound like the kind of thing that would have been forthcoming if there were not a class feature to force into relevance by hiding it until said feature was used.

Kind of the trap problem reborn, where you accuse the DM of only having traps to make the rogue relevant.

[Man_Over_Game]

Most of those sound like the kind of thing that would have been forthcoming if there were not a class feature to force into relevance by hiding it until said feature was used.

Kind of the trap problem reborn, where you accuse the DM of only having traps to make the rogue relevant.

I dunno, maybe I do things differently, but I don't give that information away for free. Not unless it's incredibly obvious.

There's a reason "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" is something we're all familiar with. It's easy to jump the gun and kill everything at first glance, since you don't know if that split-second's difference to get your bearings will get you killed or not. So if you want to spend your Actions to attack instead of paying attention to the fact that your enemies all seem possessed by a spell, be my guest.

There's a benefit to shooting first. However, if I want to make asking questions first just as valid, I have to find a way for it to be more valuable than shooting first.
It's a hard lesson, but violence and problem solving are often mutually exclusive.

On the flipside, any information you gain will probably be worth more than the Action you spent to get it, anyway.

[iTreeby]

Finding an invisible creature in combat is useless unless you can do it as a bonus action (unless your dm let's you point out the exact square to your allies) so the inquisitive can be very useful, it is definitely more focused on the social aspect of the game than other rogues are.

The thief fast hands ability is amazing because you can for example: steal an enemies quiver, potion, macguffin, or back up weapon as a bonus action. It isn't even clear that they get to stop you by beating your slight of hand check, just that they notice. Yes, arcane tricksters can also do this but it requires a turn to set up but they can't set up hunting traps with the hand because it weighs too much. Second story work is good if you have ebough strength score and DEX to clear ten feat as it let's you hop over difficult terrain without losing movement. It basically tries to make up for the fact that most rogues are dumping STR.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Finding an invisible creature in combat is useless unless you can do it as a bonus action (unless your dm let's you point out the exact square to your allies) so the inquisitive can be very useful, it is definitely more focused on the social aspect of the game than other rogues are.

For the time I was playing an inquisitive during DotMM it became near impossible for our DM to hide anything from the party, we invested our share of the hoard of dragons into some magic items and I was lucky enough to find a Robe of Eyes.

The issue with the character was that in combat I often failed to contribute beyond middling damage and sometimes poisoning a creature with some Drow Poison, and I knew the deeper we went into Undermountain the farther the gap between how useful my ability to notice every threat and how well I could help deal with it would become. My Rogue was the weakest link in party composition so I retired him.

To be clear, I loved playing this character and I still would recommend the archetype. It just turned out that in this case my usefulness plateaued and started nosediving real quick as soon as we left the social campaign and entered the dungeon crawl.

[Dork_Forge]

Just to clarify for anyone reading, Rogues spend their Bonus Action to Hide, which gives them Advantage. You don't need Advantage for a Sneak Attack if an ally is adjacent to the target, so you won't need to spend your Bonus Action to get a Sneak Attack on that same target. The Inquisitive's combat feature may as well be "You can spend a Bonus Action to not need an ally adjacent to that target for Sneak Attack".

When given a choice, using your Bonus Action to Hide is still probably more beneficial since it gives you Advantage on your attack. A good way of going about it is to Spot your target at the start of a fight, then Hide to try and gain Advantage, using your Spotted target or a target engaged with an ally as backup targets for when you fail to Hide.

Unfortunately, the Inquisitive falls into the same slot as the Scout and Swashbuckler, where your subclass feature only matter as a backup for when the default Rogue features are less effective. The problem is that the default Sneak Attack and Evasion features are very effective 70% of the time, leaving you with a very slim niche of a 30% power gain, unless you happen to use your features because they feel cool (that is, using the Swashbuckler's melee features when a ranged attack would do fine).

On the Swashbuckler:

-Adding a secondary stat to initiative is always great and arguably as the stakes get higher with the levels (spells and monster effects get more common and nastier) and more ASIs are attained that ability just gets more valuable.
-Making Sneak Attack easier is always nice and a solid subclass option (it's one of THREE abilities you're getting after all). It makes it easier to sneak when one on one with an enemy, this is thematic for a Swashbuckler and strengthens a Rogues weak point. Due to being high Dex and Stealth prof/Expertise a Rogue will often scout ahead alone. Being able to get a Sneak off when confronted alone can make the difference between life and death.
-Being able to essentially have half the mobile feat on top of the above makes this a great skirmisher subclass, especially with the bonus action dash. Hit and run or just get out of dodge/to the squishy backline of the enemy.

