Did Rogues ruin skill checks?

[MadBear]

Ever since the introduction of the rogue in D&D, the rogue has always struck me as a class that makes the game worse with the way it interacts with skills. In every edition of D&D rogues (and bards to a similar degree) have a supremacy in skills that allow them to compete above and beyond other classes. This is different then a system like magic where you either have it (and can access it) or don't. As a result every class can try and get proficiency in a skill, but they'll always be behind compared to the rogue. This might not seem like a major issue until you realize that:

1. Since other classes can put proficiency in these skills they're going to want it to be effective at least some of the time.
2. Since Rogues bonus outstrips others pretty profusely (+ reliable talent at later levels) any challenge you give normal players the rogue can beat without effort, or any challenge for the rogue will be likely impossible for the players.
3. Unlike other martials, the rogues primary and secondary stat tends to also coincide with skills while that isn't true of many others (a fighter with str/con will be good at athletics and....)

I'm curious what a world where the rogue was never made would look like. Instead of having a class dedicated to backstabbing and being good at skills, what archetypes would we see instead. Would we have more Conan like characters who were strong resilient and talented, alongside spellcasters. Would that narrow the caster/martial divide a little, with the powerful skillful warlord being pitted against the devious mastermind caster?

Anyways, it's a moot point at this point in time, but I was inspired by the Ranger thread when thinking about the rogue and it's legacy.

[ciopo]

Mhhh, I don't feel rogues have ruined skills, or are exceptional at them to the point of making other characters never have a "skillfull moment" spotlight.

Sure, expertise make them excel at two skills... 80% of rogues probably pick stealth and thieves tool, 15% picks investigate and perception, and 5% miscellanea other (I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air, but that's the FEEL ).

I don't find reliable talent particularly offending, he's still better of giving advantage to the wizard for an arcana check, even assuming the GM allows for "untrained skill checks"

And as always, there is magic for everything, less so in 5e, but still

[Doug Lampert]

Ever since the introduction of the rogue in D&D, the rogue has always struck me as a class that makes the game worse with the way it interacts with skills. In every edition of D&D rogues (and bards to a similar degree) have a supremacy in skills that allow them to compete above and beyond other classes. This is different then a system like magic where you either have it (and can access it) or don't. As a result every class can try and get proficiency in a skill, but they'll always be behind compared to the rogue. This might not seem like a major issue until you realize that:

1. Since other classes can put proficiency in these skills they're going to want it to be effective at least some of the time.
2. Since Rogues bonus outstrips others pretty profusely (+ reliable talent at later levels) any challenge you give normal players the rogue can beat without effort, or any challenge for the rogue will be likely impossible for the players.
3. Unlike other martials, the rogues primary and secondary stat tends to also coincide with skills while that isn't true of many others (a fighter with str/con will be good at athletics and....)

I'm curious what a world where the rogue was never made would look like. Instead of having a class dedicated to backstabbing and being good at skills, what archetypes would we see instead. Would we have more Conan like characters who were strong resilient and talented, alongside spellcasters. Would that narrow the caster/martial divide a little, with the powerful skillful warlord being pitted against the devious mastermind caster?

Anyways, it's a moot point at this point in time, but I was inspired by the Ranger thread when thinking about the rogue and it's legacy.

I've seen a fair number of people claim that when the thief was first released in Greyhawk 1975 it ruined Fighting Men by making the "everyman hero" incapable of lots of specific feats (and also ruined the thief by making him totally ineffective at low levels).

So the idea that splitting "good at skills" from "good at fighting" was a horrible mistake is not all that original, but it runs into the problem that there was nothing in Men and Magic to make Fighting Men better at skills in the first place, so I'm not really sure that this is true as a historical trend.

That said, if they'd added the "thief" skills to the Fighting Man template as an alternative to the Paladin (introduced as an improved fighter at the same time), then I do think the game might be a lot better by now. IIRC Conan, Fafherd, and the Grey Mouser were cited as some of the archetypal "fighting men" back at the beginning; and all of them were highly skilled characters who usually have rogue levels when built as modern D&D characters.

Basically, to build Gandalf or Merlin you take a wizard or other caster, a relatively low level, and subtract bunches of capabilities (see the very old Dragon article about how Gandalf is a fifth level magic user if you try to build him as an OD&D character). To build an archetypal martial, you take a high level massive multiclass because they didn't give ANY one martial class the capabilities needed.

[Psyren]

As a result every class can try and get proficiency in a skill, but they'll always be behind compared to the rogue. This might not seem like a major issue until you realize that:

1. Since other classes can put proficiency in these skills they're going to want it to be effective at least some of the time.
2. Since Rogues bonus outstrips others pretty profusely (+ reliable talent at later levels) any challenge you give normal players the rogue can beat without effort, or any challenge for the rogue will be likely impossible for the players.
3. Unlike other martials, the rogues primary and secondary stat tends to also coincide with skills while that isn't true of many others (a fighter with str/con will be good at athletics and....)


1) There are many skills/situations where more than one person being effective is beneficial to the group as a whole, so the rogue's effectiveness doesn't invalidate that of another class. For example, everyone who is good at Perception means one more party member with a better chance of not being surprised in an ambush, one more chance of noticing something important like a secret door, or letting you have multiple watch rotations when the party long rests where at least one person is observant etc. Similarly, everyone who is good at Acrobatics or Athletics has a way to deal with being grappled, and multiple people being effective matters for Group Checks (PHB 175) as well. And even for situations where you typically just want one "primary" skill user, like Thief's Tools, one other person having proficiency means they can Help you.

2) Your group/DM might be structuring ability checks incorrectly. The steps to follow (DMG 237) are: Ensure the challenge is neither impossible nor trivial, establish a meaningful consequence for failure, then set an appropriate DC and call for a roll, finally narrate the results. By following these steps, it's easy to make checks that are challenging yet doable for other players, but that the rogue can breeze through (no roll required) - like wriggling out of ropes - or conversely, something hard for the rogue that the others have no chance at conventionally and must either rely on them for or accomplish via an alternative means, like lying to a suspicious official. In other words, if you're trying to come up with a DC number that can be challenging yet doable for both the rogue and the paladin, you might not be following the steps in the correct order. In addition, during the "narrate results" portion, even if you've set up the challenge such that they both need to roll, you can also use tools like Success At a Cost or Degrees of Failure (DMG 242) to differentiate between the paladin's attempt and the rogue's, etc. Even if both characters fail for example,

3) Fighters can focus on those ability scores too and be effective - particularly with subclasses like Eldritch Knight, Psi Warrior or Arcane Archer. Saying there aren't many skills assigned to Str and Con isn't much of an observation, specializing in those ability scores and neglecting the others is your choice when you make your character. Str and Con have few skills assigned to them because there isn't a lot of variation in the ways you can apply those attributes to solving a problem.


I'm curious what a world where the rogue was never made would look like. Instead of having a class dedicated to backstabbing and being good at skills, what archetypes would we see instead. Would we have more Conan like characters who were strong resilient and talented, alongside spellcasters. Would that narrow the caster/martial divide a little, with the powerful skillful warlord being pitted against the devious mastermind caster?

Anyways, it's a moot point at this point in time, but I was inspired by the Ranger thread when thinking about the rogue and it's legacy.

While I disagree with eliminating rogue for the reasons above, you can make any character more skillful if you want. Just give folks an extra background at chargen or something, or perhaps a free instance of the Skill Expert feat to represent their cunning as adventurers. To approximate Sneak Attack I would just use the optional flanking rules, which has the side benefit of buffing melee martials but (typically) not casters.

[Pex]

It's best just to think of them for D&D now.

Let the rogue be that good already. Some DMs need to get over it a PC can do something with little or no chance of failure. That's a feature. That's supposed to happen. PCs are supposed to be "powerful". Not everything needs a chance of failure for there to be a "challenge". There are lots of things more to the game than skill use. No one should be the absolute best at everything, but it's perfectly fine for someone to be the absolute best at something.

Not everything a PC wants to do needs a roll. It's unfortunate the game does not really help the DM decide what doesn't need a roll, but it is something DMs need to learn. Despite that once a roll is determined it should be had, it's perfectly fine and supposed to happen for the DC to be a non-divisible by 5 number and even below 15. If the rogue autosucceeds because of it? Hooray. Let him be that good.

