Is rogue a single or multi/dip into class?

[Spo]

Will be finishing up Mad Mage in a few months and I’m looking for another class to play with. I’ve been on a monk kick last couple of years playing a drunken to 3, open hand to 7, kensei to 8 and a shadow to 17 (so far).

Eyeing up the rogue class and was thinking of arcane trickster specifically. When planning him out, I find myself torn between going straight or Multi’ing into fighter For extra attack and some feats via ASI’s.

This got my thinking, I rarely see rogues being played and I have never seen a rogue played as a single class in tier 3 & 4.

Is there a reason for this or are my observations whacked?

[Yakk]

Rogues don't optimize great. And their main class is nearky 100% at-will. With short, big fights being more common than 100 encounter adventing day grinds, this places them at double disadvantage.

Like most classes, they suffer a back-10 problem; T3/4 has fewer nice toys per level than most T1 classes do.

About the only charop you can do is getting a second sneak attack, or some champion/hexblade elven accuracy crit fishing, or cantrip booming sneak attacks with mobile.

None of these compate to, say, a GWM Flametongue fighter.

Simplicity, optimal for uncommon encounter structure, and difficulty optimizing.

[JellyPooga]

Rogues are awesome. On paper they don't look like much to shout about, but in actual play they really shine. Tier 3/4, obviously spellcasters are throwing around the big noise, but Rogues are there taking advantage of that to great effect. They benefit massively from buffs, perhaps moreso than most.

Take Haste for example. On a Fighter or Barbarian, this is an extra attack. Woo. On a Rogue it's an extra Sneak Attack. That's significantly greater.

[CTurbo]

I like the 5e Rogue and it's a really solid solo class in the right hands. I will say that it is ironically a pretty complex class to play correctly. You have to really understand what it's about, it's rolls, strengths, and weaknesses. The base class gets interesting and useful features at nearly every level or two. Most of the subclasses get good to amazing features at levels 13 and 17.

That being said, Rogue is one of the easiest classes to multiclass with too. A few levels of Rogue adds a lot of useful things to every single class. On the flip side, there are many classes that can add a lot to a Rogue with just a few levels.

Fighter is a good mix with Rogue, but I prefer Ranger for 3-5 levels in most cases. Either Hunter or Gloom Stalker is pretty good ESPECIALLY if you can use the Revised version. For an Arcane Trickster, consider a few levels of Bladesinger Wizard if you can.

[Mr Adventurer]

Take Haste for example. On a Fighter or Barbarian, this is an extra attack. Woo. On a Rogue it's an extra Sneak Attack. That's significantly greater.

Oh? How's that?

[Hytheter]

Yeah, I agree with CTurbo's take. Rogue is perfectly solid on it's own, but it also multiclasses very readily and a lot of people find that tempting. I sure do. Cunning Action is great fun, and if you were going to make dex attacks anyway why not chuck a couple of d6s on top?


Oh? How's that?

Use one action to attack, then use the other to ready an attack for later. In case you aren't aware, Sneak Attack is once per turn but not once per round, so if it's someone else's turn you can trigger it again this way.

[Mr Adventurer]

Use one action to attack, then use the other to ready an attack for later. In case you aren't aware, Sneak Attack is once per turn but not once per round, so if it's someone else's turn you can trigger it again this way.

Ah, that way round. Yes, the limit on sneak attack was what made me ask the question :). Thanks

[MinotaurWarrior]

ATs are great.

Haste + Booming Blade SA = high DPR

Magical Ambush + Suggestion = high success SoS / Social dominance

Reliable Talent = succeeding at everything

Reliable Talent + MHL = enemy martials reduced to unarmed strikes

The best MC dip IMO is Chronurgist 2.

In general, everyone who doesn't get 9th level spells tends towards MC soup in 5e, but IMO unlike Barbarian or Ranger, rogues get something meaningful at every tier. I think you see more rogue MC'd because a player doesn't want to take level 11 of another martial than because they don't want level 11 of rogue.

[Morty]

Having played a rogue until level 6, there's not much to write home about. The best thing about the class is access to a variety of strong skills via Expertise. Everything else is pretty lukewarm and in combat they're one-trick ponies that make fighters look exciting. Multiclassing out of it once you've got what you wanted is probably a good idea; I haven't seen anything to suggest it gets better later.

[ff7hero]

Having played a rogue until level 6, there's not much to write home about. The best thing about the class is access to a variety of strong skills via Expertise. Everything else is pretty lukewarm and in combat they're one-trick ponies that make fighters look exciting. Multiclassing out of it once you've got what you wanted is probably a good idea; I haven't seen anything to suggest it gets better later.

Check out Reliable Talent. It's like a permanent Guidance that only kicks in when you need it.

[JellyPooga]

Having played a rogue until level 6, there's not much to write home about. The best thing about the class is access to a variety of strong skills via Expertise. Everything else is pretty lukewarm and in combat they're one-trick ponies that make fighters look exciting. Multiclassing out of it once you've got what you wanted is probably a good idea; I haven't seen anything to suggest it gets better later.

If you found Rogues to be a one-trick pony, you were missing out. Rogues have a lot of tricks up their sleeves, far more than just Sneak Attack, rinse and repeat. I like Rogues a little too much, granted (I've a reputation for it!), but Rogues do all the things that other combatants can't; few other classes can boast the ability to use a bonus action every turn. More than that, if you're playing a Rogue and you're not using your bonus action every turn there's a fair argument that you're literally playing Rogue wrong (one of the few instances I feel "you're playing wrong" is justified).

[Valmark]

ATs are great.

Haste + Booming Blade SA = high DPR


How does this combo in specific work? Seems the opposite to me- Haste wants you to stay in the fight and BB wants you to get out.

[Morty]

If you found Rogues to be a one-trick pony, you were missing out. Rogues have a lot of tricks up their sleeves, far more than just Sneak Attack, rinse and repeat. I like Rogues a little too much, granted (I've a reputation for it!), but Rogues do all the things that other combatants can't; few other classes can boast the ability to use a bonus action every turn. More than that, if you're playing a Rogue and you're not using your bonus action every turn there's a fair argument that you're literally playing Rogue wrong (one of the few instances I feel "you're playing wrong" is justified).

People keep saying that and it keeps sounding like wishful thinking. The only two things rogues can do with their bonus actions is running around quickly and hiding. Thieves can use items with it, but I didn't take that subclass. So 9 times out of 10, the optimal course of action was dashing to keep my distance, then hiding to secure sneak attack. Rinse, repeat. If I'd played a melee rogue, I would've spent those bonus actions disengaging instead.


Check out Reliable Talent. It's like a permanent Guidance that only kicks in when you need it.

I'm aware of Reliable Talent, yes. Probably the only worthwhile higher-level rogue feature.

[Ir0ns0ul]

How does this combo in specific work? Seems the opposite to me- Haste wants you to stay in the fight and BB wants you to get out.

You basically use Booming Blade with your main action, hopefully being able to proc SA damage with the attack. Then you Disengage with your bonus action (Cunning Action) and ready your extra action provided by Haste to attack off-turn and hopefully apply SA damage once again.

If the enemy somehow moved into melee range to reach you, he took +2d8 and probably will eat a new attack with SA one more time.

AT Rogue is by far one of the most versatile, reliable and (why not) durable “gish” warriors out there. You will not do the regular things most classes usually do in order to succeed, you have the powerful Rogue tools (Cunning Action, Sneak Attack) + Spells & Cantrips to ensure consistency to your damage & survivability. One good sample of that is the famous Mirror Image + Sentinel combo... by improving your defenses, you are also generating new ways to apply SA damage.

I would say the only outstanding weakness of a well played AT Rogue is Saving Throws, but you can circumvent that with feats or punctual multiclass (War Wizard 2 is my favorite).

EDIT: Just to fix the wrong tip I gave based on Haste. Anyway, you can still rock the world with upcasted Shadow Blade.

[MrStabby]

Will be finishing up Mad Mage in a few months and I’m looking for another class to play with. I’ve been on a monk kick last couple of years playing a drunken to 3, open hand to 7, kensei to 8 and a shadow to 17 (so far).

Eyeing up the rogue class and was thinking of arcane trickster specifically. When planning him out, I find myself torn between going straight or Multi’ing into fighter For extra attack and some feats via ASI’s.

This got my thinking, I rarely see rogues being played and I have never seen a rogue played as a single class in tier 3 & 4.

Is there a reason for this or are my observations whacked?

Rogues are a funny beast.

Pureclass rogues run into a problem that in T3+ there is usually someone else better able to solve their problems. Being a great scout is nice and all but when someone can sit down for 10 min and cast a divination ritual at no risk to provide the same information your special feature is worth a lot less. Generally this is the issue - most of what you could do is for a goal that a spell could equally well progress towards. At low levels this is less of an issue - spell slots, spells known/prepared, money for scrolls is limited so someone being able to do it for free is still really valuable...

Which just leaves your combat abilities. They are not negligable but they are not earth-shattering either. Unremarkably mediocre. They are fine but if you have any kind of optimised martial damage dealer in the party then they will be very much a second tier damage dealer.

Rogues just get squeezed from all sides really - out of combat problem solving bards to better. Stabbing things fighters do better.

I mean, it is possible to contrive situations where rogues are still useful. Someone set up a forbidance spell to stop adventurers from teleporting into a treasure vault but dispite access to high level magic you can get in with a few picked locks and don't need a thief with something like dispel magic. Or a door that needs to be opened but it must be quietly so you cant just turn into a giant ape and rip it of its hinges... and its in an antimagic field you you cant use silence... So yeah a rogue can work but it leads to the DM making a world that feels a little bit wierd and strange.

And on the fun side, rogues are not the best. In combat I find most turns are hide (or maybe disengage if melee focussed)/single attack without much variation unless you build to grapple/shove. Maybe an occasional dash. No battlemaster moves, no chosing what type of paladin smite to use, no deciding whether to fireball a group of enemies or to slow them... in practice I find even the barbarian is more varied as they decide whether to attack recklessly or not. This might not matter to some people though.


But... they do still get good abilities and these abilities compliment other classes nicely.

Sneak attack is a bit more damage, expertise is nice and really flavourful and great for building a character, cunning action is simply superb though on almost any class and uncanny dodge can make you really tanky. Rogue adds a lot as a dip to a character that has already found their niche.


I wouldn't say to never play a rogue, just stick with the low levels if you do, or if you are playing at higher levels avoid playing one in a party with any character that can have access to polymorph.

[elyktsorb]

The only advice I can give is that it mixes very poorly with druid in terms of offense. Great utility wise tho.

[Bobthewizard]

You basically use Booming Blade with your main action, hopefully being able to proc SA damage with the attack. Then you Disengage with your bonus action (Cunning Action) and ready your extra action provided by Haste to attack off-turn and hopefully apply SA damage once again.

I don't think this works. The extra action from Haste can't be used either to cast a cantrip or to ready an action.

"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."

So you can ready your main action, then attack with the Hasted action for 2 sneak attacks, but you can't add booming blade onto it. Booming blade is still a great cantrip for an AT since you won't have haste on you every combat. Hit with booming blade, disengage, move back so they have to take the rider damage. They just don't work together.

[OldTrees1]

Will be finishing up Mad Mage in a few months and I’m looking for another class to play with. I’ve been on a monk kick last couple of years playing a drunken to 3, open hand to 7, kensei to 8 and a shadow to 17 (so far).