Conclusion: I'm seeing nothing but gravy in this subclass, I'm open to counter points on all of these opinions.

On the Scout:

-Uncanny Dodge and Skirmisher are different things, yes it can get you out of trouble sometimes but the main point is to get you out of melee so you can use your ranged weapon (without eating your movement at all, so you can then move further away) without consuming your bonus.
-Two theme appropriate skill expertises is pretty damn good if you want to play a survivalist skill monkey (which if you're picking Scout you probably do). By the time you've hit 6th level you have SIX expertise skills without multiclassing. Heck, if you go V.Human (Prodigy) you can have SEVEN (and the wording of Survivalist brings into question whether RAW you could stack it with Expertise, which would be ludricous but funny).

I think the Scout could have done with a better combat tied ability, or a third ability to round it out (like learning Druidcraft), but the thing you seem to be overlooking in your analysis is theme. There will always be an argument for a ranged Rogue, it's safer and more versatile, but people play these things usually because they WANT to mix it up in melee and run rampant over the battlefield without the enemy being able to do diddly about it. Or they WANT to be the go to survival expert and skirmishy archer. And to achieve either of those things they're solid subclasses, hell the Swash is just straight up solid altogether (and pairs fantastically with Battlemaster, but what doesn't really?).

[Segev]

I will need to do some research into items - mundane and especially magical - to compile a list, but Use An Object apparently covers a lot of things.

A Thief can use a medical kit to stabilize someone as a bonus action.

And I think he could use any magic item as a bonus action, too. Which means he can quicken any spell he’s casting via a magic item. Give him a Trident of Fish Command, and it’s only a bonus use an item action to cast that Dominate Beast Spell on a swimming creature.

Combine with the higher-level UMD feature, and thieves sound like they can do a lot of item-based casting! Still has the restriction on bonus action spells and having to make everything else a cantrip, though.

[Lavaeolus]

And I think he could use any magic item as a bonus action, too.

Unfortunately, no. When introducing magic items, the DMG declares that any magic item that requires an action to use, or "to activate", is not governed by the Use an Object action. Actually, it goes ahead and points out Fast Hands directly as an example, saying that you can't activate an magic item with it.

This is pretty easy to overlook, honestly, and I think it's bad placement that magic items don't get a nod under the Actions in Combat section of the PHB.

The Use an Object action should apply to any non-magic item requiring an action, however. That is, it should allow you to mess up the battlefield with ball bearings, throw some Alchemist's Fire, draw a weapon after using your free interaction to sheathe one, etc. But it pointedly won't let you quaff a potion or the like, RAW.

So it's still quite useful! But it is more limited.

[elyktsorb]

Unfortunately, no. When introducing magic items, the DMG declares that any magic item that requires an action to use, or "to activate", is not governed by the Use an Object action. Actually, it goes ahead and points out Fast Hands directly as an example, saying that you can't activate an magic item with it.

This is pretty easy to overlook, actually, and I think it's bad placement that magic items don't get a nod under the Actions in Combat section of the PHB.

The Use an Object action should apply to any non-magic item, however. That is, it should allow you to mess up the battlefield with ball bearings, throw some Alchemist's Fire, draw a weapon after using your free interaction to sheathe one, etc. But it pointedly won't let you quaff a potion or the like, RAW.

So it's still quite useful! But it is more limited.

I find it hilarious how this is, because it's very dumb in that, if you made a mundane item, magical, let's say ball bearings that returned to their pouch after x minutes or some such thing, then you wouldn't be able to use them as a bonus action.

[Lavaeolus]

Yep. That would be my understanding, at least.

There are some rules that are there for verisimilitude and some rules that are simply there for balance, and as far as I know this is the latter. Magic items can have more powerful effects than usual objects, so the game seems hastily patched to make them separate and prevent, at the least, any Thief spell-flinging antics. It leads to a few questions like, okay, if magic-item activation isn't a Use an Object action, what action are they? Easiest read is there's some phantom Activate a Magic Item action.

Likely if a Thief found, say, a way to magically enchant some ball bearings I'd probably handwave and make an exception in their favour, depending on the magic effect used. But it would be a somewhat arbitary house rule on my part.