[stoutstien]

The idea that some classes can have a higher ability check value only becomes an issue if the DM has a bad habit of treadmilling DCs. Realistic expertise should be a tool to allow them to have a diverse selection of skills they have a solid modifier with regardless of the state of the governing ability score. Sort of like how a rogue with expertise in athletics can be a good grappler even with a 10-12 in strength.
Other than that the only real push for them with checks is reliable talents which again isn't having a massive impact on the ability check system.

So in reality the class that supposedly is skill focused has more features for situational defense and almost as many for Mobility once you add in subclass options.

[Nidgit]

It's older than rogues. D&D has been ruined ever since they added the Thief!

[nickl_2000]

It's older than rogues. D&D has been ruined ever since they added the Thief!

https://media.giphy.com/media/fqtyYcXoDV0X6ss8Mf/giphy.gif

[LudicSavant]

Ever since the introduction of the rogue in D&D, the rogue has always struck me as a class that makes the game worse with the way it interacts with skills. In every edition of D&D rogues (and bards to a similar degree) have a supremacy in skills that allow them to compete above and beyond other classes. This is different then a system like magic where you either have it (and can access it) or don't. As a result every class can try and get proficiency in a skill, but they'll always be behind compared to the rogue. This might not seem like a major issue until you realize that:

1. Since other classes can put proficiency in these skills they're going to want it to be effective at least some of the time.
2. Since Rogues bonus outstrips others pretty profusely (+ reliable talent at later levels) any challenge you give normal players the rogue can beat without effort, or any challenge for the rogue will be likely impossible for the players.
3. Unlike other martials, the rogues primary and secondary stat tends to also coincide with skills while that isn't true of many others (a fighter with str/con will be good at athletics and....)

I'm curious what a world where the rogue was never made would look like. Instead of having a class dedicated to backstabbing and being good at skills, what archetypes would we see instead. Would we have more Conan like characters who were strong resilient and talented, alongside spellcasters. Would that narrow the caster/martial divide a little, with the powerful skillful warlord being pitted against the devious mastermind caster?

Anyways, it's a moot point at this point in time, but I was inspired by the Ranger thread when thinking about the rogue and it's legacy.

I have long said that martials have suffered for the “skills are for Rogues, fighting is for Fighters” mindset, particularly because casters have always been expected to perform in all pillars.

D&D has gradually shifted away from this mindset another step each edition, glacier-slow, but its shadow still looms.

Martials should be good in and out of combat. Just in different ways from each other.


Would that narrow the caster/martial divide a little, with the powerful skillful warlord being pitted against the devious mastermind caster?

Yes.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ever since the introduction of the rogue in D&D, the rogue has always struck me as a class that makes the game worse with the way it interacts with skills. In every edition of D&D rogues (and bards to a similar degree) have a supremacy in skills that allow them to compete above and beyond other classes. This is different then a system like magic where you either have it (and can access it) or don't. As a result every class can try and get proficiency in a skill, but they'll always be behind compared to the rogue. This might not seem like a major issue until you realize that:

1. Since other classes can put proficiency in these skills they're going to want it to be effective at least some of the time.
2. Since Rogues bonus outstrips others pretty profusely (+ reliable talent at later levels) any challenge you give normal players the rogue can beat without effort, or any challenge for the rogue will be likely impossible for the players.
3. Unlike other martials, the rogues primary and secondary stat tends to also coincide with skills while that isn't true of many others (a fighter with str/con will be good at athletics and....)

I'm curious what a world where the rogue was never made would look like. Instead of having a class dedicated to backstabbing and being good at skills, what archetypes would we see instead. Would we have more Conan like characters who were strong resilient and talented, alongside spellcasters. Would that narrow the caster/martial divide a little, with the powerful skillful warlord being pitted against the devious mastermind caster?

Anyways, it's a moot point at this point in time, but I was inspired by the Ranger thread when thinking about the rogue and it's legacy.
Agreed. There shouldn't be a choice between "attacks and fighting styles" and "great at skills". This should be lumped into base martial classes.

We can imagine a fighter that can cast arcane spells, or a warrior that can cast divine spells. But a fighter that's really good at skills? Too much, too much.

Unless it's a Valor Bard. Then let's throw 9th level spells on top of it too, and some healing to boot.

But this is the issue with martials... the developers feel that making them good at multiples things will make the universe implode. So... one gets a lot of attacks, another one is tough, another one is good at outdoorsy stuff, another one can get a cool mount, another one is really good at skills. Each of them wants to specialize in 1 weapon to be as good as they can be, but don't expect your fighter to also be good with a bow, or a cool mount to ride into battle, etc.

[Psyren]

We can imagine a fighter that can cast arcane spells, or a warrior that can cast divine spells. But a fighter that's really good at skills? Too much, too much.

But... feats? Skilled, Skill Expert, Martial Adept, Fighting Initiate (Superior Technique. Tactical Assessment)...



But this is the issue with martials... the developers feel that making them good at multiples things will make the universe implode. So... one gets a lot of attacks, another one is tough, another one is good at outdoorsy stuff, another one can get a cool mount, another one is really good at skills. Each of them wants to specialize in 1 weapon to be as good as they can be, but don't expect your fighter to also be good with a bow, or a cool mount to ride into battle, etc.

"Good with a bow" is training + talent (proficiency + above average ability score) which fighters can get pretty easily.

"Cool mount to ride into battle" is largely up to the DM, especially past the levels where an ordinary horse can really cut it. But at a minimum I would expect a martial to be able to train their steed such that many Handle Animal checks eventually become autowin, if they have the continuity with that creature over a long enough time to do so.

[Sorinth]

Sounds to me like you just don't run/see skill interesting skill challenges.

If the only skill challenges someone faces is the guy with the biggest mod rolls a d20 then sure, but you don't have to run a skill challenge like that. As an example, say we have a social skill challenge that involves a Hag Coven. If that challenge is the "Face" makes a persuasion check it's boring and expertise/reliable talent/many spells are very strong. But if you actually flesh out each hag in the coven give them personality, give them unique desires/fears and make it more of a figure out a different way to handle/deal with each individual hag then you'll get a much more interesting challenge which can have any number of various rolls and players aren't stuck in roll-play mode.

[Psyren]

Sounds to me like you just don't run/see skill interesting skill challenges.

If the only skill challenges someone faces is the guy with the biggest mod rolls a d20 then sure, but you don't have to run a skill challenge like that. As an example, say we have a social skill challenge that involves a Hag Coven. If that challenge is the "Face" makes a persuasion check it's boring and expertise/reliable talent/many spells are very strong. But if you actually flesh out each hag in the coven give them personality, give them unique desires/fears and make it more of a figure out a different way to handle/deal with each individual hag then you'll get a much more interesting challenge which can have any number of various rolls and players aren't stuck in roll-play mode.

I'll point out that the DMG actually encourages this (DMG 246, "Engaging the Players"):

"Create situations where characters who might not otherwise be engaged with a social interaction have to do at least some of the talking. Perhaps the NPC in question is a family member or a contact of a particular adventurer and talks only to that character. An NPC of a certain race or class might listen only to characters he or she feels a kinship with.
...
If a couple of players are dominating the conversation, take a moment now and then to involve the others. You can do this in character if you like. 'And what about your hulking friend? Speak, barbarian! What will you pledge in exchange for my favor?' Or just ask that player what their character is doing while the conversation is going on."

[Kurt Kurageous]

To OP: No.

The rogue is a specialization. You give up a lot of things in exchange for being good at other things, and these other things are something no one else in tha party can do as well, which is why they let you join the party in the first place. A party might need a rogue, but a rogue doesn't need a party. The rogue and the ranger are the classes best suited to solo adventuring. Both are specialists who give up things to be good at other things.

You can play without a rogue using brute force. Pick locks using a battleaxe and open a chest the same way. A barbarian (esp. with dungeon delver feat) uses danger sense to detect traps by setting them off. Effective, but you will never have the quiet finesse the rogue brings.

You can find food with the outlander background, have a nature cleric or full caster talk to animals. You don't need a ranger in a party in 5e. Or any other classes.

It's all a matter of what challenges the DM creates in their adventure.