Eyeing up the rogue class and was thinking of arcane trickster specifically. When planning him out, I find myself torn between going straight or Multi’ing into fighter For extra attack and some feats via ASI’s.

This got my thinking, I rarely see rogues being played and I have never seen a rogue played as a single class in tier 3 & 4.

Is there a reason for this or are my observations whacked?

Rogues have great out of combat support which can push them to T3 without an issue. Expertise and Reliable Talent are really nice.

I did go Knowledge Cleric 1 / Arcane Trickster 14 so I could have Detect Magic and Identify as rituals, but single class Rogue is more than good enough out of combat.

In combat Rogues are great. You only need to land 1 hit per turn and you either have advantage or 2 attacks. So you are very reliable.

Your reasons for Fighter seem questionable.
I don't think Extra Attack is worthwhile on Rogue. You are trading away damage and in return you increase from 2d20 to 3d20. Usually that is a net loss.
Since Rogue's get their bonus ASI at 10th, multclassing Rogue/Fighter decreases or matches your ASIs until 20th.

[Mr Adventurer]

The only two things rogues can do with their bonus actions is running around quickly and hiding. Thieves can use items with it, but I didn't take that subclass. So 9 times out of 10, the optimal course of action was dashing to keep my distance, then hiding to secure sneak attack. Rinse, repeat. If I'd played a melee rogue, I would've spent those bonus actions disengaging instead.

Actually every subclass has something extra to do with Cunning Action (or otherwise as a bonus action), which is one of the ways the subclasses tend to lean into their archetype.

Playing an Arcane Trickster I find hiding to be an awkward way of getting sneak attack, though I have done it. The easiest by far is to attack enemies adjacent to an ally. Mobility from Cunning Action is invaluable in setting that up, whether in melee or in getting a clear shot at range.

[sayaijin]

I often play with people who don't optimise, so I may be a bit biased. I find that rogue is purposefully middle of the road in a lot of areas, and I like that because I can use the rogue to lead without outshining everyone else.

Once other players figure out what they're doing, their characters become more relevant, but until then rogue (especially AT) allows me to solve a lot of problems.

With most martials, your best bet is to mash the attack button, and that is still the go to with rogues, but the MHL from AT allows you to disarm enemies - grab a handful of arrows from that archer's quiver! If you have thief, get a good magic item or a healer's kit plus the healer feat. Both of these give you great options for your bonus action.

I think the biggest question with rogue is whether or not your DM will play to your strengths. As mentioned above, this is areas where stealth and skills are useful. If all their challenges can be better solved with magic or brute force, then you might be better off playing a different class.

[Valmark]

You basically use Booming Blade with your main action, hopefully being able to proc SA damage with the attack. Then you Disengage with your bonus action (Cunning Action) and ready your extra action provided by Haste to attack off-turn and hopefully apply SA damage once again.

If the enemy somehow moved into melee range to reach you, he took +2d8 and probably will eat a new attack with SA one more time.


As Bob said, you can't Ready nor Cast a Spell with your Hasted action- and obviously you can't do both with your normal action.

[elyktsorb]

Playing an Arcane Trickster I find hiding to be an awkward way of getting sneak attack, though I have done it.

It's less awkward when your a Lightfoot Halfling and can hide behind any of your medium allies for free.

[Morty]

Actually every subclass has something extra to do with Cunning Action (or otherwise as a bonus action), which is one of the ways the subclasses tend to lean into their archetype.

Playing an Arcane Trickster I find hiding to be an awkward way of getting sneak attack, though I have done it. The easiest by far is to attack enemies adjacent to an ally. Mobility from Cunning Action is invaluable in setting that up, whether in melee or in getting a clear shot at range.

I also focused on enemies adjacent to my allies when hiding wasn't an option. I was playing a scout, which I think was still UA material at the time. Of course, being unable to hide didn't exactly expand my options. "Keep my distance and shoot" was still the order of the day.

It doesn't surprise me that Arcane Trickster is the first and foremost way to make rogues less one-note, because if you want something interesting to do in 5E, you need spells.

[Xetheral]

People keep saying that and it keeps sounding like wishful thinking. The only two things rogues can do with their bonus actions is running around quickly and hiding. Thieves can use items with it, but I didn't take that subclass. So 9 times out of 10, the optimal course of action was dashing to keep my distance, then hiding to secure sneak attack. Rinse, repeat. If I'd played a melee rogue, I would've spent those bonus actions disengaging instead.

What subclass were you playing? [Edit: missed you saying Scout by a few minutes.] In addition to (as you mentioned) Thief being able to Use an Object as a bonus action, Arcane Tricksters can control their mage hand as a bonus action, Masterminds can help as a bonus action, and Swashbucklers can (eventually) give themselves advantage on grapple checks as a bonus action.

Also, it's easy to build a Rogue who can switch between ranged and melee at will, and with Uncanny Dodge they make great off-tanks against enemies with one big attack. This provides even more decision points as you get to decide on a round-by-round basis whether melee skirmishing, melee tanking, or ranged combat is the best tactic.

Personally I've found that Thief rogues can completely take the cake when it comes to the number of martial in-combat decision points. Between acid/fire/oil, caltrops, ball bearings, and (with the Healer feat) impressive healing, there is plenty of competition for the bonus action. They also multiclass extremely well, with Battlemaster fighter adding new options (and thus decision points) on top of what the Thief can already do (maneuvers can be used when throwing alchemy items as a bonus action, and Riposte is just incredible on any Rogue). Adding in a dip into spellcasting class (or taking a Thief dip on a spellcaster) also synergizes well, since Thief rogues can reliably get sneak attack on a bonus action that doesn't require taking the Attack Action, thus leaving the main action open for casting. (Bless or Faerie Fire are great spells available with a one-level dip that remain relevent the entire game.)

At the end of the day I can see how an Assassin rogue [edit: or a Scout] specialized in only ranged combat could end up playing more-or-less identically from turn to turn. But I don't think that's representative of the class as a whole. Instead, I think Rogue levels are a fantastic tool for building a martial character with a large number of round-by-round decision points.

[MinotaurWarrior]

I don't think this works. The extra action from Haste can't be used either to cast a cantrip or to ready an action.

"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."

So you can ready your main action, then attack with the Hasted action for 2 sneak attacks, but you can't add booming blade onto it. Booming blade is still a great cantrip for an AT since you won't have haste on you every combat. Hit with booming blade, disengage, move back so they have to take the rider damage. They just don't work together.

You attack with your Haste action, and ready a spell with your normal action.

[Valmark]

You attack with your Haste action, and ready a spell with your normal action.

Then the Booming Blade doesn't trigger when the enemy moves.

[Morty]

At the end of the day I can see how an Assassin rogue [edit: or a Scout] specialized in only ranged combat could end up playing more-or-less identically from turn to turn. But I don't think that's representative of the class as a whole. Instead, I think Rogue levels are a fantastic tool for building a martial character with a large number of round-by-round decision points.

In other words, mixing rogue levels with other classes can work well, but a single-class rogue is going to be disappointing and get more so with levels. More or less what other people have been saying.

[JellyPooga]

The only advice I can give is that it mixes very poorly with druid in terms of offense. Great utility wise tho.

Moon Druid 2/ Rogue 2 with Mobile (from V.Human) can be remarkably scary on the offence. Entangle + Wild Shape on Turn 1, followed by a Bonus Action Dash and attack combo to kite the crap out of a target in following rounds; your speed is effectively more than quadrupled compared to your enemy because they're dealing with difficult terrain and you're operating at double an increased speed. If both you and your foe have a base speed of 30ft, they can move 15ft to your 80ft...and that's assuming you haven't Wild Shaped into something faster.

A lot of Druid shenanigans involve terrain manipulation which the Rogue is singularly well suited to take advantage of. How about Spike Growth, Wild Shape into a form suited for grappling, plus Expertise in Athletics and Bonus Action Dash? How about using summoned allies to proc Sneak Attack? Most of these things are better with one Druid and one Rogue character, but there's really no reason why it wouldn't work on a single multiclass build.

Druids, as a single class, make remarkably good roguish types and multiclassed with actual Rogue only doubles down on it. I've long wanted the opportunity to play a Rogue/Druid...sounds like a blast to me.

[Valmark]

Moon Druid 2/ Rogue 2 with Mobile (from V.Human) can be remarkably scary on the offence. Entangle + Wild Shape on Turn 1, followed by a Bonus Action Dash and attack combo to kite the crap out of a target in following rounds; your speed is effectively more than quadrupled compared to your enemy because they're dealing with difficult terrain and you're operating at double an increased speed. If both you and your foe have a base speed of 30ft, they can move 15ft to your 80ft...and that's assuming you haven't Wild Shaped into something faster.

A lot of Druid shenanigans involve terrain manipulation which the Rogue is singularly well suited to take advantage of. How about Spike Growth, Wild Shape into a form suited for grappling, plus Expertise in Athletics and Bonus Action Dash? How about using summoned allies to proc Sneak Attack? Most of these things are better with one Druid and one Rogue character, but there's really no reason why it wouldn't work on a single multiclass build.

Druids, as a single class, make remarkably good roguish types and multiclassed with actual Rogue only doubles down on it. I've long wanted the opportunity to play a Rogue/Druid...sounds like a blast to me.

How are you getting 80 ft. Of movement? With the Dash and the difficult terrain you have like, 30 feet to your enemy's 15- and if you are dashing unless your Wild Shape has reach (none early I think) you are still triggerint AoOs.

Even worst with Spike Growth until you get flying forms- how many of those are good for grappling?

[Xetheral]

In other words, mixing rogue levels with other classes can work well, but a single-class rogue is going to be disappointing and get more so with levels. More or less what other people have been saying.

That's not what I said. I said that I can see why two of the subclasses, if single-classed, might get boring if they are built to focus only on ranged combat.

I think any Rogue can be built to have a large number of decision points, even if single-classed. Some subclasses have more decision points built-in (particularly Thief), and multiclassing can increase the number of decision points even further.

So no, even though it's possible to build a disappointing rogue, I can't agree that a single-class rogue is necessarily going to be disappointing.

[elyktsorb]

Moon Druid 2/ Rogue 2 with Mobile (from V.Human) can be remarkably scary on the offence. Entangle + Wild Shape on Turn 1, followed by a Bonus Action Dash and attack combo to kite the crap out of a target in following rounds; your speed is effectively more than quadrupled compared to your enemy because they're dealing with difficult terrain and you're operating at double an increased speed. If both you and your foe have a base speed of 30ft, they can move 15ft to your 80ft...and that's assuming you haven't Wild Shaped into something faster.

A lot of Druid shenanigans involve terrain manipulation which the Rogue is singularly well suited to take advantage of. How about Spike Growth, Wild Shape into a form suited for grappling, plus Expertise in Athletics and Bonus Action Dash? How about using summoned allies to proc Sneak Attack? Most of these things are better with one Druid and one Rogue character, but there's really no reason why it wouldn't work on a single multiclass build.

Druids, as a single class, make remarkably good roguish types and multiclassed with actual Rogue only doubles down on it. I've long wanted the opportunity to play a Rogue/Druid...sounds like a blast to me.

You're just describing something that moderately isn't worth it in the long run. Biggest thing is that you delay your Moon Druid's ability to get that magic based beast attacking, as well as ruining the capstone, which if you are going that far, isn't really worth it for some low level shenanigans that you could arguably do without the dip into rogue.