[elyktsorb]

It seems like a huge over correction then. Considering for a Thief Rogue to be able to use most offensive magic items, like wands, they'd have to get to 13th lvl anyways, and considering wands have limited charges it's not as if you could do it constantly, at most you'd be letting a Rogue get off their normal attack, and then bonus action a Fireball if they wanted, but hell, they have the wand that they had to get in the first place. Just seems mildly pointless to have that distinction, unless anyone knows of any combinations of being able to Use a Magic Object as a bonus action, would cause. (Is it really just to stop them from bonus actioning potions?)

[Lavaeolus]

It seems like a huge over correction then.

Although I can't really speak for the designers and can only take my ganders at why they might've made their choices, I think there might be some level of futureproofing there. Or rather, sure, allowing most magic items wouldn't be imbalanced per se, but that they can be pretty varied in effect, and letting them be used freely as a bonus action might cause issues in the future.

I imagine that it's a lot simpler to design a magic item if you can assume, alright, this'll take an action, and that'll be it's role in action economy. That, and I think a lot of the game and class balance is supposed to work, in intent, without magic items being part of every campaign -- so it'd be awkward if a subclass directly got to take advantage of them in a way that other characters can't.

[LudicSavant]

I just made a post on the Mastermind, and it seems relevant here.



I'm always intrigued by features that are about working better with your allies than alone. What are your experiences with the Mastermind Rogue?

My experience:
- The level 3 ability is fun, allowing you to take on a sort of leadership role and directing other party members, both in combat and out. However, it's not extremely powerful, since it's just another option on the Rogue's already great selection of Bonus Actions. It also gets less and less useful as you level up, since a single roll becomes a smaller proportion of a character's impact. The Arcane Trickster can do the main thing you do with this in combat without an action (though their Familiar can of course get killed off), and has a bunch of other goodies besides (like Booming Blade Sneak Attack etc).

This is basically the ability that's supposed to carry pretty much the subclass's entire contribution to the combat tree, and it isn't really enough to bear that burden through higher tiers.

- Insightful Manipulator is a missed opportunity. Besides the line about DM fiat at the end, it is incredibly stingy with information, and slots rather awkwardly into 5e's mechanics (for example, let's say you have an Archmage masquerading as a simple beggar. You try to determine how many class levels he has to see if he's more than what he seems... but NPCs aren't built with class levels by default! Whoops!). This is a pale shadow of what some other classes get for noncombat abilities. It's pretty much entirely dependent on the DM fiat line at the end for any relevance at all.

- Your level 13 ability is a rather situational Reaction that is just a little better than the Rogue's existing Reaction for that situation. Note that you can't turn a hit into a miss with this (like with Shield), you have to use it before their attack roll, and already have to be in a situation where you have cover and are less likely to be hit anyways. And Team Monster tends to be getting tons of attacks by this level, and you're just mitigating one.

- Your level 17 ability is crucial for being able to play games of social intrigue in a world of wizards with access to spells of at least 2nd level. And you get it at level 17. I needed this at level 3, when everyone got Detect Magic. What the hell. By the time you get this, Wizards are doing things way beyond mere Detect Thoughts, so you aren't even keeping up with the masterminding game. Seriously, they should have gotten this early.

All in all I found the class really disappointing. The concept has so much potential but the execution is lacking. I like the abilities they get (besides the sloppily designed Insightful Manipulator), but they just don't have quite enough of 'em. They get too little, too late.

[elyktsorb]

so it'd be awkward if a subclass directly got to take advantage of them in a way that other characters can't.

Jeeze, it's almost like it would be a really interesting thing to have on a subclass then. Not to mention with how multiclassing is with people just snatching 1 or 2 levels of other classes to be better than just a straight single class, I feel like the awkwardness was already way too present.

[Segev]

In a game with multiclassing - which in my experience more allow than deny - it is interesting that subclasses within the same class are more exclusive than two classes.

This does mean that a thief will never be, say, an arcane trickster.

[Dork_Forge]

In a game with multiclassing - which in my experience more allow than deny - it is interesting that subclasses within the same class are more exclusive than two classes.

This does mean that a thief will never be, say, an arcane trickster.

That's true but you can often replicate to some degree what you want. For example you could play a Gith and take some Wizard levels to pull of a Thief with Arcane Trickster abilities (though you would obviously hurt your Rogue progression with the multiclass).