[MadBear]

I've seen a fair number of people claim that when the thief was first released in Greyhawk 1975 it ruined Fighting Men by making the "everyman hero" incapable of lots of specific feats (and also ruined the thief by making him totally ineffective at low levels).

So the idea that splitting "good at skills" from "good at fighting" was a horrible mistake is not all that original, but it runs into the problem that there was nothing in Men and Magic to make Fighting Men better at skills in the first place, so I'm not really sure that this is true as a historical trend.


I forgot that it was the "Thief" not rogue, but that is essentially the idea that sparked this thread, and made me think hearing others opinions and thoughts on the matter.

[Willie the Duck]

<Whoah. Just realized how long this is. Sorry!>

Ever since the introduction of the rogue in D&D, the rogue has always struck me as a class that makes the game worse with the way it interacts with skills. In every edition of D&D rogues (and bards to a similar degree) have a supremacy in skills that allow them to compete above and beyond other classes. This is different then a system like magic where you either have it (and can access it) or don't. As a result every class can try and get proficiency in a skill, but they'll always be behind compared to the rogue. This might not seem like a major issue until you realize that:
1. Since other classes can put proficiency in these skills they're going to want it to be effective at least some of the time.
2. Since Rogues bonus outstrips others pretty profusely (+ reliable talent at later levels) any challenge you give normal players the rogue can beat without effort, or any challenge for the rogue will be likely impossible for the players.
3. Unlike other martials, the rogues primary and secondary stat tends to also coincide with skills while that isn't true of many others (a fighter with str/con will be good at athletics and....)
I would quibble about some of the details (#3 in particular, in that a Rogue will have a good Dex, but what about Str, Wis, Int, and Cha?). However, the general point does stand—a rogue (/bard/other character that gathers expertise and expertise-like effects) is going to have some skill totals that wildly outstrip other characters. The question then becomes – is that a bad thing? After all, the rogue ‘paid’ for that effect with the opportunity cost of not being able to do what a <all the other classes> do. If D&D were set up such that always succeeding on a skill check either consistently obviated a wide set of challenges (‘we don’t need to quest for the medical macguffin of magda-9, my character whips up a potion which will stop Prince Plotdevice from turning into a were-macaque’), or completely shut down routine avenues of gameplay (DM: ‘my party’s rogue has a stealth skills such that he can scout ahead effectively invisible and insta-gib anyone in his way and the person standing next to them won’t know what is happening. I can only put them up against foes un-killable via hp-damage’), this might be a problem. D&D* doesn’t really do that – a successful knowledge check can send people to the right places to find things, but not (usually) solve whole plots by themselves. Likewise stealth might (might) let a rogue get in 1-2 (surprise+high initiative first round) devastating strikes against any opponent, and maybe even be able to hide again before reprisal, but with bag-o-hitpoint enemies and area effects (including something like hypnotic pattern, which doesn’t care if the caster can see the rogue and to which the rogue has no special defense), this isn’t really a auto-win tactic. Put another way, what is it that a rogue will be always-doing that will throw the game off-kilter (and how did the game survive the lucky fighter or wizard rolling the same success)?
*especially 5e. 4e had some skill challenges rules that might allow you to obviate an adventure or two, and 3e had some instances (tumble, use magic device, and diplomacy with ELH rules) where ‘just that good’ turned into ‘rewrite how the game plays out’

Let the rogue be that good already. Some DMs need to get over it a PC can do something with little or no chance of failure. That's a feature. That's supposed to happen. PCs are supposed to be "powerful". Not everything needs a chance of failure for there to be a "challenge". There are lots of things more to the game than skill use. No one should be the absolute best at everything, but it's perfectly fine for someone to be the absolute best at something.
Strip away the assumption of there being a DM needing to get over something, and I agree. Let the guy who dedicated build resources to being great at something be great. Tangential to that, don’t change the DCs to make it a challenge for them again (back to the old treadmill). *That* could be disruptive to the game, as poor ‘Fighter Joe with 14 Dex and criminal background’ who picked up breastplate armor instead of half or full plate because they thought it would be fun to sneak around once in a while will suffer if everything just keeps getting harder because his buddy ‘Jimmy Rogue with expertise and 20 Dex’ exists in the game universe. That’s one thing I don’t like about expertise—instead of things like advantage and reliable talent, which make success more consistent but don’t alter the range of numbers achievable, expertise throws a spanner in that by adding 2-6 to the upper bound of the roll.

I've seen a fair number of people claim that when the thief was first released in Greyhawk 1975 it ruined Fighting Men by making the "everyman hero" incapable of lots of specific feats (and also ruined the thief by making him totally ineffective at low levels).

It's older than rogues. D&D has been ruined ever since they added the Thief!
<Ears burning>I’ve certainly made that claim in the past.

So the idea that splitting "good at skills" from "good at fighting" was a horrible mistake is not all that original, but it runs into the problem that there was nothing in Men and Magic to make Fighting Men better at skills in the first place, so I'm not really sure that this is true as a historical trend.
So here’s the thing – there may not have been skills in core oD&D, but people certainly were climbing, hiding, and figuring out if a _____ (room, door, chest) were trapped. Yes, very much mother-may-I (and I’m sure lots of people would hate it), but people were doing it. The instant you have a dedicated class for that, some DMs stop letting everyone else do it. Others don’t, in which case the guy playing the thief has a class that is dedicated to doing what everyone else can do by knowing their DM really well. Probably most importantly (and you allude to this), the thief class wasn’t very good at the thing (making finding traps at low levels – the levels you’re likely in dungeons most—go from reasonably likely to not-that-likely), and was pretty bad at most everything else.

I'm curious what a world where the rogue was never made would look like. Instead of having a class dedicated to backstabbing and being good at skills, what archetypes would we see instead. Would we have more Conan like characters who were strong resilient and talented, alongside spellcasters. Would that narrow the caster/martial divide a little, with the powerful skillful warlord being pitted against the devious mastermind caster?

That said, if they'd added the "thief" skills to the Fighting Man template as an alternative to the Paladin (introduced as an improved fighter at the same time), then I do think the game might be a lot better by now. IIRC Conan, Fafherd, and the Grey Mouser were cited as some of the archetypal "fighting men" back at the beginning; and all of them were highly skilled characters who usually have rogue levels when built as modern D&D characters.
It certainly would have made the ‘thief’ more enjoyable to play (caveat: people have played, and enjoyed playing, thieves throughout the TSR era. However, I am going to guess that many have done so with some level of house rules, DM leeway, or other hands on the scale to make it more pleasant). With regards to the fighter, I think it definitely would have made the idea that fighters shouldn’t have OOC options not be a thing. Whether that would be like a warlord or 3e Bo9S, or just like 2e’s NWP system (where a fighter did have a number of options, even if most of it was ‘micro subset of outdoor survival skills’), I don’t know.

[Chronos]

2. Since Rogues bonus outstrips others pretty profusely (+ reliable talent at later levels) any challenge you give normal players the rogue can beat without effort, or any challenge for the rogue will be likely impossible for the players.
This simply isn't true. Let's take a level 10 rogue compared to anyone else. They've got a +4 proficiency bonus, so expertise puts the rogue ahead by 4. And they might have one or two points more dex bonus, or might not, because dex is a primary stat for a lot of characters. And it might not even be a dex-based skill we're considering. But OK, say they have two points more dex bonus. That gives the rogue a +6 over anyone else. If we're looking at "a challenge the rogue can beat without effort", then the non-rogue still has a 70% chance of success. If "a challenge for the rogue" means something they have a 50-50 shot at, then the non-rogue still has a 1 in 5 shot at it. A relative +6 isn't all that big, compared to a d20.

And the fact that the rogue isn't much better at skills than anyone else is a problem, because the real world has many, many different levels of skills at any given task. Consider any real-world activity, and there will be tasks that someone untrained won't be able to do at all, but that someone with an amateur level of training will be able to do consistently. And then there will also be tasks that the amateur doesn't have any chance at all at, but an expert can do consistently. And then even that expert will have some things they simply can't do, but which the greatest masters will do with ease. To make that work with a d20-based system, you need for the greatest masters to have a modifier +60 greater than the untrained person.