It works on a multiclass build, but it's not really a question of you can't do it, but rather one of, 'well there's like several other things I could be doing if I'm trying to make an interesting multiclass'

[RogueJK]

Fighter is a good mix with Rogue, but I prefer Ranger for 3-5 levels in most cases. Either Hunter or Gloom Stalker is pretty good ESPECIALLY if you can use the Revised version. For an Arcane Trickster, consider a few levels of Bladesinger Wizard if you can.

Ranger 2/3/5 is a great addition to a Rogue, not only getting you better combat abilities, but also an additional skill and a bit of 1st/2nd level spellcasting.

Arcane Trickster/Bladesinger is a fantastic combo, either way. (Tied with Sorcadin for my favorite Multiclass combo.) Both AT 3/BS X and BS 2/AT X are fun, for different reasons, with the latter being the more "optimal" choice in most cases.


Moon Druid 2/ Rogue 2 with Mobile (from V.Human) can be remarkably scary on the offence. Entangle + Wild Shape on Turn 1, followed by a Bonus Action Dash and attack combo to kite the crap out of a target in following rounds; your speed is effectively more than quadrupled compared to your enemy because they're dealing with difficult terrain and you're operating at double an increased speed. If both you and your foe have a base speed of 30ft, they can move 15ft to your 80ft...and that's assuming you haven't Wild Shaped into something faster.

That Druid/Rogue combo could be useful at 4th level. It might be fun for a one-shot. But a Moon Druid's CR1 forms start being outclassed in combat after Level 4ish. That Bear form that everyone loves and that seems so powerful at Level 2 is noticeably less impressive by Level 5.

Moon Druids really rely heavily on their Druid level progression to stay relevant with their Wild Shape forms. Even then, Combat Wild Shape is a bit of a rollercoaster, starting to lag in power at the Tail end of Tier 1, then getting a boost in early Tier 2, then lagging again through Tier 2, before finally getting another boost with Elemental Wild Shape.

[Catullus64]

How are you getting 80 ft. Of movement? With the Dash and the difficult terrain you have like, 30 feet to your enemy's 15- and if you are dashing unless your Wild Shape has reach (none early I think) you are still triggering AoOs.


Mobile ignores difficult terrain when you Dash.

Whenever someone brings up how Rogues are sub-par and boring relative to other classes in combat, it always makes me wonder about how combat itself plays at other tables.

Do enemies not run away and need chasing? Do you never need to run away yourself? Are combat areas never laden with hidden hazards and traps? Are useful assets or priority targets never behind locked/hidden doors or down long corridors? Do enemies never hide? Do enemies not carry useful or dangerous items that can be filched? Is it never necessary to waylay or misdirect incoming reinforcements?

For pretty much all of these situations, I'd prefer to have a Rogue on hand relative to any other class that might, in simpler circumstances, deal much more damage. For pretty much all of these situations, there's a particular Rogue subclass who can deal with it especially well. Rogues thrive when you get creative, when you remember that this is still a role-playing game even when initiative is rolled.

EDIT: A more minor point, but perhaps more to the OP's interests: Rogues have that extra ASI at level 10 to incentivize staying with the class for the long haul.

[Ir0ns0ul]

I don't think this works. The extra action from Haste can't be used either to cast a cantrip or to ready an action.

"That action can be used only to take the Attack (one weapon attack only), Dash, Disengage, Hide, or Use an Object action."

So you can ready your main action, then attack with the Hasted action for 2 sneak attacks, but you can't add booming blade onto it. Booming blade is still a great cantrip for an AT since you won't have haste on you every combat. Hit with booming blade, disengage, move back so they have to take the rider damage. They just don't work together.

You are totally correct, my bad. I just edit my post to avoid passing wrong info. Nevertheless, you could still cast Booming Blade with your main action and simply attack with your extra action provided by Haste -- not that good, but it's still effective.

[Mr Adventurer]

It's less awkward when your a Lightfoot Halfling and can hide behind any of your medium allies for free.

That's true, though you then give your targets cover or else need to spend an ASI on Sharpshooter.

[Valmark]

Mobile ignores difficult terrain when you Dash.


Ops, forgot the Mobile feat. My bad.

[cutlery]

Rogues scale pretty well with extra attack; usually enough to offset the loss of sneak attack die, and you get a more consistent damage application (and a character that benefits more from things like flametongue weapon, shadow blade, etc).

Two levels for cunning action and expertise is pretty great.

[MinotaurWarrior]

Then the Booming Blade doesn't trigger when the enemy moves.

Sure. You still get the bonus d8's of initial damage. It's a free upgrade to SA.

[jojosskul]

I'm a huge fan of Martial of Choice 5/Rogue X. Especially the Barbarian flavor, if you take Zealot you only effectively lose out on 2 sneak attack dice instead of three, which extra attack more than makes up for. Works great with ranger, pretty darn well with fighter (Action Surge is built in extra sneak attack once a short rest), and not as well with Paladin mainly due to incredible MAD issues at that point.

For pure Rogue, I think that part of the issue is that all of the fun extra stuff you can do is almost entirely based around your subclass. So if you choose one that doesn't give you anything to do that you find fun, you're not going to have a good time.

Personally, AT and Thief are the most fun. You can change up your playstyle based on inventory/item/spell choice. Assassin looks great on paper, but you're only getting to do your cool trick ONCE and almost all of their abilities are basically ribbons until the end. Swashbuckler can be quite fun and does a melee dual wielding build extremely well.

Mastermind's level 3 ability can be great in the right party, but with sneak attack being your main source of damage you really want to give YOURSELF advantage, not others.

Inquisitor's level 3 ability seems like a solution looking for a problem. Sure, bonus action to guarantee sneak attack is nice, but really you're better off just hiding to ALSO grant yourself advantage. It's not that hard to get Sneak Attack to proc.

Scout I actually like. It gives you something great to use with your REACTION, which is normally just for uncanny dodge, leaving you to use your bonus action for the already great things Rogues can do with cunning action. Extra themed expertise to make you better than other rogues at what you're supposed to be good at is also quite nice. If that's the kind of character you want to play, Scout plays it's role very well.

I'm really excited for Tasha's to see how the new Rogue subclasses shake out. Because every time I've played rogue (and I've played quite a few) my level of enjoyment has always stemmed from the quality of the subclass.

[OldTrees1]

For pure Rogue, I think that part of the issue is that all of the fun extra stuff you can do is almost entirely based around your subclass. So if you choose one that doesn't give you anything to do that you find fun, you're not going to have a good time.

Are you underselling Expertise + Reliable Talent?
Are you focusing just on combat?
I am trying to understand how you reach this conclusion.

That said, I do really like Mage Hand Legerdemain. That used to require 2 levels of a race & setting specific prestige class in 3E.

[RogueJK]

I'm a huge fan of Martial of Choice 5/Rogue X. Especially the Barbarian

Could you expand on that? What kind of a build are you recommending?

Barbarian's class abilities seem kind of counter to the usual Rogue build/playstyle, whereas things like Battlemaster Fighter or Hunter/Gloomstalker Ranger seem to complement the Rogue is so many ways.

So I'm having a hard time seeing what Barbarian offers over Ranger or Fighter. So many Barbarian abilities revolve around STR-based attacks, and focusing on STR is suboptimal for a Rogue. And many of their other abilities make you tankier, which is not what the Rogue should be doing. (I agree that Zealot is one of the better options... But is it perhaps just a less bad option?)


On the other hand, I could see something like a Barbarian who dips Rogue for Athletics Expertise being handy. Maybe even 2 levels, to Grapple enemy then Cunning Action Dash to drag them at your full movement speed per round.

[OldTrees1]

Could you expand on that? What kind of a build are you recommending?

I'm having a hard time seeing what Barbarian offers over Ranger or Fighter. Especially since so many Barbarian abilities revolve around STR-based attacks, and focusing on STR is suboptimal for a Rogue. Many of their others make you tankier, which is not what the Rogue should be doing. (I agree that Zealot is one of the better options... But is it perhaps just the least worst option?)

Barbarian's class abilities seem kind of counter to the usual Rogue build/playstyle, whereas things like Battlemaster Fighter or Gloomstalker Ranger seem to complement the Rogue is so many ways.

They explained how the Zealot Barbarian loses less damage when they to the "sacrifice damage in exchange for a 3rd chance to land your single hit".

For Barbarian / Rogue, I suggest focus on Str and use a pair of daggers. You will need 13+ Dex but Barbarians are known for having 12+ Dex. It will probably feel like a Barbarian dipping Rogue.


On the other hand, I could see something like a Barbarian who dips Rogue for Athletics Expertise being handy. Maybe even 2 levels, to Grapple enemy then Cunning Action Dash to drag them at your full movement speed per round.

I have seen one of these Barbarians in play. It definitely felt like a Barbarian rather than a Rogue despite being roughly a 1:1 multiclass. I forget the final level ratio but it was at least Goliath Bear Totem Barbarian 5 / Rogue 5. They liked the Uncanny Dodge.

[RogueJK]

They explained how the Zealot Barbarian loses less damage

And I acknowledged that as potentially the best/least worst Barbarian option. But Battlemaster or Hunter also help make up that lost damage, and more. And their Fighter/Ranger abilities fully complement the Rogue abilities/playstyle, rather than running counter to them.

[jojosskul]

Are you underselling Expertise + Reliable Talent?
Are you focusing just on combat?
I am trying to understand how you reach this conclusion.

That said, I do really like Mage Hand Legerdemain. That used to require 2 levels of a race & setting specific prestige class in 3E.

Expertise and Reliable Talent are amazing, and one of the main reasons I usually choose to play a rogue. They help greatly in either the exploration or social pillar, depending on where you focus.

I guess my main point is that for combat pillar, I like a lot of choice points. I can see how with certain rogue builds, people find the combat repetitive and was making the case that a lot of the time that issue is subclass based. Every time I see someone play rogue for the first time and choose Assassin, I get a little sad because I know they likely won't play Rogue again and I really like the class, both to play and DM for.

And to be clear, when I say "I like" I literally mean that I personally just like that thing or the other. Other people will naturally like different things, and I'm not trying to argue that their side of things is wrong especially in something as subjective as "Is this fun to play?" Just giving my persepective.


Could you expand on that? What kind of a build are you recommending?

Barbarian's class abilities seem kind of counter to the usual Rogue build/playstyle, whereas things like Battlemaster Fighter or Gloomstalker Ranger seem to complement the Rogue is so many ways.

So I'm having a hard time seeing what Barbarian offers over Ranger or Fighter. So many Barbarian abilities revolve around STR-based attacks, and focusing on STR is suboptimal for a Rogue. And many of their other abilities make you tankier, which is not what the Rogue should be doing. (I agree that Zealot is one of the better options... But is it perhaps just a less bad option?)

For Sneak Attack you only have to have a finesse weapon, you don't have to use Dex to attack with it. Grab a couple shortswords or a couple daggers, Reckless Attack with Str while raging and you're in business. And yeah the Ranger or Fighter may well be more optimal, especially from an Archer Rogue perspective, but sometimes I just want to wreck face as a rude dwarf who's mainly in it for glory and the money.

The non-subtle rogue is a funny image to me, and Danger Sense meshes really well with Evasion. Which helps make up for the lower Dex score. And some fun can definitely be had with expertise in Athletics, especially if your first attack hits and you have a free one to shove prone/grapple etc. It may not be the "optimal" build, but it definitely has room to be built optimally around the concept, if that makes sense?