[Segev]

That's true but you can often replicate to some degree what you want. For example you could play a Gith and take some Wizard levels to pull of a Thief with Arcane Trickster abilities (though you would obviously hurt your Rogue progression with the multiclass).

You'd still also miss out on using the invisible mage hand as a bonus action for thievery stuff.

[iTreeby]

You'd still also miss out on using the invisible mage hand as a bonus action for thievery stuff.

That mage hand would be amazing if it didn't take a turn to cast, make noise, and not lift much. Fast hands isn't always better, but lots of situations require more than mage hand delivers.

[Dork_Forge]

You'd still also miss out on using the invisible mage hand as a bonus action for thievery stuff.

You get an invisible mage hand from the Gith, with the added bonus that you don't need ANY components to cast them. So a Gith Thief could get their invisible Mage Hand up in the middle of civilised company without rousing any suspicion whereas the Arcane Trickster would still need to use detectable components. The main thing you miss out on is the improvement to disable traps and pick locks at distance (which makes no sense to do with one hand anyway but still) and the improved object interaction. It's not as good for Rogue things, but it's still an invisible mage hand for your Roguish acts.

[Segev]

You get an invisible mage hand from the Gith, with the added bonus that you don't need ANY components to cast them. So a Gith Thief could get their invisible Mage Hand up in the middle of civilised company without rousing any suspicion whereas the Arcane Trickster would still need to use detectable components. The main thing you miss out on is the improvement to disable traps and pick locks at distance (which makes no sense to do with one hand anyway but still) and the improved object interaction. It's not as good for Rogue things, but it's still an invisible mage hand for your Roguish acts.

Yeah, the Gith version is the most "this is actually weak telekinesis" ability in the game due to the component-less casting. You can claim the Arcane Trickster ability makes limited sense "with one hand," but that's actually something the feature is doing: it's giving you the telemanual dexterity and manipulation ability to peform these feats. In 3e, Arcane Trickster expressly got a second hand to work with, enabling such things. 5e is just cutting the fluff on that and saying you can do it; if you want to picture it as the Arcane Trickster getting a second hand, you can. If you prefer just to picture the invisible mage hand being a more generic force that can push and prod and move things as needed, you can do that, instead.

It's a question of diminishing returns, but I suppose a Gith Arcane Trickster could cast it componentlessly and get the increast dexterity for the pick locks and disable traps checks at a distance.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, sometimes I think the rogue is one of the best designed classes and so.etimes one of the worst.

I think that the OP has a point on some of the subclasses as well.

Of these I think the assassin is the worst. Either they dont get to use their signature ability and this stings, or they do get to use it and kind of overshadow everyone else in the fight. Two types of fight and neither one is something that game design should aim for. The class puts the DM in the pretty impossible position of trying to work out whose needs to prioritise when they are in conflict. It is too "all or nothing".

The thief is equally DM dependant but at least the DM making the thief cool is less likely to be stepping on anyone elses toes than doing the same with the assassin. Indeed, I think trying to accommodate a thief and make them cool helps a DM create a richer, more literally three dimensional environment, where walls can be climbed, vertical distance matters and the world is rich in objects with which the thief can interact. I mind the thief less because i think making it work drives better games.

The inquisitive is, to me, in the middle ground. All those skill uses as bonus actions are cool if they deliver appropriate value. However I feel that making this subclass have its place to shine doesn't directly screw with other players but does restrict DM options. Who are the campaign antagonists? What kind of ethos and skills do they need for illusions and hidden information to be so powerful? How do we make the inquisitive cool? It can be done and be a good game but if a DM has other ideas they want to play with or the table wants a different style then trying to make the game work for the inquisitive player is going to be a burden and a loss overall.

The design issues around rogue are not so much the class itself, but that so much of what it offers can be mimicked by spells if needed. Spider climb/fly, knock, invisibility, dimension door/misty step... I think rogue is actually very well designed for a different game.

I find that with rogues utility capabilities being somewhat covered by utility casters like wizards and clerics, rogues are looking for a place to shine. They are ok dealing damage in combat, but still not really shining there. This then forces them, to a degree determined by party composition, to try and bend the campaign to get the most out of their subclass defining feature which can put stress into the game.