Or, for a concrete example, let's look at Elo ratings in chess. A difference in Elo of 677 between two players means the stronger player will beat the weaker 99% of the time. To get that from an opposed check, you'd need the stronger player to have a bonus about 17 points higher than the weaker player. And chess Elo ratings for humans range from 100 to 2882. That means that Magnus Carlsen's "skill bonus" at chess would need to be 70 points higher than the worst players.

[Corran]

2. Since Rogues bonus outstrips others pretty profusely (+ reliable talent at later levels) any challenge you give normal players the rogue can beat without effort, or any challenge for the rogue will be likely impossible for the players.
Hmmm, while I dont see this as a bad thing, I think there is a little hyperboly there. But what tries to push towards this direction is the cutting down of the skills and changing from skill points to proficiencies (one of the few things I dont enjoy about 5e). So we've gone from having a wide range of things in which the rogue could be as good as anyone, plus a few exclussive rogue things as an extra touch, to being better than most at a few things that pretty much everyone can and will probably get. Rogues had skills to fill gaps. Lots of them and important ones. Now they settle at just being better than average at things that anyone can fill in for. It's just a different take and looks more like an afterthought but it kind of works. The rest is up to taste.

[MoiMagnus]

Skill checks are kind of broken anyway because of magic and class features.
In our current campaign, we have no rogue, but we have:
+ Multiple character with Guidance and Enhance ability
+ An Artificer with flash of genius
+ A druid Circle of the Star with Cosmic Omen
[A Bard with bardic inspiration could have replaced any of the two]
All of that allows to beat absurdly high DCs without issues.

The only difference is that Rogue is a martial class, which mean they don't consume any resource to solve issues (other than time).

And I think what you're seeing here is simply two problems at once:
(1) 5e skill checks can be easily beaten if players focus on being able to beat them, unless you rise them by a lot but that causes a ton of issues.
(2) Martial characters tend to not spend any resources to defeat what they are good at defeating.

The intended solution in 5e is "don't raise the DC, let the Rogue automatically succeed at their checks". I mean, when you have a Ranger in the team, you literally have a feature that says that you cannot get lost except by magical means (in your favourite terrain). It's somewhat expected for martial character to turn challenges into trivialities at "no cost" when they focus in defeating them. That's how classes that don't have resources to expand work. The "no cost" being during gameplay, this obviously has some opportunity cost at character creation.

Note: I don't really consider that having a chance of failure actually make a challenge. What's challenging about having to roll higher than 13 instead of having to roll higher than 3 on a d20? The challenge should in finding how to use your skill, possibly to defeat a task that is literally impossible to bruteforce. Sure, randomness add some unpredictability that can force you into finding a plan B in case of unexpected failure, but that's not the only way to have unpredictability: that's why NPCs and intelligent enemies are for.

The only thing that I might agree that Rogue break is the Stealth minigame. But that would be the case if Pass Without Trace didn't already broke it.

[Tanarii]

They're fine if you assume PCs can do very cool things with a normal DC, and utterly amazing things with a high DC. That makes Rogues and Bards the province of being able to do very cool things reliably and being able to take a shot at utterly amazing things.

They're also fine if you assume that most ability checks won't be One Check To Rule Them All, where the players pick one character with the best bonus to make a check for the entire party. That PCs will get and need to individually make checks due to decisions to do cool things and circumstances requiring them to do cool things. That the party will get and need to make group checks to do cool things as a team, where everybody contributes to success and failure but the Rogue may get to pull some extra weight.

And then when then when the opportunity does arise to do something utterly amazing for the entire party ... Rogues get to look utterly amazing when they pull it off.

[Sorinth]

Note: I don't really consider that having a chance of failure actually make a challenge. What's challenging about having to roll higher than 13 instead of having to roll higher than 3 on a d20? The challenge should in finding how to use your skill, possibly to defeat a task that is literally impossible to bruteforce. Sure, randomness add some unpredictability that can force you into finding a plan B in case of unexpected failure, but that's not the only way to have unpredictability: that's why NPCs and intelligent enemies are for.

This is a good point, a d20 roll in itself is not all that interesting. It's the mystery of figuring out what approach to take where the challenge/fun happens.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sure, expertise make them excel at two skills... 80% of rogues probably pick stealth and thieves tool, 15% picks investigate and perception, and 5% miscellanea other (I'm pulling these numbers out of thin air, but that's the FEEL ).

I don't find reliable talent particularly offending, he's still better of giving advantage to the wizard for an arcana check, even assuming the GM allows for "untrained skill checks" I have used expertise on Athletics for a thug/grappler rogue, and his other expertise was stealth. Thieves tools proficiency and a bonus to Dex usually accounts for locks if there is anyone in your party who can cast guidance, or enhance ability, or bardic inspiration, flash of genius, etc

Also: what Tanarii said.

[Witty Username]

I have used expertise on Athletics for a thug/grappler rogue, and his other expertise was stealth. Thieves tools proficiency and a bonus to Dex usually accounts for locks if there is anyone in your party who can cast guidance, or enhance ability, or bardic inspiration, flash of genius, etc

Also: what Tanarii said.

Ooh, how did that go? I have been meaning to make that kind of character, I was thinking Thief rogue, expertise in Athletics and doing shove-dash nonsense. Master of the smash and grab type character.

[animorte]

I believe the OP misspelled Casters. I fixed it for you: "Did Casters ruin skill checks?"

Rogues are the ideal skill checks and they sacrifice a lot of other utility in order to provide some of those wonderful moments. The issue is and has been for a long time that when casters reach Tier 2, they can replace most skill checks and by Tier 3 are easily able to outperform anything that requires a skill check without ever making a skill check. This is where I think Casters got just a little out of hand with increasing amounts of let-me-do-everything, but that's called power creep. Every game that's been around for long enough has it everywhere.

[LudicSavant]

I believe the OP misspelled Casters. I fixed it for you: "Did Casters ruin skill checks?"

Rogues are the ideal skill checks and they sacrifice a lot of other utility in order to provide some of those wonderful moments. The issue is and has been for a long time that when casters reach Tier 2, they can replace most skill checks and by Tier 3 are easily able to outperform anything that requires a skill check without ever making a skill check. This is where I think Casters got just a little out of hand with increasing amounts of let-me-do-everything, but that's called power creep. Every game that's been around for long enough has it everywhere.

I don't think this really addresses what the OP's getting at.

Let's say we jump into the homebrew forums, do a bunch of work, and throw up a martial that gets amazing non-combat abilities. Like, real Martials Getting Nice Things non-combat abilities. Ones that make them as useful as casters out of combat. They're interesting, thematic, and fun things to do out of combat, that really evokes the source material of epic fantasy.

When you do that, many will cheer the martial being as useful as the caster out of combat. But there's a decent chance you'll run into at least one person who will say something like "But that's stepping on the toes of the Rogue!"

This mindset that "Skills are for Rogues" may be part of why we still have martials with such anemic non-combat features. Because if you make Barbarians as skilled as Conan the Barbarian, someone will go "But skills are for Rogues."

[Tanarii]

Following on my last post, clearly we need a new DC table

DC 5 Sorta Cool Stuff
DC 10 Cool Stuff
DC 15 Very Cool Stuff
DC 20 Amazing Stuff
DC 25 Utterly Amazing Stuff
DC 30 Nearly Impossible Stuff

[Leon]

The problem I see isn't the rogue, its the limits to skills that the other classes get. In 3.5 i used to give everyone a selection of "basic" skills for free and then extra skill points to every non rogue class to let them be more skillful, in this Ed I'd prob just make everyone prof in Perception and give the Skilled feat for a bonus feat at first level.

[JellyPooga]

I don't think this really addresses what the OP's getting at.

Let's say we jump into the homebrew forums, do a bunch of work, and throw up a martial that gets amazing non-combat abilities. Like, real Martials Getting Nice Things non-combat abilities. Ones that make them as useful as casters out of combat. They're interesting, thematic, and fun things to do out of combat, that really evokes the source material of epic fantasy.

When you do that, many will cheer the martial being as useful as the caster out of combat. But there's a decent chance you'll run into at least one person who will say something like "But that's stepping on the toes of the Rogue!"