My main point that I don't think I got across was that if I'm playing a martial class where I don't feel like I get that much once I hit extra attack and maybe a level or two beyond that, Rogue tacks on really well and would probably be how I'd actually finish out that build in the end.

[OldTrees1]

And I acknowledged that as potentially the best/least worst Barbarian option. But Battlemaster or Hunter also makes up that lost damage, and more. And their abilities fully complement the Rogue abilities/playstyle, rather than running counter to them.

Rogue -5 is roughly, every round, for all encounters per day, do -2.5d6
Zealot 5 is every round, for 3 encounters per day, do +1d6+5
Battle Master 5 is +4d8 per short rest.
Hunter 5 is every round, for all encounters per day, do +1d8

Call it 3 rounds per encounter, 2 encounters per rest, and 3 rests per day.
Rogue -5 is roughly -157.5
Zealot 5 is roughly +76.5
Battle Master 5 is roughly +54
Hunter is roughly +81

So Hunter is a better example than Zealot. However, I think this demonstrates that each dip does sacrifice damage from your single hit. In exchange they do get a 3rd d20 to land that single hit.

As for complement / not complement. Try a single classed Str Rogue. Str is not alien to Rogue. Cunning Action: Hide is the only feature strongly tied to Dex.


Expertise and Reliable Talent are amazing, and one of the main reasons I usually choose to play a rogue. They help greatly in either the exploration or social pillar, depending on where you focus.

I guess my main point is that for combat pillar, I like a lot of choice points. I can see how with certain rogue builds, people find the combat repetitive and was making the case that a lot of the time that issue is subclass based. Every time I see someone play rogue for the first time and choose Assassin, I get a little sad because I know they likely won't play Rogue again and I really like the class, both to play and DM for.

And to be clear, when I say "I like" I literally mean that I personally just like that thing or the other. Other people will naturally like different things, and I'm not trying to argue that their side of things is wrong especially in something as subjective as "Is this fun to play?" Just giving my persepective.

Ah, so your post was focusing on the combat pillar because you saw new players get have pain points in that area if they did not select a subclass that they liked in combat. That is clearer now.

[RogueJK]

Battle Master 5 is roughly +54


DPR is not the be-all and end-all of combat. A Battlemaster is not only adding damage, but has the ability to add other effects as well, which aren't quantified in DPR calculations. (That would be part of the "and more" to which I alluded.)

You're also not factoring in the Battlemaster's ability to Riposte, which is one of the few ways that Rogues can potentially get two Sneak Attacks per round. (Once on their turn, and once on the enemy's turn with a successful Riposte.) That would boost the DPR numbers further.


Str is not alien to Rogue. Cunning Action: Hide is the only feature strongly tied to Dex.

There's already a huge incentive for Rogues to focus on DEX, by necessitating the use of Finesse or Ranged weapons for Sneak Attack. There's no benefit there for going STR over DEX, since you can't use bigger weapons.

And the Rogue's other out of combat skills/roles, namely that of the Stealthy Scout, Trap Disarmer, Lock Picker, etc. would all suffer by having a lower DEX. Plus the likely need to invest in Medium/Heavy Armor to offset your lower DEX, which would further dampen Stealth. (This hurts certain subclasses like Assassin even more than others.)

I'm not saying that you can't make a STR Rogue, only that making a STR Rogue has some noticeable drawbacks compared to the traditional DEX Rogue. Again, a STR-focus runs counter to the Rogue's strengths, just like the Barbarian's class abilities, while mixing in some Fighter/Ranger levels affords additional abilities that complement and reinforce the DEX-based Rogue's existing strengths.

[OldTrees1]

DPR is not the be-all and end-all of combat. -snip-

Yeah, but the first pass comparison was the scope of that section of my post. I did the easy math, then the complicated evaluation can be layered on top yourself. See the conclusion of that section for more clarity.


There's already a huge incentive for Rogues to focus on DEX, by necessitating the use of Finesse or Ranged weapons for Sneak Attack. There's no benefit there for going STR over DEX, since you can't use bigger weapons.

Did you know Rogues can wield shortswords? And yet I recommend Rogues use daggers instead. It is almost as if the weapon choice does not matter and the out of combat utility of a knife is more important to a Rogue than getting +1 damage per round compared to their Sneak Attack damage.


And the Rogue's other out of combat skills/roles, namely that of the Stealthy Scout, Trap Disarmer, Lock Picker, etc. would all suffer by having a lower DEX. Plus the need to invest in Medium/Heavy Armor, which would further dampen Stealth. (This hurts certain subclasses like Assassin even more than others.)

Um, some Rogues take those roles. Other Rogues take other roles. Expertise lets a Rogue either be good at a skill they don't have the ability for, or be great at a skill they do have the ability for. It is not already restricted to "scout + dungeoneer".

For armor: Barbarians already avoid Heavy Armor. So a Barbarian / Rogue has roughly the same AC as a Barbarian.

For Assassin: Yes, if you choose the subclass that is devoted to the Stealth skill, you might want to be Dex based.

As a proponent of single classes Rogues, I have to say they are not as tied to Dex as it first appears.


I'm not saying that you can't make a STR Rogue, only that making a STR Rogue has some noticeable drawbacks compared to the traditional DEX Rogue. Again, a STR-focus runs counter to the Rogue's strengths, just like the Barbarian's class abilities, while mixing in some Fighter/Ranger levels affords additional abilities that reinforce the DEX-based Rogue's existing strengths.

I am not saying there are no drawbacks, but the drawbacks are fewer than your list.

[Aaron Underhand]

Played an AT high elf with BB to 11th. Sentinel is a damage boost, but with reliable talent I took skilled. Did feel in combat was fading as T3 rolled around but out of combat/role play just got a lot better...

[elyktsorb]

For Assassin: Yes, if you choose the subclass that is devoted to the Stealth skill, you might want to be Dex based.



Tbf if you chose Assassin you chose poorly.

[OldTrees1]

Tbf if you chose Assassin you chose poorly.

... Yes.

Yeah, the Assassin subclass ended up kinda like a DPS trap. On top of distracting the player from the core of the class (ability checks), it looks good but then turns out bad for either you or your party.

[RogueJK]

Played an AT high elf with BB to 11th. Sentinel is a damage boost, but with reliable talent I took skilled. Did feel in combat was fading as T3 rolled around but out of combat/role play just got a lot better...

I played a similar AT with Bladesinger dip into Tier 3. I never felt like I was lagging in combat. Reliably landing large amounts of damage using Booming Blade + Upcast Shadow Blade + Sneak Attack is a good feeling. And being able to slap big enemies with a disadvantaged Suggestion, Hold Person, Hideous Laughter, or Levitate (my 8th level any-school pick) is handy.

The sneaky magical hijinks out of combat were a highlight though, having all those additional spell options like Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Fog Cloud, Silent Image, Invisibility, Suggestion, Phantasmal Force, etc. to assist you, not to mention your Familiar.

[RogueJK]

Yeah, the Assassin subclass ended up kinda like a DPS trap. On top of distracting the player from the core of the class (ability checks), it looks good but then turns out bad for either you or your party.

I've seen a Gloomstalker/Assassin Archer played to great effect in my group. Huge damage in the first round of combat, and since they had the Alert feat plus added both DEX and WIS to Initiative, there was rarely a time when they weren't first in combat. (Usually by a large margin; typically mid-20s initiative.)

Out of combat, their superior Stealth/Infiltration skills were quite handy for the party, especially boosted by things like invisibility in darkness and spells like Disguise Self and Pass Without a Trace.

Unlikely to hold up as well at higher levels since the higher level subclass abilities past 3rd are lackluster compared to other Rogues, but a solid choice for Tier 1/2 play (where the majority of D&D occurs), or for a 3-7 level multiclass option for some builds.

[OldTrees1]

I've seen a Gloomstalker/Assassin Archer played to great effect in my group. Huge damage in the first round of combat, and since they had the Alert feat plus added both DEX and WIS to Initiative, there was rarely a time when they weren't first in combat. (Usually by a large margin; typically mid-20s initiative.)

Since you were an archer, you basically already had the advantage for free, so you must be talking about the critical.

The crit only happens if the foe was surprised. The foe is only surprised if they did not notice anyone in your party. I assume the group must have been small and stealth focused? Otherwise it is easy for one of the other PCs to prevent surprise. Or the DM modified the Assassinate feature / Surprise rules to accommodate the Assassin. (Which is also quite reasonable)

The later features? Those are ok. It is just that hyped up 3rd level Assassinate feature that causes dissonance between expectation and reality.

[elyktsorb]

I've seen a Gloomstalker/Assassin Archer played to great effect in my group. Huge damage in the first round of combat, and since they had the Alert feat plus added both DEX and WIS to Initiative, there was rarely a time when they weren't first in combat. (Usually by a large margin; typically mid-20s initiative.)

Out of combat, their superior Stealth/Infiltration skills were quite handy for the party, especially boosted by things like invisibility in darkness and spells like Disguise Self and Pass Without a Trace.

Unlikely to hold up as well at higher levels since the higher level subclass abilities past 3rd are lackluster compared to other Rogues, but a solid choice for Tier 1/2 play (where the majority of D&D occurs), or for a 3-7 level multiclass option for some builds.

I know off the top of my head that Assassin's don't get a single stealth related bonus. Infiltration Expertise takes a week of setup and Imposter takes 3 hours of studying a specific character and both can't be used together, and both of these skills don't get you any bonuses to stealth any other Rogues wouldn't have. All the Assassin was adding was the big damage on the first round, which I find moderately annoying because you can never really use it on bosses.

[Yakk]

Rogue -5 is roughly, every round, for all encounters per day, do -2.5d6
Zealot 5 is every round, for 3 encounters per day, do +1d6+5
Battle Master 5 is +4d8 per short rest.
Hunter 5 is every round, for all encounters per day, do +1d8
You seem to be forgetting extra attack(2)?

Second, BM is precision and riposte. You'd only use +1d8 damage abilities on a crit or if you really, really needed to nova. You often have enough near-misses and attacks on you to more than make up for it.

Third, Zealot is +2 damage per hit and free advantage on every attack (reckless).

Forth, Hunter permits HM. You have hours and hours of it.

Call it 3 rounds per encounter, 2 encounters per rest, and 3 rests per day.
So you are using 2 short swords, and you have 20 dex.

Your baseline accuracy is 60%, crit is 5%.

Baseline is 1 attack + 1 offhand attack for 1.3d6 + 1.2*5 static damage, or 10.55 baseline damage.

Sneak attack accuracy is 84% with 7% crit chance.

Extra Attack(2) gives you +5.275 damage per round and ups sneak attack accuracy to 94% with a 8% crit chance; that is 0.11 times your sneak attack damage extra. (At 3d6 sneak attack, that is about 1 DPR).

Rogue -5 costs you 2.5d6 (8.75) per hit/crit, or 8.0 DPR, or -72 damage per day.

Zealot +5 1d6+5 is "sneak attack" like, so has 94% accuracy and 8% crit chance, for 8.27 DPR, or 74 more damage per day, less 12 damage per day from losing a bonus action to rage. Plus extra attack(2), and 1 DPR of extra sneak attack, rage for 32.4 for about +151.4 damage per day.

And that is before reckless attack auto-advantage.