It's tough to judge the rogue - I wouldnt call it underpowered, but to not be it needs the space to shine at what it is good at. Being a rogue when you need to get into the room where the drawbridge can be lowered unseen is pretty cool, unless someone can dimension door in a couple of people. The best subclasses should make the rogue shine enough in additional functions that they are fun to play in more circumstances. The swashbuckler is an unorthodox tank and this extra role makes it cool. The AT provides the spells and the skills which can often surpass spells a lone, at least at low levels. The scout gets some nice extra mobility and can be fun for grappling - although I also think the scout could do with a bit more of a chance to shine as well as the others. But an assassin? Does well in pretty much the same situations as a rogue with no subclass, just when doing well does really really well.

It kind of pains me because I think that the class has such elegance to its design, the feel around its versatility captured by its bonus action, the single powerful attack, the unorthodox defenses that rely on not being in the line of fire or using evasion or uncanny dodge are much more interesting than AC or HP. That at so many tables it doesn't quite work out is just a bit sad.

From everyone I speak to, ranger seems to have the lowest level of satisfaction among players, followed by rogue. Rogue is not only DM dependant but also needs a huge level of communication about what needs to be done to let you fill that role. Unusual that communication is not just with the DM but with the other players for them to make space for you to shine.

[Segev]

I've been thinking about the Assassin coincidentally with having been looking at poison-using monsters, and how frustratingly expensive poison is from a PC perspective. The unofficial grung (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Grung) writeup goes ahead and gives them the ability to just apply poison to all their attacks, with the implication they scrape or drip it from their bodies before each strike. But that's just grung; there are other poison-using critters that apply the damage or the poison effect to every attack. Drow are the most notable, and Sprites have the whole "poison-brewers" fluff segment plus their (admittedly weak) poison on every arrow.

Mimicking the drow from the monster manual is literally impossible. They get poison on every attack with their swords and daggers. A PC has to re-apply poison every time to get that, and that takes an action of its own; otherwise, each successful hit strips the poison from the weapon. Ironically, a Thief could use an object interaction as a bonus action to do the reapplication, at least.

What if Assassins had an ability that, in effect, made them able to apply poison to every attack? Something like making a dose stay on for a full minute, a full hour, or even until their next short rest, even if they hit with it. Or for ammo, which let them apply it to more shots. I don't have solid mechanics in mind; I'm jugging a few ideas. What I'd like to see is a way to make them able to pick from a repertoire of poisons (purchased or found or made) and able to switch between them. It's okay if there's some cost and ability to use it up, but it needs to be "inexpensive" enough to be something the assassin expects to be able to keep it up on pretty much all his attacks.

[elyktsorb]

Isn't it weird that Assassin seems really focused on infiltration through disguise, but never gives you Expertise, or even Proficiency with the Disguise Kit? I'm dumb you do get proficiency with the disguise kit.

Also can someone explain why Assassins Infiltration Expertise, is more garbage than the Charlatans background feature?

[Man_Over_Game]

On the Swashbuckler:

-Adding a secondary stat to initiative is always great and arguably as the stakes get higher with the levels (spells and monster effects get more common and nastier) and more ASIs are attained that ability just gets more valuable.
-Making Sneak Attack easier is always nice and a solid subclass option (it's one of THREE abilities you're getting after all). It makes it easier to sneak when one on one with an enemy, this is thematic for a Swashbuckler and strengthens a Rogues weak point. Due to being high Dex and Stealth prof/Expertise a Rogue will often scout ahead alone. Being able to get a Sneak off when confronted alone can make the difference between life and death.
-Being able to essentially have half the mobile feat on top of the above makes this a great skirmisher subclass, especially with the bonus action dash. Hit and run or just get out of dodge/to the squishy backline of the enemy.

Conclusion: I'm seeing nothing but gravy in this subclass, I'm open to counter points on all of these opinions.

On the Scout:

-Uncanny Dodge and Skirmisher are different things, yes it can get you out of trouble sometimes but the main point is to get you out of melee so you can use your ranged weapon (without eating your movement at all, so you can then move further away) without consuming your bonus.
-Two theme appropriate skill expertises is pretty damn good if you want to play a survivalist skill monkey (which if you're picking Scout you probably do). By the time you've hit 6th level you have SIX expertise skills without multiclassing. Heck, if you go V.Human (Prodigy) you can have SEVEN (and the wording of Survivalist brings into question whether RAW you could stack it with Expertise, which would be ludricous but funny).