This mindset that "Skills are for Rogues" may be part of why we still have martials with such anemic non-combat features. Because if you make Barbarians as skilled as Conan the Barbarian, someone will go "But skills are for Rogues."

The flipside of this coin can be likened to someone complaining/crying "But combat is for Fighters" because Rogues get Sneak Attack. Does Sneak Attack invalidate Fighters and Barbarians because it steps on their toes as damage dealers? No. Does it keep the Rogue competitive in that arena without overshadowing the focus of those other Classes? Yes. Segregating Classes to certain roles is the problem and claiming that Rogues only role is skill use is the issue, not that they have the ability to effectively use skills the way they do. Granting other classes alternative ways to interact with the skill system doesn't impinge on the way Rogues do unless it invalidates it entirely e.g. magic users largely circumvent the skill system, but at a resource/opportunity cost; that's fine. A Class or Subclass that gives free auto-passes on skill checks without limit, however, would justifiably evoke cries of "But that invalidates the Rogue".

A similar argument can be made for Feats like Skill Expert; I have yet to decide fully if I like it's existence in the game because it invalidates part of playing the Rogue Class, because Expertise is a primary factor of why you might want to play that Class; it's part of its identity. Imagine a Feat that granted Extra Attack. Is it overpowered? It's probably stronger than a lot of Feats, but I shouldn't think it'll break the game. On the other hand, if just anyone can get Extra Attack for the cost of a Feat, it reduces the impact of playing a Class or taking a Subclass that offers it as part of that Class package. Those Classes that have it lose part of their identity as a result.

[stoutstien]

Ooh, how did that go? I have been meaning to make that kind of character, I was thinking Thief rogue, expertise in Athletics and doing shove-dash nonsense. Master of the smash and grab type character.

The muscle thief is still my favorite PC in 5e. You can also grab healer and be the ultimate 5th man. I'm partial to skulker as well. Sometimes you are the thing that goes bump in the night.

[Slipjig]

Each of them wants to specialize in 1 weapon to be as good as they can be, but don't expect your fighter to also be good with a bow, or a cool mount to ride into battle, etc.

One of the best solutions I've seen for this is a class from Monte Cook's Iron Heroes. It was called something like Man-at-Arms, and each day it gave you a floating pool of fighter bonus feats you could keep in reserve and take in real time as needed. It made you a combat polymath, representing the fact that somebody who spends enough time on the campaign trail is probably going to learn at least the basics of many different fighting styles.

As for the original question, I don't think it's a problem if the Rogue is consistently much better at 1 or 2 things than the rest of the party. There are many situations where the more people who are proficient at something, the better, but it doesn't invalidate the rest of the party to have one person be REALLY good at it while everybody else is just okay. The only place I really see it potentially being a problem is if the Rogue has Expertise in social skills, but even that shouldn't be a problem unless you allow skills to make NPCs to things wildly against their own interests.

[LudicSavant]

The flipside of this coin can be likened to someone complaining/crying "But combat is for Fighters" because Rogues get Sneak Attack. Does Sneak Attack invalidate Fighters and Barbarians because it steps on their toes as damage dealers? No. Does it keep the Rogue competitive in that arena without overshadowing the focus of those other Classes? Yes. Segregating Classes to certain roles is the problem and claiming that Rogues only role is skill use is the issue

Pretty much, yes. Though I would have worded it as segregating the classes to pillars. Because non-combat stuff isn't just a role, it's two pillars.

[PhantomSoul]

Pretty much, yes. Though I would have worded it as segregating the classes to pillars. Because non-combat stuff isn't just a role, it's two pillars.

This.
with a few more characters

[Segev]

Or, for a concrete example, let's look at Elo ratings in chess. A difference in Elo of 677 between two players means the stronger player will beat the weaker 99% of the time. To get that from an opposed check, you'd need the stronger player to have a bonus about 17 points higher than the weaker player. And chess Elo ratings for humans range from 100 to 2882. That means that Magnus Carlsen's "skill bonus" at chess would need to be 70 points higher than the worst players.

While I am far, far too lazy to do the math to determine the actual number of "rounds" you'd need to make the game, I feel it worth pointing out that by having extended contests with multiple rolls, you can magnify the actual odds of a given character ultimately winning.

In a super-simplistic example, if a game of chess is modeled as a series of three rolls (with best 2 out of 3 winning), and Bob has a 10% better chance of winning each roll than Charles, Bob wins a given roll 55% of the time. The possible out comes are:


Round 1 | Round 2 | Round 3 | Individual chance | Ultimate Winner
--------|---------|---------|--------------------|----------------
A - Bob | Bob | Bob | .55^3*45^0 = 16.6% | Bob
B - Bob | Bob | Charlie | .55^2*45^1 = 13.6% | Bob
C - Bob | Charlie | Bob | .55^2*45^1 = 13.6% | Bob
D - Bob | Charlie | Charlie | .55^1*45^2 = 11.1% | Charlie
E - Charlie | Bob | Bob | .55^2*45^1 = 13.6% | Bob
F - Charlie | Bob | Charlie | .55^1*45^2 = 11.1% | Charlie
G - Charlie | Charlie | Bob | .55^1*45^2 = 11.1% | Charlie
H - Charlie | Charlie | Charlie | .55^0*45^3 = 9.1% | Bob

Bob wins 57.4% of the time.
Charlie wins 42.4% of the time.

This is obviously not a HUGE shift from the original 55% for Bob and 45% for Charlie, but it's also a small difference and a small number of rolls. Increase the M number of tries and the split will widen, until you could make a chess game have the huge odds difference you want without having to make the better player's die roll higher.

Model Chess to have more complexity, such that better rolls lead to it being easier to get better rolls going forward, and it only gets stronger.

So the question is what it is you're trying to model with ability checks, and whether it should be modeled as a single check or not.


Conversely, imagine if combat were decided by a single group check, where everyone in the party rolled Combat on a single ability check, and then the median for each side was compared to the other to determine the winner.

[Psyren]

So the question is what it is you're trying to model with ability checks, and whether it should be modeled as a single check or not.

Also, whether a check is needed at all.
Also, whether a failure by Bob will have the same result as a failure by Charlie.

[Telok]

Conversely, imagine if combat were decided by a single group check, where everyone in the party rolled Combat on a single ability check, and then the median for each side was compared to the other to determine the winner.

Years ago I suggested boiling all the combat jank down to something like a number 0 to 5 plus prof bonus for each character and making combat a DC 10+CR group skill check. Nobody liked it, "too random" & "too much failure built in".

Couple months ago I found a way to turn monster stat blocks into noncombat encounters. Using the combat jank everyone loves, swapping attacks for skills, hit dice for successes, and the monster attacks removing successes or doing damage. Action surge and the like are suddenly useful for noncombat, casters still spend spells to help (now usually without trivializing the whole thing), use the working monster & encounter guidelines to build noncombat encounters, plus you can award apprppriate xp based on CR. Nobody cares.

[MadBear]

Also, whether a check is needed at all.
Also, whether a failure by Bob will have the same result as a failure by Charlie.

That is something, I'd love to see built upon during the next iteration of D&D.



So the question is what it is you're trying to model with ability checks, and whether it should be modeled as a single check or not.


Conversely, imagine if combat were decided by a single group check, where everyone in the party rolled Combat on a single ability check, and then the median for each side was compared to the other to determine the winner.

I know in my campaigns, I tend to run progressive checks. For example a rogue broke into a guards sleeping quarters. The first failed stealth check resulted in a guard waking up because they heard a noise. As a reaction the rogue tried to sneak outta the room before noticed. The next failed check made it so that the door closed loudly and some guards in the nearby commons heard it close and came to investigate. The rogue then tried to run outta the keep into the city and lose himself in the crowd. A final failed check and I ruled that they had caught up and surrounded him. There does have to be an end point after all. But I like the idea that most failed checks are just inching them closer to failure, instead of a flat "you didn't make that check, the guard wakes up and alerts the dungeon".

[animorte]

I know in my campaigns, I tend to run progressive checks.

That is what I try to do as well. Its useful in those not-so-dangerous situations, a bit more difficult when time is of the essence and you get one shot.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

I find some humor in this thread. After so many 'Casters can do everything and martials are bad outside of combat' threads, we get a thread about how a martial class is trivializing (usually) exploration encounters. To that I say, great! And I agree; at our table Rogues make great scouts among other things and provide many advantages in and out of combat.