Battle Master +5 has 12 dice/day; say burns 4 dice on a riposte, 4 dice on turning 3.6 misses into hits, and 4 dice on a hit, one of which is a crit. Let's assume 3d6 sneak attack dice; each riposte is then 4d6+1d8+5 per hit (15.025 per swing). 4*0.8 misses turned into hits -- we'll assume you get sneak attack from other attacks -- is 30.5 damage. And 4.5*5(22.5) from a raw damage boost. Plus extra attack(2) for +158.1 damage per day.

You can do better with more ripostes, but I was conservative.

With ~27 attacks/day, you'll miss by 1 1.35 times, 2 1.35 times, 3 1.35 times and 4 1.35 times or so. They have a 100%/88%/75%/63% chance of hitting after burning a die. So if you burn BM dice when you miss by 4 or less, you have an 81% chance of turning a miss into a hit, and you'll get 5.4 chance/day at that. Each die used is 6.8 damage here, even if there isn't sneak attack I only used 4 of them.

You will sometimes miss a riposte; at 23.5 damage per hit, if you miss by 6 it is still worth burning a precision on it (miss by up to 6, burn precision on riposte (or if you have used up the rest of your attacks this round and this is your last chance to sneak attack).

Hunter +5 uses Hunter's Mark (costs you 1 offhand attack for 4.6 damage per dead foe) for +6.825 damage per round (61.4), extra attack(2) (47.5), and it's 1d8 per turn (41.3) to do +150.2 damage per day minus 4.6 damage for every foe they attack that dies in a fight (moving HM).

5 levels of Hunter/BM/Zealot add about twice as much DPR as a Rogue gets from 5 levels of Rogue.

5e has a serious problem with front loading. A 5 level dip is really strong.

[OldTrees1]

-More detailed math-

Thank you for doing an even more elaborate model. I did not expect the conclusion but I am glad you did the more detailed model.

Given those numbers, taking a 5 level martial dip (in one of these subclasses that increases damage) will increase your damage by 5 levels but delay Reliable Talent by 5 levels.

Personally I still lean towards the single classed Rogue. Reliable Talent is worth only having "normal" damage. However now we know the math.

[JellyPooga]

You're just describing something that moderately isn't worth it in the long run. Biggest thing is that you delay your Moon Druid's ability to get that magic based beast attacking, as well as ruining the capstone, which if you are going that far, isn't really worth it for some low level shenanigans that you could arguably do without the dip into rogue.

It works on a multiclass build, but it's not really a question of you can't do it, but rather one of, 'well there's like several other things I could be doing if I'm trying to make an interesting multiclass'

It does, of course, depend on what kind of multiclass you want to pursue; a more Druid focused one or Rogue? Just a dip into one or the other? What subclasses? What I was describing is just an example of the possibilities and the real boon of Druid in a Rogue build (or vice versa) isn't in combat, besides.

Yes, multiclassing delays higher level features; that's a given. It's rather the point of many MC builds to sacrifice long term gains for short term ones. Whether they're worth it is the question.

For a Moon Druid dipping a few levels of Rogue, Expertise and Cunning Action are features that are always going to be useful; both scale well with level, as well as Wild Shape forms. The short term benefit is significantly better than a capstone feature that you may not ever achieve. Even taking Rogue to 5 or 7 is going to prove useful to a Moon Druid; Uncanny Dodge and Evasion will allow you to extend the durability of your Wild Shapes to a significant degree. Whether you're using Wild Shape to tank, kite or infiltrate/scout (which is basically all the uses of Wild Shape), then Rogue can very much be a good shout to improve all those areas.

[Morty]

Ironically enough, I believe Sneak Attack is the main contributor to the rogue's lack of variety. It turns the class' combat contribution into a flowchart, most of the time. Can you sneak attack? If yes, go ahead and nail something for that xd6 damage, then use Cunning Action to keep your lightly-armored self at a safe distance. If not, do whatever you need to sneak attack. If rogues' damage output didn't center on it so much, they might be a bit more varied in combat.

[sayaijin]

Ironically enough, I believe Sneak Attack is the main contributor to the rogue's lack of variety. It turns the class' combat contribution into a flowchart, most of the time. Can you sneak attack? If yes, go ahead and nail something for that xd6 damage, then use Cunning Action to keep your lightly-armored self at a safe distance. If not, do whatever you need to sneak attack. If rogues' damage output didn't center on it so much, they might be a bit more varied in combat.

This is a good point, but how can we rework it? The concept of the rogue is someone who is very skilled and attacks a critical point to deal extra damage.

We could give rogue extra attack and shave some d6's off of SA, but that doesn't feel very rogue-ey.

We could give the rogue the ability to trade d6's on SA for some other status condition on the enemy. Then they have the option to be less of a striker and more of a controller. Maybe 1d6 off of an attack for prone, 2 for blinded for a round. Just spitballing.

We could add more to cunning action like dodge, shove, grapple or if you're really feeling crazy maybe readying an action.

[Yakk]

One idea is a setup; you can setup the foe for that damage later.

Maybe delivered by someone else, or yourself next turn.

Damage delayed is inferior, so extra effects could be justified.

[Dienekes]

This is a good point, but how can we rework it? The concept of the rogue is someone who is very skilled and attacks a critical point to deal extra damage.

We could give rogue extra attack and shave some d6's off of SA, but that doesn't feel very rogue-ey.

We could give the rogue the ability to trade d6's on SA for some other status condition on the enemy. Then they have the option to be less of a striker and more of a controller. Maybe 1d6 off of an attack for prone, 2 for blinded for a round. Just spitballing.

We could add more to cunning action like dodge, shove, grapple or if you're really feeling crazy maybe readying an action.

Were we rebuilding the class from scratch, I’d make the Rogue less of a damage dealer (except the Assassin subclass). And instead focus on making the class do a bunch of combat focused skill tricks. Stuff like an Acrobatics check to make one opponents melee attack hit an adjacent opponent. Or a Deception check to make the opponent not see you as an enemy for a round. Perception checks to find weak points in a dragon’s hide to give allies a damage bonus.

Of course that won’t work with Expertise as written as that would mess up the chance of failure comparing skills to saving throws and attack rolls. But as I said. This is if I was rewriting the rogue completely.

[Ir0ns0ul]

Ironically enough, I believe Sneak Attack is the main contributor to the rogue's lack of variety. It turns the class' combat contribution into a flowchart, most of the time. Can you sneak attack? If yes, go ahead and nail something for that xd6 damage, then use Cunning Action to keep your lightly-armored self at a safe distance. If not, do whatever you need to sneak attack. If rogues' damage output didn't center on it so much, they might be a bit more varied in combat.

I agree with your vision and that’s why I think Arcane Tricksters add a lot of versatility to the usual “find a way to SA” routine.

Early on, you can try to deploy some battlefield control with great things like Tasha’s, Silent Image, Sleep and even a well planned Charm Person. You can even push some Fog Cloud or Grease depending on spell selection.

At higher levels, Magical Ambush will be a major force multiplier for you and your party - you’ll definitely think twice before deciding to attack or drop an almost infallible Hold Person to the Humanoid BBEG, specially if your best melee buddies (Mr. Paladin Smithe, Sir Fighter Big-Sword and Crom the Half-Orc Barbarian) are the next ones to attack in the initiative order.

[sayaijin]

The more I think about it, I think the solution is to give rogues the ability to ready an action as an option for their cunning action. I don't think I want them to get it at level two, but if it replaces uncanny dodge, then it's like giving the rogue an extra attack at level 5.

I think the idea of readying an action every round is a very rogue thing to do - anticipating your opponent's actions so you can respond accordingly.

Obviously this is a power boost with the way sneak attack works, but it also synergizes so well. Subclass abilities and possibly even the way sneak attack is calculated may need to be nerfed to accommodate.

So it would read something like this:

Cunning Action
Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action. At 5th level you gain the ability to use your cunning action to ready an action.

[micahaphone]

Were we rebuilding the class from scratch, I’d make the Rogue less of a damage dealer (except the Assassin subclass). And instead focus on making the class do a bunch of combat focused skill tricks. Stuff like an Acrobatics check to make one opponents melee attack hit an adjacent opponent. Or a Deception check to make the opponent not see you as an enemy for a round. Perception checks to find weak points in a dragon’s hide to give allies a damage bonus.

Of course that won’t work with Expertise as written as that would mess up the chance of failure comparing skills to saving throws and attack rolls. But as I said. This is if I was rewriting the rogue completely.

Sort of a support and/or dirty tricks version of the battlemaster? Confuse, debilitate, and frustrate your enemies? Pocket Sand, Bolos, maybe a class that doesn't need feats to use a net without disadvantage?

I will admit I've always wanted to try a crossbow expert rogue who tosses a net then point blank shoots the target. Seems like a fun combo.

[JellyPooga]

Ironically enough, I believe Sneak Attack is the main contributor to the rogue's lack of variety. It turns the class' combat contribution into a flowchart, most of the time. Can you sneak attack? If yes, go ahead and nail something for that xd6 damage, then use Cunning Action to keep your lightly-armored self at a safe distance. If not, do whatever you need to sneak attack. If rogues' damage output didn't center on it so much, they might be a bit more varied in combat.

This is, I think, in large part due to how they feature Sneak Attack on the big ol' table of Class Features. It's as front and center as a Wizards Spellcasting or a Warlocks Invocations. That makes the reader think it's the "main thing" of the Class, when the reality is that Sneak Attack has two functions; the first is more like the compensation that the Rogue gets for not getting Extra Attack and larger weapon options. Rogue DPR is (largely speaking) second to just about every other martial class. The second is to emphasise the Rogues role as a thorn to deal with rather than ignore; those off-turn SA's hurt plenty more than most OA's. Sneak Attack is what the Rogue does when he's not doing something better OR when someone asks for it. That's the hard lesson to learn about getting the most out of playing a Rogue.

In short; Someone else has DPR covered. That's not your job. Sneak Attack is your secondary weapon.

This leaves the question of what a Rogues role in combat actually is. The answer is obvious because it's what the Rogue does better than anyone. Skills.

- It's often said that Rogues make bad Grapplers because they don't have Extra Attack to deal damage in the same round. Wrong. Rogues are the best Grapplers because they're better at it (Expertise) and they can actually drag their chosen victim where they need them to be (Cunning Action: Dash) without suffering the half-speed issue. What's better? A Barbarian that can grapple a dude and whack him with an axe, or a Rogue that can grab a dude and drag him where both the Barbarian and the Fighter can wail on him easily?

- Enemy spellcasters can't do much casting without a focus or component pouch. Rogue can go solve that issue easily enough using Sleight of Hand and Cunning Action and if the squishy caster tries to escape, there's that Sneak Attack OA to consider.

- Perception to spot hidden foes and point them out, Insight to notice the double-cross, Acrobatics and Athletics to pursue and lock-down the escaping villain, Thieves Tools and Athletics to manipulate the field of battle...this is what the Rogue does best. This is what the Rogue is doing in combat.

In T3+ play he's doing it even more because not only are environments and foes getting more exotic, which opens up even more possibilities for using these skills, but the Rogue is doing it without as much risk of failure due to Reliable Talent.

Yeah, Sneak Attack lets you do some vaguely competetive damage when you're not busy doing something more important, but if your entire combat experience is solely about trying to use that feature...of course you're going to feel like a one-trick pony, because you're like a Wizard who's only using his Cantrips.

P.S. I would totally support a re-work of Rogue that was more control oriented.

[jojosskul]

You seem to be forgetting extra attack(2)?