I think the Scout could have done with a better combat tied ability, or a third ability to round it out (like learning Druidcraft), but the thing you seem to be overlooking in your analysis is theme. There will always be an argument for a ranged Rogue, it's safer and more versatile, but people play these things usually because they WANT to mix it up in melee and run rampant over the battlefield without the enemy being able to do diddly about it. Or they WANT to be the go to survival expert and skirmishy archer. And to achieve either of those things they're solid subclasses, hell the Swash is just straight up solid altogether (and pairs fantastically with Battlemaster, but what doesn't really?).

I do agree that the Swashbuckler is better as a solo scout, due to his ability to take on a solo target. However, it is the least likely subclass to be scouting. Not only is the trope for a Swashbuckler either a dashing, rapier-wielding bard-like hero or a swearing pirate, but their stats are divided into charisma. Other Rogue subclasses either get Wisdom as their extra stat (Scout, Inquisitive), or none at all (less distraction from stats for scouting/hiding). Most of the other benefits are just as valid with a ranged Rogue-that is, having no subclass at all. Even an Initiative bonus doesn't have much impact on a scenario when you're a Dexterity-based class who doesn't have a means of controlling the battlefield. Heck, with being at the top of the initiative, you'll often have to wait for your front line to clash before you can safely dart in without retaliation.

Scout does save you your Bonus Action, but that's roughly akin to saying that halving damage on a source isn't worth more than your Bonus Action. If there was a feat that allowed players to halve an attack or spell on them at the cost of their next Bonus Action, I'm sure players would jump on that.

[elyktsorb]

I've been thinking about the Assassin coincidentally with having been looking at poison-using monsters, and how frustratingly expensive poison is from a PC perspective. The unofficial grung (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Grung) writeup goes ahead and gives them the ability to just apply poison to all their attacks, with the implication they scrape or drip it from their bodies before each strike. But that's just grung; there are other poison-using critters that apply the damage or the poison effect to every attack. Drow are the most notable, and Sprites have the whole "poison-brewers" fluff segment plus their (admittedly weak) poison on every arrow.

Mimicking the drow from the monster manual is literally impossible. They get poison on every attack with their swords and daggers. A PC has to re-apply poison every time to get that, and that takes an action of its own; otherwise, each successful hit strips the poison from the weapon. Ironically, a Thief could use an object interaction as a bonus action to do the reapplication, at least.

What if Assassins had an ability that, in effect, made them able to apply poison to every attack? Something like making a dose stay on for a full minute, a full hour, or even until their next short rest, even if they hit with it. Or for ammo, which let them apply it to more shots. I don't have solid mechanics in mind; I'm jugging a few ideas. What I'd like to see is a way to make them able to pick from a repertoire of poisons (purchased or found or made) and able to switch between them. It's okay if there's some cost and ability to use it up, but it needs to be "inexpensive" enough to be something the assassin expects to be able to keep it up on pretty much all his attacks.

The time I got the most out of Assassin actually had to do with the fact that I got to use Poisons. A Rogue/Druid multiclass, so I got to use stuff to make healing potions and poisons with the Herbalism Kit and the Poisoner's Kit. Though it kind of sucked, since there was really never a good way to get poison. The only ways to really get poison were to either buy the basic one, or buy the ingredients for basic poison. Otherwise you only get Poison if your DM allows it since you'd either have to find a strong poisonous plant, or find a creature with a natural poison (and then you have to harvest that poison which is a DC 20 Intelligence check, either using Nature or the Poisoner's Kit, so on top of having to find a creature, incapacitate or kill it, you then have to pass a relatively difficult check on a Stat you'd likely have 0 investment in) I mean, if you want something that reapplies poison every round without much hassle, then a specialized quiver/sheath that stored poison and when you put your arrows or weapon into the sheath, it then coated the weapon for you, would make that happen.

I find that just being able to have Poison is more the issue. The only Poison players can outright buy is 100 gold for a measly 1d4 damage, on a save or suck dc 10 con save, that can only be applied to 1 weapon or 3 arrows, but since the poison loses potency only after a minute of being applied you'd basically only ever have the chance to do this at the start of a fight. Compare that to Alchemist's Fire, which is half the price at 50 gold, doesn't expire so you can use it whenever you please, and causes the opponent to become engulfed in flame, which they have to then waste an action to make a dex save to try and put out the flame. Not to mention Alchemists Fire can have other applications (such as needing fire for something) you can only use poison to poison people.