My only issue related to this is that there's another full caster class that gets expertise and can do much the same, which doesn't really seem fair for a 'Jack of All Trades'.

[tenshiakodo]

I have seen this in practice. When playing AL, where the adventures are pre-made, a Rogue with Expertise in Perception saw all the traps. Every time. DM's simply had to remove traps from encounters because the Rogue said "lo, there is a trap". Maybe they had some problems dealing with the trap, but it was so rare as to be not worth talking about.

Enemies trying to sneak up on the party? The Rogue says "lo, there are enemies lurking in the shadows!". Same result.

This has more to do with the relatively binary nature of such challenges than anything else, but it shows how the Rogue trivializing challenges can make the game less fun. Further, it means nobody else's Perception really matters- the Rogue has this.

But wait, what happened when the same thing happened in a home game, you ask? Amazingly, the DC's of Perception checks went up! Now the Rogue could occasionally fail! Huzzah, the game is saved...

Except when you realize that now everyone else's Perception REALLY doesn't matter...

[JNAProductions]

A 5th level Rogue with 12 Wisdom has the same Perception (assuming they took Expertise in it-something I personally have never done on any Rogue I’ve played) as an 18 Wis Cleric with proficiency.

They don’t get better till level 11, unless they put a lot into Wisdom. And that’s only for active checks-Reliable Talent doesn’t do anything for passive.

For passive, a 12 Wis Rogue is only better than a proficient Cleric (assuming 16 Wis to start, and +2 at levels 4 and 8) at level 13.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

A 5th level Rogue with 12 Wisdom has the same Perception (assuming they took Expertise in it-something I personally have never done on any Rogue I’ve played) as an 18 Wis Cleric with proficiency.

They don’t get better till level 11, unless they put a lot into Wisdom. And that’s only for active checks-Reliable Talent doesn’t do anything for passive.

For passive, a 12 Wis Rogue is only better than a proficient Cleric (assuming 16 Wis to start, and +2 at levels 4 and 8) at level 13.

That's a good analysis.
As good as the Rogue is, they are only really good when they either have Expertise + A high ability score (usually dex)/ magic items/ spells. Guidance helps on some checks, but Stealth + Pass Without Trace is the real auto-succeed. And that's OK; if the party spends a 2nd level slot and the Rogue uses one of very few Expertise slots on Stealth then that should provide an advantage because of the significant opportunity cost.

[Dr.Samurai]

Apart from Dexterity, what is the rogue prioritizing that they have a 12 wisdom?

[JNAProductions]

Apart from Dexterity, what is the rogue prioritizing that they have a 12 wisdom?

Constitution (for combat staying power), Intelligence (if an Arcane Trickster), Charisma (if you play like I do).

And a 14 in Wisdom might give them the edge over the Cleric at most levels, if they also sink Expertise into Perception... But it's by one point until you hit level 13, unless you invest extra ASIs into Wisdom.

If one point of Perception is the difference between a good adventure and a bad one... That adventure has issues.

[Segev]

I have seen this in practice. When playing AL, where the adventures are pre-made, a Rogue with Expertise in Perception saw all the traps. Every time. DM's simply had to remove traps from encounters because the Rogue said "lo, there is a trap". Maybe they had some problems dealing with the trap, but it was so rare as to be not worth talking about.

Enemies trying to sneak up on the party? The Rogue says "lo, there are enemies lurking in the shadows!". Same result.

This has more to do with the relatively binary nature of such challenges than anything else, but it shows how the Rogue trivializing challenges can make the game less fun. Further, it means nobody else's Perception really matters- the Rogue has this.

But wait, what happened when the same thing happened in a home game, you ask? Amazingly, the DC's of Perception checks went up! Now the Rogue could occasionally fail! Huzzah, the game is saved...

Except when you realize that now everyone else's Perception REALLY doesn't matter...

Or... the rogue succeeding on all of that made the encounters more fun for the PCs, and the rogue felt useful for pointing out all the traps.

[Dr.Samurai]

Constitution (for combat staying power), Intelligence (if an Arcane Trickster), Charisma (if you play like I do).

And a 14 in Wisdom might give them the edge over the Cleric at most levels, if they also sink Expertise into Perception... But it's by one point until you hit level 13, unless you invest extra ASIs into Wisdom.

If one point of Perception is the difference between a good adventure and a bad one... That adventure has issues.
Well, the answer is Constitution.

Intelligence and Charisma are not givens, and Scouts, Inquisitives, and Thieves (and any rogue that wants to see stuff when they're scouting ahead) will want a high Wisdom. And it synergizes with spotting traps and with Slippery Mind.

I'm assuming the rogue Tenshiakodo is describing is closer to a wisdom-focused one than an intelligence or charisma focused one.

So fair point that they don't exceed clerics and druids by a ton. But most characters are not clerics and druids.

[JNAProductions]

Well, the answer is Constitution.

Intelligence and Charisma are not givens, and Scouts, Inquisitives, and Thieves (and any rogue that wants to see stuff when they're scouting ahead) will want a high Wisdom. And it synergizes with spotting traps and with Slippery Mind.

I'm assuming the rogue Tenshiakodo is describing is closer to a wisdom-focused one than an intelligence or charisma focused one.

So fair point that they don't exceed clerics and druids by a ton. But most characters are not clerics and druids.

And most characters aren't high-Wisdom Rogues with Expertise in Perception.

Also, Slippery Mind doesn't SYNERGIZE with high Wisdom, it actually allows you to dump Wisdom if you start at a level high enough to have it.

A Rogue who decides "I want to see EVERYTHING!" can be good at it. But I've made a lot of Rogues, and none of them have had Expertise in Perception, and usually not a great Wisdom either.

It might not be combat-optimal, but that's not the sole point of characters.

[PhantomSoul]

Also, Slippery Mind doesn't SYNERGIZE with high Wisdom, it actually allows you to dump Wisdom if you start at a level high enough to have it.

It does both! (Or rather, with the DCs you'll face, it's just plain ol' additively good.) At least in the campaigns I've been in, Wisdom Saving Throws still come up plenty often where a +5 or +6 would be a godsend -- and at that level, even with good Wisdom that's not necessarily a guaranteed success, but it's definitely helping your odds a whole lot.

[Dr.Samurai]

And most characters aren't high-Wisdom Rogues with Expertise in Perception.

Also, Slippery Mind doesn't SYNERGIZE with high Wisdom, it actually allows you to dump Wisdom if you start at a level high enough to have it.

A Rogue who decides "I want to see EVERYTHING!" can be good at it. But I've made a lot of Rogues, and none of them have had Expertise in Perception, and usually not a great Wisdom either.

It might not be combat-optimal, but that's not the sole point of characters.
My friends love playing high perception characters. So do I, in fact.

But I think the point is how does a rogue that has focused on some type of skills impact other characters those times that the DM calls for those skills.

EDIT: I forgot, I totally disagree re Slippery Mind and dumping Wisdom.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

And most characters aren't high-Wisdom Rogues with Expertise in Perception.

Also, Slippery Mind doesn't SYNERGIZE with high Wisdom, it actually allows you to dump Wisdom if you start at a level high enough to have it.

A Rogue who decides "I want to see EVERYTHING!" can be good at it. But I've made a lot of Rogues, and none of them have had Expertise in Perception, and usually not a great Wisdom either.

It might not be combat-optimal, but that's not the sole point of characters.

Even my current Rogue with a Cleric dip only has 14 Wis, so is basically as you describe. While I have Expertise Perception, you can basically throw a blanket over me and a high Wis character with proficiency. Other than Dex based checks, which they should be great at (and maybe Int on an AT), I'm finding little evidence supporting the POV expressed by the OP.

[JNAProductions]

My friends love playing high perception characters. So do I, in fact.

But I think the point is how does a rogue that has focused on some type of skills impact other characters those times that the DM calls for those skills.

EDIT: I forgot, I totally disagree re Slippery Mind and dumping Wisdom.

Yeah. That's fine. But your preferences aren't universal.