Second, BM is precision and riposte. You'd only use +1d8 damage abilities on a crit or if you really, really needed to nova. You often have enough near-misses and attacks on you to more than make up for it.

Third, Zealot is +2 damage per hit and free advantage on every attack (reckless).

Forth, Hunter permits HM. You have hours and hours of it.

So you are using 2 short swords, and you have 20 dex.

Your baseline accuracy is 60%, crit is 5%.

Baseline is 1 attack + 1 offhand attack for 1.3d6 + 1.2*5 static damage, or 10.55 baseline damage.

Sneak attack accuracy is 84% with 7% crit chance.

Extra Attack(2) gives you +5.275 damage per round and ups sneak attack accuracy to 94% with a 8% crit chance; that is 0.11 times your sneak attack damage extra. (At 3d6 sneak attack, that is about 1 DPR).

Rogue -5 costs you 2.5d6 (8.75) per hit/crit, or 8.0 DPR, or -72 damage per day.

Zealot +5 1d6+5 is "sneak attack" like, so has 94% accuracy and 8% crit chance, for 8.27 DPR, or 74 more damage per day, less 12 damage per day from losing a bonus action to rage. Plus extra attack(2), and 1 DPR of extra sneak attack, rage for 32.4 for about +151.4 damage per day.

And that is before reckless attack auto-advantage.

Battle Master +5 has 12 dice/day; say burns 4 dice on a riposte, 4 dice on turning 3.6 misses into hits, and 4 dice on a hit, one of which is a crit. Let's assume 3d6 sneak attack dice; each riposte is then 4d6+1d8+5 per hit (15.025 per swing). 4*0.8 misses turned into hits -- we'll assume you get sneak attack from other attacks -- is 30.5 damage. And 4.5*5(22.5) from a raw damage boost. Plus extra attack(2) for +158.1 damage per day.

You can do better with more ripostes, but I was conservative.

With ~27 attacks/day, you'll miss by 1 1.35 times, 2 1.35 times, 3 1.35 times and 4 1.35 times or so. They have a 100%/88%/75%/63% chance of hitting after burning a die. So if you burn BM dice when you miss by 4 or less, you have an 81% chance of turning a miss into a hit, and you'll get 5.4 chance/day at that. Each die used is 6.8 damage here, even if there isn't sneak attack I only used 4 of them.

You will sometimes miss a riposte; at 23.5 damage per hit, if you miss by 6 it is still worth burning a precision on it (miss by up to 6, burn precision on riposte (or if you have used up the rest of your attacks this round and this is your last chance to sneak attack).

Hunter +5 uses Hunter's Mark (costs you 1 offhand attack for 4.6 damage per dead foe) for +6.825 damage per round (61.4), extra attack(2) (47.5), and it's 1d8 per turn (41.3) to do +150.2 damage per day minus 4.6 damage for every foe they attack that dies in a fight (moving HM).

5 levels of Hunter/BM/Zealot add about twice as much DPR as a Rogue gets from 5 levels of Rogue.

5e has a serious problem with front loading. A 5 level dip is really strong.

Dude I was just pushing the barbarian multiclass because it was fun to me. It's awesome to know it's also mathematically viable! Thanks for doing all that number crunching, and I definitely may try a different flavor of the 5 level dip on my next character!

[Dienekes]

Sort of a support and/or dirty tricks version of the battlemaster? Confuse, debilitate, and frustrate your enemies? Pocket Sand, Bolos, maybe a class that doesn't need feats to use a net without disadvantage?

I will admit I've always wanted to try a crossbow expert rogue who tosses a net then point blank shoots the target. Seems like a fun combo.

Pretty much, though I personally wouldn’t use the Superiority Dice and refresh on Short Rest. Mostly because I find those mechanics limiting.

But yeah, were I given free reign over designing classes, the Rogue would actually feel like a trickster in combat.

I sort of see the martial classes divided as:

Barbarian: Damage
Fighter: Tank
Rogue: Control

And then of course subclasses used to fine tune or add secondary roles. Like a Barbarian would have like a War Chief subclass that would make their second role buffing. Or a Rogue would have the Assassin subclass that makes their damage great, or the Minstrel subclass to focus more on allies buffing, or the Swashbuckler to be a dodgy tank.

But that’s just my own musing.

[Morty]

We could give the rogue the ability to trade d6's on SA for some other status condition on the enemy. Then they have the option to be less of a striker and more of a controller. Maybe 1d6 off of an attack for prone, 2 for blinded for a round. Just spitballing.


I'm sceptical about it. Trading damage for non-damage is tricky, because as they say, death is the ultimate status effect. So deciding whether it's better to just deal damage or do something else wouldn't be very intuitive. Though I guess spellcasters do decide if they'd rather prepare/cast a damaging spell or a debuff/crowd control one, so there's that.


We could add more to cunning action like dodge, shove, grapple or if you're really feeling crazy maybe readying an action.

Broadening the rogue's selection of things to do with Cunning Action that aren't subclass-specific would be great. Maybe starting off with the current selection and then getting to pick off a list, once the player has god a handle on their playstyle.


I agree with your vision and that’s why I think Arcane Tricksters add a lot of versatility to the usual “find a way to SA” routine.

Early on, you can try to deploy some battlefield control with great things like Tasha’s, Silent Image, Sleep and even a well planned Charm Person. You can even push some Fog Cloud or Grease depending on spell selection.

At higher levels, Magical Ambush will be a major force multiplier for you and your party - you’ll definitely think twice before deciding to attack or drop an almost infallible Hold Person to the Humanoid BBEG, specially if your best melee buddies (Mr. Paladin Smithe, Sir Fighter Big-Sword and Crom the Half-Orc Barbarian) are the next ones to attack in the initiative order.

Well, yeah. That's just the usual way spells expand a character's repertoire far more than anything.

[sayaijin]

Broadening the rogue's selection of things to do with Cunning Action that aren't subclass-specific would be great. Maybe starting off with the current selection and then getting to pick off a list, once the player has good a handle on their playstyle.



Here's take two:

Cunning Action
Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action. You gain more options as you level up.

Starting at 5th level you may choose one of the following additional options for your cunning action: Shove, Grapple, Disarm, Dodge [add more here]. You gain another from the list at levels 7 and 14.

Starting at 18th level, you can use your cunning action to ready an action.

[Hytheter]

Here's take two:

Cunning Action
Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action. You gain more options as you level up.

Starting at 5th level you may choose one of the following additional options for your cunning action: Shove, Grapple, Disarm, Dodge [add more here]. You gain another from the list at levels 7 and 14.

Starting at 18th level, you can use your cunning action to ready an action.

Haven't really pondered the specifics but I like the direction here for sure.

[Yakk]

For rogue, I add more and better reaction-attacks at level 5, 11 and 17.

At 5, when you uncanny dodge you can make an attack with a melee weapon (including drawing the weapon). (ranged-rogues can throw a knife)

At 11 you can 4e-style "disruptive strike"; interrupt a hit from a creature within range, force a reroll with disadvantage if you hit.

At 17 you can disruptive strike "save"s; attack someone imposing a save, give everyone advantage on the save if you hit (and you personally auto-pass it).

This bakes in the 2nd sneak attack/round, fits the at-will nature of the rogue, and are all rogue-ish things to do. They align with the "damage bumps" of other classes.

(The 17 also fits my "every non-spellcaster gets an anti-save ability in the back 10" rule).

[Stangler]

I am currently playing a rogue in Mad Mage and I really wish I chose to multiclass into a multiattack class first. Some advice, Mad Mage has a lot of encounters with multiple enemies so your party will want AoE damage. Pretty much every multiattack class will provide you with some good benefits.

Fighter Battlemaster (Melee or Ranged options)
Bladesinger (Here you can just do a Rogue dip or you can go full rogue after level 6/7 in BS)
Ranger (Gloomstalker or Hunter are standouts)
Armorer Artificer (Niche but has RP flavor, can combine shield and hand crossbow)
Barbarian (Reckless gives advantage)
Bard (Swords or Valor both give you options and spell casting)
Hexblade Warlock (Some really solid invocations for stealth and nova damage)

I am sure there are options for Paladin and Monk that are fine too but I have not really looked into it.

Getting extra sneak attacks in a round is great. Ways to do that include Haste, Riposte from Battlemaster, and Sentinel Feat.

Having a Familiar helps you get advantage and helps you scout which there is a lot of in Mad Mage.

Battlemaster/Gloomstalker with sharpshooter is a nasty combo. You need 8 levels in those two classes to get it to work. Some options BM 6/GS 4 Variant Human for 3ASI and VHuman feat allows you to have 20 Dex, SS and Crossbow Expert by level 10. After that you can basically do whatever you want.

OR

GS 5/BM3/4 Rogue 2/1. This choice is really about how you prioritize ASIs or Rogue levels. Once you get on the Rogue train you will be getting fun stuff relatively consistently with an extra 1D6 every other level. One of the better parts about Rogue is that progression is more consistently interesting. GS5/BM3/Assassin3 is all about a massive first round of combat.

[Mr Adventurer]

For rogue, I add more and better reaction-attacks at level 5, 11 and 17.

At 5, when you uncanny dodge you can make an attack with a melee weapon (including drawing the weapon). (ranged-rogues can throw a knife)

At 11 you can 4e-style "disruptive strike"; interrupt a hit from a creature within range, force a reroll with disadvantage if you hit.

At 17 you can disruptive strike "save"s; attack someone imposing a save, give everyone advantage on the save if you hit (and you personally auto-pass it).

This bakes in the 2nd sneak attack/round, fits the at-will nature of the rogue, and are all rogue-ish things to do. They align with the "damage bumps" of other classes.

(The 17 also fits my "every non-spellcaster gets an anti-save ability in the back 10" rule).

Wow, that's an incredible upgrade. Makes Rogues incredible mage-slayers too.

That's not a criticism - I'd love to have a go at playing this. Glad you've added to other classes too though or else it'd probably be too much... is there a place I can see all your homebrew?

[Mr Adventurer]

Barbarian (Reckless gives advantage)


But you have to be a Strength Rogue because Reckless Attack only applies to Strength Attacks. It's slightly tricky.

[sayaijin]

For rogue, I add more and better reaction-attacks at level 5, 11 and 17.

At 5, when you uncanny dodge you can make an attack with a melee weapon (including drawing the weapon). (ranged-rogues can throw a knife)

At 11 you can 4e-style "disruptive strike"; interrupt a hit from a creature within range, force a reroll with disadvantage if you hit.

At 17 you can disruptive strike "save"s; attack someone imposing a save, give everyone advantage on the save if you hit (and you personally auto-pass it).

This bakes in the 2nd sneak attack/round, fits the at-will nature of the rogue, and are all rogue-ish things to do. They align with the "damage bumps" of other classes.

(The 17 also fits my "every non-spellcaster gets an anti-save ability in the back 10" rule).

I love it, but it might require a recalculation of sneak attack. If you're consistently getting two sneak attacks per round then you're DPR will outpace other classes.

[Snails]

I guess my main point is that for combat pillar, I like a lot of choice points. I can see how with certain rogue builds, people find the combat repetitive and was making the case that a lot of the time that issue is subclass based. Every time I see someone play rogue for the first time and choose Assassin, I get a little sad because I know they likely won't play Rogue again and I really like the class, both to play and DM for.