And then the next best potion, 150 g in the DMG, Assassin's blood, which has to be ingested (since the poisons state injury if they can be effected by being hurt with a weapon coated in it, or contact if just contact will do it) and all that amounts to is a single d12 and the poisoned status on a con save dc of 10, and if they pass they take half damage and aren't poisoned.


So yeah, it's not really an issue of being able to use Poison, so much as it's an issue of getting any in the first place, and by the time you have enough money to be able to casually buy the stuff to make Poisons' or buy them outright (if your dm lets you) most of them aren't even worth having. One of my fav moments in a campaign ever was using the Assassinate ability with Purple Worm Poison on a target. Which on the poison alone was 24d6 with a crit. That guy dropped immediately.

[Segev]

So both extending its utility and expanding access to poison would need to happen here. At a minimum, expanding access in a way that is similar to how wizards are expected to have at least some spell exposure beyond the 2-free-per-level.

[elyktsorb]

Yeah. I mean, if you fight a drow, 9 times out of 10 they likely have crossbows with bolts all tipped with Drow Poison that they get to shoot off every round pretty much. So why can't an Assassin, who's literal 3rd level ability is to create, and use poisons, have to go through the process of either spending a crap ton of money to get anything even a little good, and then has to spend a cumbersome amount of time mid-combat to use it. Cause let's face it. If you're using poison mid-combat, and you are an Assassin, that's 1 turn to poison the weapon, and then 1 turn to attack, so this poison needs to be good enough to make up for the fact that you spent 1 turn not attacking (which the Basic Poison isn't even at, at LVL 1!)

[Segev]

Yeah. I mean, if you fight a drow, 9 times out of 10 they likely have crossbows with bolts all tipped with Drow Poison that they get to shoot off every round pretty much. So why can't an Assassin, who's literal 3rd level ability is to create, and use poisons, have to go through the process of either spending a crap ton of money to get anything even a little good, and then has to spend a cumbersome amount of time mid-combat to use it. Cause let's face it. If you're using poison mid-combat, and you are an Assassin, that's 1 turn to poison the weapon, and then 1 turn to attack, so this poison needs to be good enough to make up for the fact that you spent 1 turn not attacking (which the Basic Poison isn't even at, at LVL 1!)

It's especially funny if your new PC assassin was recruited out of the ranks of some drow that attacked the party last session.

But yeah. Poison as-is is very not worth using. Cumbersome, action-wise (unless, ironically, you're a Thief and can Use An Object as a bonus action), and very expensive for limited gain; the ones worth using are so expensive that you'd be better off buying some really awesome components for a mage to cast a spell with.

It might be worth it just to make a class feature that gives all your piercing and slashing weapon attacks a poison rider. Then expand on that with something that lets you make that rider carry other poisons you get your hands on.

[elyktsorb]

It's especially funny if your new PC assassin was recruited out of the ranks of some drow that attacked the party last session.

But yeah. Poison as-is is very not worth using. Cumbersome, action-wise (unless, ironically, you're a Thief and can Use An Object as a bonus action), and very expensive for limited gain; the ones worth using are so expensive that you'd be better off buying some really awesome components for a mage to cast a spell with.

It might be worth it just to make a class feature that gives all your piercing and slashing weapon attacks a poison rider. Then expand on that with something that lets you make that rider carry other poisons you get your hands on.

Maybe something of that caliber could replace the 9th level or 13th level abilities. Both of which seem oddly out of place? Like, I get that their supposed to be for infiltrating a place so you can get close to people, to assassinate them. Assassinate, and Death Strike are very on point, even if they are a little redundant. If you attack a Surprised enemy, it's automatically a crit, and then the damage is doubled again (if they fail the saving throw) So it's like, for the entire leveling you just get a super good way to make sure enemies you surprise die instantly. But otherwise both of those abilities don't do anything in regular combat, and the other 2 abilities have practically no combat applications. Aside from potentially enabling Assassination. But again, why not advantages to just stealth in general? Why not something that lets you Surprise creatures better? You know, that thing your 3rd lvl ability is the focus of?

None of the Assassin's abilities have any gosh dang synergy with each other. Assassinate is a standalone ability.

Having proficiency with disguise and poisoner's kits is negligible.