And a Rogue isn't gonna have than more than 16 Wisdom at level one, with Point Buy. (Yes, CLineage and a Wis half-feat could get them to 18, but I highly doubt that'd happen very often at all.) Compared to a Cleric with 16 Wis and Proficiency, they're at +2. At level 4, they're at +1. Levels 5-7, +2; level 8, +1; and level 9-12 +2. This assuming the Cleric never takes Skill Expertise (Perception) since it's apparently that valuable.

So, for more than half of the levels of the game, the Rogue's never more than +2 ahead of a Cleric, and that's WITH significant investment. One of two/four Expertise picks, and a pretty high stat baseline. Hell, that 16 means you NEED a racial bonus, with point buy, to achieve it.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yeah. That's fine. But your preferences aren't universal.
Oh goodness, what is it with this forum?

You literally told us what YOU do at your table and I replied with my preference and you come back with this reply. Absolutely brilliant...


And a Rogue isn't gonna have than more than 16 Wisdom at level one, with Point Buy. (Yes, CLineage and a Wis half-feat could get them to 18, but I highly doubt that'd happen very often at all.) Compared to a Cleric with 16 Wis and Proficiency, they're at +2. At level 4, they're at +1. Levels 5-7, +2; level 8, +1; and level 9-12 +2. This assuming the Cleric never takes Skill Expertise (Perception) since it's apparently that valuable.

So, for more than half of the levels of the game, the Rogue's never more than +2 ahead of a Cleric, and that's WITH significant investment. One of two/four Expertise picks, and a pretty high stat baseline. Hell, that 16 means you NEED a racial bonus, with point buy, to achieve it.
It's not a significant investment if you want to be very good at wisdom checks. You are acting like every single handbook online doesn't identify Perception as hands down the most important skill in the game. Like rogues aren't generally scout when traveling and dungeoneering, and trying to spot traps and secret doors. Or that there are rogue subclasses based on wisdom. Or that rogues can start with a 16 Dex, 14 Con, 16 Wis, because unlike a lot of other classes they get to choose what their secondary ability score is.

So truly the one operating off of their own preferences is you. I'm not saying every rogue is a perception rogue or a high wisdom rogue. But that's what tenshiakodo brought up and what you responded to, so that's what I'm talking about.

[JNAProductions]

What Rogue subclass is based on Wisdom?

And my point is twofold.

1) Not every Rogue is gonna be amazing at Perception.
2) Being amazing at Perception, for a Rogue, is only slightly better than a Cleric or Druid will probably have.

So why are Rogues singled out, when they're only a bit better than a full-caster with similar stats?

Edit: Do none of you or your friends' Rogues want to be talky? And therefore have a decent Charisma?

Because that 16/14/16 array leaves, at most, 6 points in Point Buy for Int, Cha, and Str. And that's assuming Mountain Dwarf.

[PhantomSoul]

What Rogue subclass is based on Wisdom?

And my point is twofold.

1) Not every Rogue is gonna be amazing at Perception.
2) Being amazing at Perception, for a Rogue, is only slightly better than a Cleric or Druid will probably have.

So why are Rogues singled out, when they're only a bit better than a full-caster with similar stats?


I guess because there's more than just Casters (especially Wisdom-based ones!) :)

[AdAstra]

Oh goodness, what is it with this forum?

You literally told us what YOU do at your table and I replied with my preference and you come back with this reply. Absolutely brilliant...


It's not a significant investment if you want to be very good at wisdom checks. You are acting like every single handbook online doesn't identify Perception as hands down the most important skill in the game. Like rogues aren't generally scout when traveling and dungeoneering, and trying to spot traps and secret doors. Or that there are rogue subclasses based on wisdom. Or that rogues can start with a 16 Dex, 14 Con, 16 Wis, because unlike a lot of other classes they get to choose what their secondary ability score is.

So truly the one operating off of their own preferences is you. I'm not saying every rogue is a perception rogue or a high wisdom rogue. But that's what tenshiakodo brought up and what you responded to, so that's what I'm talking about.

This whole thing started with you asking what kind of rogue has a wisdom of 12 or less, with the implication that you considered it a ridiculous idea for a rogue or something that no one does. Someone told you that they often build rogues this way, and yeah, it's totally possible and arguably common to make rogues that have moderate to low wisdom and still do well, establishing that a high wisdom Rogue is not the default case that everything should be built around. You opened the conversation with a statement that read, to me, as nothing but expressing contempt for a playstyle that you didn't use.

As for the OP, even assuming that martials are somehow held back due to Rogues, that's entirely down to developer and player perception. If people have dumb ideas about niche protection or difficulty, that has nothing to do with a single class. Rogues being good at a noncombat thing is only a problem if GMs decide that succeeding very often at one's specialty is somehow bad and thus crank up the difficulty (and as people have discussed, this rarely actually locks out non-rogues from participating), or if players/devs decide that no one else should be allowed to be good at the things that rogues are good at (which would be stupid on multiple levels given that Bards get Expertise, too, so there's already a class that's good at skills that isn't the Rogue). Or if the GM decides that no one but the one with the highest modifier ever gets to roll anything, but that's going to have poor results for a number of reasons.

And in practice, the "problems" you describe aren't nearly as big of a deal as you've made them out to be. A rogue is only dramatically better than other people who are good at something at higher levels, where rogues should reasonably expect to be exceptional at things they specialize in. At the very most, a Rogue has a +6 over a person with regular proficiency and the same ability score, which is well within the range where the person with a lower modifier can still contribute.

[Telok]

This has more to do with the relatively binary nature of such challenges than anything else, but it shows how the Rogue trivializing challenges can make the game less fun. Further, it means nobody else's Perception really matters- the Rogue has this.

But wait, what happened when the same thing happened in a home game, you ask? Amazingly, the DC's of Perception checks went up! Now the Rogue could occasionally fail! Huzzah, the game is saved...

Except when you realize that now everyone else's Perception REALLY doesn't matter...

Yeah, we saw that in 4e at our table. Once someone got +10 in a skill over the rest of the party the skill broke. Had a druid with +11 over most of the party (I think one other char he was only +8 over or something), making his take-10/passive higher than the others could even roll. The rogue did similar with stealth and... I think someone else was close with a charisma skill.

It meant that anything the druid needed to roll perception for (or the rogue rolled stealth for) was something the rest of the party couldn't functionally participate in. Really screwed up the DM for a good long while, the only solution he found was to split the party so the uberskill char wasn't there for the checks. Of course then everyone knew what was up and started working around it. Which was perfectly in character, if your party "spot hidden" person went away you upped you "get rid of hiding spots" game to compensate, but kind of annoying for the DM.

[animorte]

I feel like if any character is outshining the rest of the party for that long, it's really the DMs design of events that offer the imbalance.

[PhantomSoul]

I feel like if any character is outshining the rest of the party for that long, it's really the DMs design of events that offer the imbalance.

When it's sheer mathematical outstripping in a core aspect... not so much.

[Dr.Samurai]

This whole thing started with you asking what kind of rogue has a wisdom of 12 or less, with the implication that you considered it a ridiculous idea for a rogue or something that no one does.
The implication is why would the rogue that tenshiakodo mentioned auto-spotting everything only have a 12 Wisdom?

Someone told you that they often build rogues this way, and yeah, it's totally possible and arguably common to make rogues that have moderate to low wisdom and still do well, establishing that a high wisdom Rogue is not the default case that everything should be built around.
But... whoever said that high wisdom is the only way to play rogues? I can't help if people jump to weird conclusions. Someone was talking about, what read to me as, a high wisdom rogue with Expertise. So why respond to that with a 12 wisdom rogue?

You opened the conversation with a statement that read, to me, as nothing but expressing contempt for a playstyle that you didn't use.

Yeah, I suspect I'm not the problem here. I specifically mentioned the ability of rogues to choose their secondary ability score, which means they could instead choose to focus on Intelligence over Wisdom, or Charisma over Wisdom, or Strength over Wisdom. I don't play rogues, I don't care how other people play rogues. But someone mentioned an auto-perception rogue and JNA replied with "something I personally have never done on any Rogue I’ve played" and now you're trying to project that onto me.

I think the point of the OP is that all martials should excel at skills this way. It shouldn't be a niche for one martial class. Let other's get Expertise. Decouple some class features from stats so other classes have the same freedom as rogues to choose what to specialize in. A rogue can be the party face, or the party scout, or the party sage, etc, all while being the stealthy one. All martials should have flexibility approaching this.