Straight Assassin is pretty much crap, because its main subclass schtick will be painfully unreliable in the hands of most players in most campaigns. However a UARanger5-6/RogueAssassin3+ is decent because you are more likely to Surprise (PwaT), more likely to win Initiative (Natural Explorer: Adv. on Initiative rolls), more likely to land the SA (3 primary attack + 1 secondary attack on first round), more likely to get into position for the alpha striker (+10 movement for first round), and being behind in SA dice does not matter if you spend resources (Hunter's Mark).

I am thinking about a Str build FighterBattleMaster6/RogueAT<N> with Shield Master feat + Athletics Expertise to beat opponents to their knees. Use a rapier because it is d8, but can apply Str on attack. How good this would be depends on (1) whether a smidgeon of MADness (Dex 13) is an issue, (2) whether your DM requires the PC to roll all attacks before using the Shield Bash. Feint and Precision can be used to reliably land attacks. Possibly Action Surge to really annihilate a vulnerable target. This is a solid tanky-tank with pretty high DPR, some nova potential (burn Superiority Dice and Action Surge), and some good skill choices. RogueAT allows Shield to boost defense in a tight situation. I think this builds on the tactical fun of a Battlemaster, and it is never actually behind the curve because of multiclassing.

[Corran]

It's a fine singleclass as long as the other players help you fulfill your potential. Rogues are very much like the distinctive feature (sneak attack) in that way. Just like sneak attack depends a lot on your allies activating it, the same goes for the rogue class as a whole. Yeah, you might be looking at the paper and think that sneak attack damage doesn't cut it, but I'll go ahead and guess that sneak attack was balanced that way because there are ways to use it off turn too. Sure, there are not too many ways you can achieve that, but it's far from impossible when you start counting the synergies with potential allies. But damage aside, rogues are great at skills. The usual implication is that this is about stealth and traps, but it doesn't restrict itself to it. Here again, there is a huge difference between a rogue that for example acts as scout and trap remover, with a rogue that doesn't get to do any of these because the rest of the party always rushes ahead without a second thought. In short, rogues depend on actual actual teamwork a lot more than the other classes. But you need to be using them in the right group.

Aside on assassins: They are a bit like rogues in that aspect, but even more so, 2 of their subclass features fall in the above category, and the other two involve the DM on top of that. They are hurt a bit by the existence of magic (which makes all things easier) and by the fact that they dont get any. It probably demands some serious player skill to play a mundane assassin in a magical world and get by without feeling that your character made a wrong career choice.

[JellyPooga]

It's a fine singleclass as long as the other players help you fulfill your potential. Rogues are very much like the distinctive feature (sneak attack) in that way. Just like sneak attack depends a lot on your allies activating it, the same goes for the rogue class as a whole. Yeah, you might be looking at the paper and think that sneak attack damage doesn't cut it, but I'll go ahead and guess that sneak attack was balanced that way because there are ways to use it off turn too. Sure, there are not too many ways you can achieve that, but it's far from impossible when you start counting the synergies with potential allies. But damage aside, rogues are great at skills. The usual implication is that this is about stealth and traps, but it doesn't restrict itself to it. Here again, there is a huge difference between a rogue that for example acts as scout and trap remover, with a rogue that doesn't get to do any of these because the rest of the party always rushes ahead without a second thought. In short, rogues depend on actual actual teamwork a lot more than the other classes. But you need to be using them in the right group.

This is a remarkably astute observation that demonstrates what I like to call the "Rogue Dichotomy"; the phenomenon of assumptions about a Class simply being incorrect.

People assume that Rogues are edgy lone-wolves that operate best solo and "don't need no team". This is partly true because on paper, they have a decent baseline competence that doesn't shine quite so bright as other Classes, but it shines in a lot of areas. It's also reinforced by criminal and scout-like stereotypes. However, the Rogue Class benefits greatly from having allies or a team, perhaps more than any other Class.

For instance, if you increase a Rogues speed by 10ft (e.g. using Longstider), the Rogue Class makes it 20ft by using Cunning Action (Dash). It's a small thing and one of many, but it's a simple demonstration of how the Rogue functions at peak performance; they take best advantage of the opportunities offered them. They are a massive force multiplier. The problem is that it's not all that obvious at first blush, so you get people looking at the numbers and coming up lacking, forgetting that D&D is a team game.

This applies even in situations where you might not think it does. Using Stealth, for example, you can help the Rogue simply by not being stealthy yourself, creating a distraction to allow him to do his job; a job he's better placed to do because his Expertise makes him much better at it than anyone else. Same goes for, say, searching for traps; who is it better to use the Help action on? The Druid with Perception proficiency and Wis 16 or the Rogue with Expertise? It's almost always going to be the Rogue. Who better to cast Haste on? The Fighter who gets a single additonal Attack, or the Rogue who gets an additional Sneak Attack and doubles the speed boost? It's again likely to be the Rogue. Knock the Rogues foe prone. Give the Rogue the buff. Pin the enemy to let the Rogue get to the enemy spellcaster. In significantly many cases the Rogue will make better use of opportunities offered than others are able to.

Here's the kicker. Rogues are also one of the best placed Classes to offer the kind of assistance that they, themselves, benefit from the most. They're great at knocking folk down, tanking hits, generally being a pain in the butt and offering opportunities to their allies. Arguably, the best friend a Rogue can have is, unlike many Classes, someone of the same Class as themselves; in this case, another Rogue.

Arguably, the best team-mate a party can have is a well-played Rogue; he's never out of spell slots, he's got the tenacity to be on top form all day, every day, he's got the skills to be useful in all three pillars lf play and he can both create and take advantage of a multitude of opportunities. His numbers might not look as good on paper when taken in isolation, but when you add his numbers to a parties numbers, they're bigger than you might expect from simple addition...because he cheats by multiplying instead.

[Morty]

People assume that Rogues are edgy lone-wolves that operate best solo and "don't need no team". This is partly true because on paper, they have a decent baseline competence that doesn't shine quite so bright as other Classes, but it shines in a lot of areas. It's also reinforced by criminal and scout-like stereotypes. However, the Rogue Class benefits greatly from having allies or a team, perhaps more than any other Class.


I can honestly say I've never assumed that, nor have I met anyone who assumed that with any degree of seriousness. Rogues being reliant on their team has always been a pretty universally acknowledged truth, regardless of edition.

[JellyPooga]

I can honestly say I've never assumed that, nor have I met anyone who assumed that with any degree of seriousness. Rogues being reliant on their team has always been a pretty universally acknowledged truth, regardless of edition.

It's by no means universal, at least in my experience! Just read between the lines of some of the posts in this thread. I'd also argue that Rogues (or earlier Thieves), were much less reliant on their team and also of less utility to them in previous editions, but that's another discussion.

[bendking]

It's a fine singleclass as long as the other players help you fulfill your potential. Rogues are very much like the distinctive feature (sneak attack) in that way. Just like sneak attack depends a lot on your allies activating it, the same goes for the rogue class as a whole. Yeah, you might be looking at the paper and think that sneak attack damage doesn't cut it, but I'll go ahead and guess that sneak attack was balanced that way because there are ways to use it off turn too. Sure, there are not too many ways you can achieve that, but it's far from impossible when you start counting the synergies with potential allies. But damage aside, rogues are great at skills. The usual implication is that this is about stealth and traps, but it doesn't restrict itself to it. Here again, there is a huge difference between a rogue that for example acts as scout and trap remover, with a rogue that doesn't get to do any of these because the rest of the party always rushes ahead without a second thought. In short, rogues depend on actual actual teamwork a lot more than the other classes. But you need to be using them in the right group.

Aside on assassins: They are a bit like rogues in that aspect, but even more so, 2 of their subclass features fall in the above category, and the other two involve the DM on top of that. They are hurt a bit by the existence of magic (which makes all things easier) and by the fact that they dont get any. It probably demands some serious player skill to play a mundane assassin in a magical world and get by without feeling that your character made a wrong career choice.

I would argue that a class depending on support from his team to match or even surpass the other martials on his team is bad game design, because then if you have a team that doesn't help you capitalize on your strengths, you just have a weak character, and that's no fun. Balancing a class around the possibility that your team will help bring the best out of it is just plain wrong-headed.
Besides, it's not as if the things that help the Rogue don't help other martial classes. Yes, Haste is better on a Rogue than other classes, but it's pretty great on everyone. And honestly, I would prefer casting Greater Invisibility on an ally than Haste, since it's less risky, provides more value for Extra Attack classes and keeps them safer than Haste would.

Regarding skills... I don't hold these in high regard. You can solve almost any skill related encounter with magic by T2, and doubly so in T3 and above.
In fact, I'd say Reliable Talent comes just in time to be useless. Wizards at this point have so many spells to solve any issue you might come across, Rogues just come off lackluster.
I believe skills shouldn't be something that a particular class is good at, they should be something everyone is good at.

In the end, the Rogue is a sub-optimal martial, and all he has to make up for it is... Skills, which he isn't even singularly good at because Bard has expertise AND spells, and Wizards can solve most skill checks with spells anyway.
Conclusion: the Rogue is a multi/dip class, not a single class. I would usually MC it with an Extra Attack class (Bladesinger works wonders).

Note: I don't intend on debating this point, just thought I'd drop my thoughts here.

[OldTrees1]

Regarding skills... I don't hold these in high regard. You can solve almost any skill related encounter with magic by T2, and doubly so in T3 and above.
In fact, I'd say Reliable Talent comes just in time to be useless. Wizards at this point have so many spells to solve any issue you might come across, Rogues just come off lackluster.
I believe skills shouldn't be something that a particular class is good at, they should be something everyone is good at.

This is highly DM dependant in 5E. Personally I try to have an automatic 22+ be impressive and level appropriate for T3. Which means I have to make automatically passing a DC 20 or 25 have an outcome that is level appropriate for T3. That requires assumptions about what the DC 20 and 25 mean that are not universal assumptions. However different assumptions could make it a long overdue patch for T1 skill usage (which would not be level appropriate for T3).

[JellyPooga]

Regarding skills... I don't hold these in high regard. You can solve almost any skill related encounter with magic by T2, and doubly so in T3 and above.
In fact, I'd say Reliable Talent comes just in time to be useless. Wizards at this point have so many spells to solve any issue you might come across, Rogues just come off lackluster.
I believe skills shouldn't be something that a particular class is good at, they should be something everyone is good at.

Counterpoint: Reliable Talent comes online just in time to make resource expenditure on Skill Challenges redundant. Why spend a spell slot when RT/Skills don't use resources and are frequently an autopass? Rogues have so many Skills to solve many issues you might come across, a Utility Wizard just comes off lacklustre.

[bendking]

This is highly DM dependant in 5E. Personally I try to have an automatic 22+ be impressive and level appropriate for T3. Which means I have to make automatically passing a DC 20 or 25 have an outcome that is level appropriate for T3. That requires assumptions about what the DC 20 and 25 mean that are not universal assumptions. However different assumptions could make it a long overdue patch for T1 skill usage (which would not be level appropriate for T3).

Right, it's DM dependant, which is my point.
A class' balance shouldn't be based on the DM this heavily, or on whether the teammates do their utmost to support it, it should be powerful on its own. It should be as effective as other classes regardless of which of the three pillars of the game the DM favors.
The fact that Rogue is weaker in combat because he is better out-of-combat is bad game design. And the fact that Fighter sucks in exploration-leaning games is also bad game design. It just so happens that almost every D&D game features the combat pillars, while not all games feature exploration and social encounters equivalently, so Rogue feels worse. Every class should always be strong at its role in combat, whether it's DPR, tank, control, blaster, etc, and likewise, every class should have different but comparable contributions out of combat. The whole "Rogue is fine because he is good at skills" argument is not a good one, because again, it's highly DM dependant.