Infiltration Expert takes way too long to set up and probably isn't worth it unless of a very specific circumstance. Not to mention, if you wanted to have a character with a alter ego, the Charlatan background feature lets you start the game with one, which is much easier to convey to your DM at the start of a campaign instead of in the middle of one when you suddenly hit lvl 9 and tell your dm you want to make an entire alter ego for your character.

Imposter literally can't be used with Infiltration Expert because Infiltration Expert explicitly states "You can't establish an identity that belongs to someone else." So you can't use these two abilities in tandem to take over someone's life and pretend to be them. And Imposter is meaningless on it's own since you'd have to go out of your way to disguise yourself as someone else and learn about them. All of which is far, far too much set up for any regular campaign to my knowledge. (Please, anyone give me experiences of these working out for you.)

And Death Strike, feels absolutely redundant since Assassinate makes any attack on a surprised target a crit already, so this is insurance a target dies at best, and horrendous overkill the rest of the time. (Not to mention, has anyone ever gotten a Surprise attack on a 'big bad' who would actually be worth using such a huge damage single attack of Assassinate + Death Strike?)

Anyway, I feel like I've talked a bit too much about Assassin, though that's probably because out of every Rogue archetype, this one feels the worst by a landslide. And I just don't have much to say on Theif since there's nothing really wrong with his kit, aside from second story work feeling underwhelming and the Bonus action use an object can't take advantage of using a magic item.

Inquisitive's Abilities, aside from insightful fighting and that additional 3d6, feel like the character ability incarnation of 'prepping feather fall for when your team inevitably falls down a huge pit or off a cliff, only for this to never happen the entire game'

Mastermind seems very much like your supposed to be a support, helping your allies and giving them details on enemies... Why does this sound like the Inquisitive?

[Dork_Forge]

I do agree that the Swashbuckler is better as a solo scout, due to his ability to take on a solo target. However, it is the least likely subclass to be scouting. Not only is the trope for a Swashbuckler either a dashing, rapier-wielding bard-like hero or a swearing pirate, but their stats are divided into charisma. Other Rogue subclasses either get Wisdom as their extra stat (Scout, Inquisitive), or none at all (less distraction from stats for scouting/hiding). Most of the other benefits are just as valid with a ranged Rogue-that is, having no subclass at all. Even an Initiative bonus doesn't have much impact on a scenario when you're a Dexterity-based class who doesn't have a means of controlling the battlefield. Heck, with being at the top of the initiative, you'll often have to wait for your front line to clash before you can safely dart in without retaliation.

Scout does save you your Bonus Action, but that's roughly akin to saying that halving damage on a source isn't worth more than your Bonus Action. If there was a feat that allowed players to halve an attack or spell on them at the cost of their next Bonus Action, I'm sure players would jump on that.

The Rogue is a Dex based class, regardless what their secondary stat is there should be no distraction from hiding. I think you're also overblowing the Charisma vs Wisdom thing on a class that gets Expertise. If a Rogue, any Rogue wants to be good at scouting then they will be. A lot of the time they will be the best in the party, perhaps accidentally by just being a Dex driven class with a lot of Profs.

Having a higher initiative is just objectively better, the more PCs that can go before the bad guys the better, be it control effects, early combat damage or just positioning. Why on Earth would you need to wait for frontliners to move in to dart in and out safely when you get free disengage against targets you attack, with bonus action dash open to you if needed? As for control abilities, the Swasbuckler is one of the few Rogues that actually gets one, panache is a solid tanking ability where instead of standing there and taking it you dance around just out of reach.

The ranged argument is also thin, on that basis why would you ever not just use a bow? Besides not wanting to be an archer ranged combat may be safer but you also have your own hurdles to contend with: Creatures counting as half cover (without Archery to compensate), any hostile in 5ft giving you disadvantage, less opportunities to get Sneak off (no TWF, no real chance to grab AoOs, more easily put at disadvantage than melee combatants) and potentially a lower damage die and choice of magical weapon in loot. Ranged is safer, but like everything it has pros and cons for each player to consider instead of being a generically better option.

No, it is not akin to saving a bonus action is worth taking full damage. Skirmisher and Uncanny Dodge have different triggers with different benefits. Skirmisher triggers when a creature ENDS its turn within 5ft of you, not gets there. Get hit? Half the damage! The guy that closed distance misses? Then get yourself out of there, jsut because two abilities use a reaction doesn't mean they are actually competing unless their triggers are the same or similar enough. It's a great defensive ability for a ranged Rogue, which you are singing the praises of.