[JellyPooga]

Right, it's DM dependant, which is my point.
A class' balance shouldn't be based on the DM this heavily, or on whether the teammates do their utmost to support it, it should be powerful on its own. It should be as effective as other classes regardless of which of the three pillars of the game the DM favors.
The fact that Rogue is weaker in combat because he is better out-of-combat is bad game design. And the fact that Fighter sucks in exploration-leaning games is also bad game design. It just so happens that almost every D&D game features the combat pillars, while not all games feature exploration and social encounters equivalently, so Rogue feels worse. Every class should always be strong at its role in combat, whether it's DPR, tank, control, blaster, etc, and likewise, every class should have different but comparable contributions out of combat. The whole "Rogue is fine because he is good at skills" argument is not a good one, because again, it's highly DM dependant.

I disagree that all characters should be able to contribute equally in all styles and spheres of play and I strongly disagree that this is evidence of bad design.

Roleplaying is about the role more than it is the game. A character concept that is entirely useless in combat or social or intrigue or whatever should and arguably *must* be a possibility in a game of sufficient scope. Of course, a game that is solely concerned with combat (like a tabletop wargame) and nothing else should take care to make all characters necessarily balanced in combat, in one way or another, but D&D is not solely a combat game.

I cannot fathom the appeal of a game like you describe, because if all characters are able to contribute equally at all times, then by necessity there is no discernable distinction between playing one character and another.

Imbalances between characters in different scenarios is one of the things that makes a game like D&D. Take that away and you're not left with much except a really swingy RNG and some arbitrary numbers.

[bendking]

I cannot fathom the appeal of a game like you describe, because if all characters are able to contribute equally at all times, then by necessity there is no discernable distinction between playing one character and another.Imbalances between characters in different scenarios is one of the things that makes a game like D&D. Take that away and you're not left with much except a really swingy RNG and some arbitrary numbers.
I can't see how that is correct.
If we agree that Wizards and Fighters, for example, contribute equally, that does not necessitate that there is no discernible distinction between playing one or the other.
Contributing equally does not mean contributing in the same way. Fighters, for example, contribute in single target DPR, while Wizards might contribute in AoE DPR. They both contribute equally, but in different ways. In this example, there is most certainly a very discernible distinction between playing a Wizard and a Fighter. Thus, if you agree with the presumption that they contribute equally (which they can, depending on the tier of play), and you agree that there is a discernible difference between playing one and the other (which by all rights you should), then you must agree that the above claim is incorrect.

[Telwar]

Personally, since my group doesn't have a wizard, and we tend to try to solve encounters using the least possible resources*, I've stuck with single class rogue through 13. I have felt like I have contributed about as much to the combats as the barbarian or the cow-spamming druid.

One of the most awesome things about Reliable Talent us being able to say "I rolled a 1, so that's a 23."

Certainly, though, as a dip, it's great, you get a lot for the first few levels.

* - I'm torn between "using nice cheap words" and "they fight like accountants" to describe our group style.

[JellyPooga]

I can't see how that is correct.
If we agree that Wizards and Fighters, for example, contribute equally, that does not necessitate that there is no discernible distinction between playing one or the other.
Contributing equally does not mean contributing in the same way. Fighters, for example, contribute in single target DPR, while Wizards might contribute in AoE DPR. They both contribute equally, but in different ways. In this example, there is most certainly a very discernible distinction between playing a Wizard and a Fighter. Thus, if you agree with the presumption that they contribute equally (which they can, depending on the tier of play), and you agree that there is a discernible difference between playing one and the other (which by all rights you should), then you must agree that the above claim is incorrect.

I don't agree that Wizards and Fighters contribute equally.

In combat, sure, maybe a Wizard and Fighter can make roughly comparable contributions, but if that's the case then the same can be said of the Rogue. The difference is marginal at best and only noticeable at the highest level of optimisation (which is a notably bad basis for comparison, due to exploitation rather than intended or average results). In fields of play other than combat, no, the Wizard and Fighter do not contribute equally. I'd argue that in this regard, the Rogue is better balanced than the Fighter compared to the Wizard, due to it's similar ability to contribute in non-combat spheres of play. To further demonstrate the absurdity of bendking's point, the so called "equality" of single target vs. AoE damage or control that you claim to exist between Fighter and Wizard is as DM dependant as any skill check or balance between pillars of play; they decide if a given combat will feature hordes of mooks, big solos or a mix, just as much as they decide whether to include combat in their campaign at all. If it's bad design to make skills a balance point, then it's also bad design to make the distinction between single target and AoE DPR a balance point; if one is true (i.e. all character should be able to contribute equally in skill challenges) , then the other must also be made true (i.e. all characters must be made to contribute equally in different aspects of combat). Otherwise the veracity of the argument breaks down entirely.

Yes, I agree that equal =/= similar, but when you boil it down to a state where everyone contributes equally in all areas, then those differences in similarity really start looking very superficial. Take rules-lite games like Wushu and Risus; the difference between characters is largely if not entirely contextual rather than nominal and that make the actual gameplay very homogeneous. D&D is a game that is predicated on different characters having nominally different abilities and features that define their context, not the other way around (i.e. "I cast spells rather than swing a sword and that makes me a Wizard capable of things a Fighter is not and vice versa", rather than "I'm a Wizard, so my equal contribution in all things is flavoured as magic, rather than sword-swinging").

[Corran]

I would argue that a class depending on support from his team to match or even surpass the other martials on his team is bad game design, because then if you have a team that doesn't help you capitalize on your strengths, you just have a weak character, and that's no fun. Balancing a class around the possibility that your team will help bring the best out of it is just plain wrong-headed.
Asymmetric balance can be annoying like that sometimes, but it is inevitable in a game that groups features in packages (classes) and presents them to you as your basic option. If you want to present martial A and martial B as two different classes, then you need to equip them with features that are different enough, so that you wont end up saying ''why play B, I just played A and it works pretty much the same''. It's ok for someone to like A a lot more than B, and it's not necessarily a problem if most people like A more than B (though it could be), but it's definitely a problem if A plays too similarly to B. So in your effort to differentiate A from B, you'll end up creating balancing issues, and some of them will be asymmetrical in nature (just because features of group A will inevitably synergize either better or worse than features of group B, with the features of groups C,D,...). That's why for example you end up with fighters who are better tanking hordes than barbarians, and with barbarians that end up being better at tanking solo brutes than fighters. Someone else grouped features that produce these results together, and you choice is about which package you'll take. If I dont like the rogue because it depends too much on allies to reach max potential, maybe I'll pick a GWM battlemaster. And even if the battlemaster is not self sufficient enough for my taste, then maybe I'll play a GWM barbarian (though I am more reliant in healing that way, so I may end up going back to battlemaster eventually). There is a design problem if the asymmetry is too big. If the rogue is crap without and X or Y ally, but amazing with any one of them in play, then it's either time to get rid of the rogue as a class (and make it probably a fighter subclass), or you need to add more things like X,Y that the rogue depends on into the game, or you need to redesign the rogue as a class, possibly from scratch. But you must do something. I dont think the rogue is unplayable by any means, but I wouldn't say no to a bit of buffing (eg more things like commander's strike and voice of authority added into the game). Cause as it is, I do find their damage (and the functionality of ranged rogues too) a little lacking after tier 1, to the point that I am happy to grant cunning action (talking about a badly designed -triple dash?!- and even worse fluffed -something like aim for advantage during combat, not hide- feature!) more favorable rulings than my immersion allows, so that the rogue can keep up with the GWM barbarian, sharpshooter fighter or with the PAM paladin.

I dont agree that it's bad though to have classes the optimize better in isolation and classes that optimize better in coordination. With that many classes in the game, I think that's a good thing.


Besides, it's not as if the things that help the Rogue don't help other martial classes. Yes, Haste is better on a Rogue than other classes, but it's pretty great on everyone. And honestly, I would prefer casting Greater Invisibility on an ally than Haste, since it's less risky, provides more value for Extra Attack classes and keeps them safer than Haste would.
Haste has its advantages too. It's not so clear cut to me which of the two is better. I'd say it depends. But about greater invisibility, it's great on rogues! It allows the rogue to run interference while the rest of the party holds on to some tactical advantage (eg shooting arrows and spells from a defensible position). It might end up being better sometimes for the fighter in more straightforward challenges, but I can imagine a rogue being able to accomplish more things in a more difficult situation with this spell on. I could say that it's also great on ranged rogues just because it allows them more easily (and without having to count on DM's discretion) to direct their damage where they must (regardless if an ally managed to get close to your target or not), but I think this is something that all rogues should be able to do. So I am not counting this one as a benefit really, more like fixing something that I view as a mistake, or maybe not so much to my taste (I dont like ranged rogues being as reliant to allies as they are, and I picture cunning action hide for round-after-round advantage to be something goofy; but I would not necessarily call this a bad design, since the game offers other ranged alternatives, and since I dont immediately see any fluff related reason -maybe there is one- as to why rogues should be more reliable with their ranged damage).



Regarding skills... I don't hold these in high regard. You can solve almost any skill related encounter with magic by T2, and doubly so in T3 and above.
In fact, I'd say Reliable Talent comes just in time to be useless. Wizards at this point have so many spells to solve any issue you might come across, Rogues just come off lackluster.
I believe skills shouldn't be something that a particular class is good at, they should be something everyone is good at.
You might see a DM ruling that since you cast invisibility you automatically pass all stealth checks, and you might see another DM ruling that succeeding at your stealth check is treated like you are invisible. I tend to see skills negating spells a little more often in general (another example, insight that works as an improved version of zone of truth). I like rulings that happen (not purposefully) to have spells support skills in geneal, either by directly buffing them or by enabling the roll in the first place. Yes, there will be the odd case here and there when some spell completely overlaps with a skill, but even when I played my Grimma Wormtongue inspired sorcerer, I did get a lot of use out of my persuasion checks even though I had a subtle suggestion in my pocket.

Skill based characters might suffer at one table and thrive at another. If that's a problem, then the problem is with skills, not with the rogue. The rogue just happens to be one of those few cases that pay more consequences because of it.

[sayaijin]

Skill based characters might suffer at one table and thrive at another. If that's a problem, then the problem is with skills, not with the rogue. The rogue just happens to be one of those few cases that pay more consequences because of it.

Completely agree, and if magic completely invalidates skills, then that is bad game design.

Ultimately with the rogue, it's important to get these things ironed out in session 0. If your DM is going to not roll for stealth when a character is invisible, or maybe they're going to not call for a skill check at all with the presence of the right spell, then sure you'd be better off playing a caster. If your DM and team will benefit from having a dedicated skill monkey and single target striker, then rogue is just fine single classed.

[TheUser]

My most positive experiences with the class has been as a multi, but not a dip, a hard switch to Rogue after 5 levels as a Gloomstalker.

Gloomstalker 5/Arcane Trickster 7 by the end of the campaign and honestly...It was better than any pure Rogue or Ranger I had ever played.

Hindsight? I'd have started Rogue 1, swapped to Ranger from levels 2-6 to get my preferred saves and an extra skill. (My DM let me make the change anyway after I talked with him about it).

It was the most fun I've had on a martial character tbh. I always had something to do with my action, bonus action and reaction each round and there was just the right mix of spells and slots to feel interesting.