[tenshiakodo]

Well I got in touch with the Rogue player, since I was curious how it was he was trivializing encounters. It turns out he only had a Wisdom of 12, but he had a Robe of Eyes, so at time I last played with him, he had a +9 with advantage, giving him a passive Perception of 24.

So I guess that does skew things a bit, but he did point out that he could have taken Observant for the same benefit. As to why he was so much better than the Clerics, I guess they didn't have Perception trained? Still, a +9 is a good sight better than the +6 he would have had without Expertise.

When you're using passive Perception, and extra +3 is actually a big deal, since if you're one lower you can completely miss a DC.

[AdAstra]

Well I got in touch with the Rogue player, since I was curious how it was he was trivializing encounters. It turns out he only had a Wisdom of 12, but he had a Robe of Eyes, so at time I last played with him, he had a +9 with advantage, giving him a passive Perception of 24.

So I guess that does skew things a bit, but he did point out that he could have taken Observant for the same benefit. As to why he was so much better than the Clerics, I guess they didn't have Perception trained? Still, a +9 is a good sight better than the +6 he would have had without Expertise.

When you're using passive Perception, and extra +3 is actually a big deal, since if you're one lower you can completely miss a DC.

Interesting. Yeah, the Expertise matters there, but it's certainly not as much as the benefit of Observant or that robe, which are class-agnostic. I don't think Passive Perception is particularly different from regular skill use in terms of how much impact a +X has except for things with a "fixed" DC, like traps. If the DM is rolling for NPCs and comparing to Passive Perception, then the odds that a +1 will tip the scales between success and failure will still be 5%, or 15% for +3 (or even less than that, if the roll would only succeed/fail on a very high/low result or can never succeed/fail).

It's a mid-level (at least, I'm assuming, given the +4 proficiency mod) rogue who has a fair amount of investment in being good at one thing (in this case, Expertise and a Rare perception-based magic item). I think it's probably fair if a seasoned adventurer who was great at noticing things to begin with and acquired an item that gives you magically enhanced sight in all directions is functionally impossible to catch off guard unless you're very clever. Even then, just having darkness would be dim light to the rogue's Darkvision, imposing disadvantage, canceling out the advantage on Perception, bringing Passive Perception down to 19, which is certainly beatable, though still high.

[Anymage]

Well I got in touch with the Rogue player, since I was curious how it was he was trivializing encounters. It turns out he only had a Wisdom of 12, but he had a Robe of Eyes, so at time I last played with him, he had a +9 with advantage, giving him a passive Perception of 24.

So I guess that does skew things a bit, but he did point out that he could have taken Observant for the same benefit. As to why he was so much better than the Clerics, I guess they didn't have Perception trained? Still, a +9 is a good sight better than the +6 he would have had without Expertise.

When you're using passive Perception, and extra +3 is actually a big deal, since if you're one lower you can completely miss a DC.

You have two "problems" here, neither of which is necessarily really a problem.

The first non-problem is that someone who goes out of their way to be good at something is allowed to be good at it. Expertise is only +3 here, which is nice but not gamebreakingly so. Throw in an attuned item devoted to seeing things well (or a feat investment, but that's an even bigger dedication of character resources). and the guy who tells you that he wants to be good at spotting stuff should be able to enjoy doing just that.

The second thing that might be slightly more problematic is if nobody else in the party invested in being good at noticing things. If this is just because they all found other things that they wanted to be good at, good for them and they accept how things might pan out. (That might lead to them getting caught with their pants down more often, but that's just the nature of perception and why it's a good skill.) If they're used to situations where everybody in the party can roll and so long as one person succeeds the whole party gets a warning, that might be something you'll want to counter as a DM. Either splitting the party so that the spotter isn't always on hand or just breaking out the occasional group check (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules/using-ability-scores#GroupChecks) when everybody wants to have a roll too should discourage thinking that just one lynchpin character can cover for all appropriate checks of a given sort.

[Jervis]

Ever since the introduction of the rogue in D&D, the rogue has always struck me as a class that makes the game worse with the way it interacts with skills. In every edition of D&D rogues (and bards to a similar degree) have a supremacy in skills that allow them to compete above and beyond other classes. This is different then a system like magic where you either have it (and can access it) or don't. As a result every class can try and get proficiency in a skill, but they'll always be behind compared to the rogue. This might not seem like a major issue until you realize that:

1. Since other classes can put proficiency in these skills they're going to want it to be effective at least some of the time.
2. Since Rogues bonus outstrips others pretty profusely (+ reliable talent at later levels) any challenge you give normal players the rogue can beat without effort, or any challenge for the rogue will be likely impossible for the players.
3. Unlike other martials, the rogues primary and secondary stat tends to also coincide with skills while that isn't true of many others (a fighter with str/con will be good at athletics and....)

I'm curious what a world where the rogue was never made would look like. Instead of having a class dedicated to backstabbing and being good at skills, what archetypes would we see instead. Would we have more Conan like characters who were strong resilient and talented, alongside spellcasters. Would that narrow the caster/martial divide a little, with the powerful skillful warlord being pitted against the devious mastermind caster?

Anyways, it's a moot point at this point in time, but I was inspired by the Ranger thread when thinking about the rogue and it's legacy.

Honestly I don’t think you necessarily should balance around expertise. Just let the rogue ace most of their skill checks. Once in a while they find some Adamantine lock forged by a the ghost of a gnome artificer and have a good chance of failing. I like to let players be awesome at what they built their characters to be awesome at. And then I kick them in the neck by making them make a DC 17 strength check to avoid being yeeted into a pit of electrified piranhas. Sometimes you need to target weaknesses on everyone to keep things interesting.

[Tanarii]

I have seen this in practice. When playing AL, where the adventures are pre-made, a Rogue with Expertise in Perception saw all the traps. Every time. DM's simply had to remove traps from encounters because the Rogue said "lo, there is a trap". Maybe they had some problems dealing with the trap, but it was so rare as to be not worth talking about.


Or... the rogue succeeding on all of that made the encounters more fun for the PCs, and the rogue felt useful for pointing out all the traps.
Given that any character can find a trap, as long as it's possible, without a check just by taking ten times as long ... traps that aren't in a time stressful environment aren't meaningful anyway. Between the automatic success rule and the way most people (including many AL adventures) play without wandering monster checks or other time incentives, players have zero reason not to proceed at 1/10th speed, which is still plenty fast enough and closer to old school dungeon exploration speeds anyway, and just find all those traps anyway.

Of course, then they have to decide what to do with them. All it's doing it making gotcha trapping impossible when the PCs have time, and difficult even when they aren't moving along taking all the time they need, and are in good light. Moving Fast or in Dim Light or while everyone is Tracking, Navigating, Foraging and Mapping might actually have them blunder into something of course.

Or instead of gotcha, you can view it as: like everything else in 5e, without strict timekeeping, you cannot run certain things as a meaningful encounter. That absolutely includes lone traps in hallways and rooms.

"Automatic" trap finding is a common complaint against passive perception, and I agree Observant ot an equivalent is a but much. But there's lots of stuff going on in the details of how ability checks in general and passive perception specifically works that are often overlooked or ignored.

[tenshiakodo]

The darkvision thing didn't come up because in that group, at least, we always had light- my character didn't have darkvision, lol.

The problem with the passive Perception came about because of Crawford's statement that passive Perception is a "floor" when it comes to Perception checks- so no matter what is rolled, you can't do worse than your passive Perception.

The guy didn't have the Robe for his whole career, obviously, but at some point the combination of being able to roll and rely on a minimum of 15-19 was sufficient to make the DM sigh.

Now when it comes to disabling traps, you don't even need expertise in many parties- Guidance and/or a Bard can make anyone proficient with Thieves' Tools able to overcome most traps, especially if you have two such characters and one can Help the other.

[stoutstien]

The darkvision thing didn't come up because in that group, at least, we always had light- my character didn't have darkvision, lol.

The problem with the passive Perception came about because of Crawford's statement that passive Perception is a "floor" when it comes to Perception checks- so no matter what is rolled, you can't do worse than your passive Perception.

The guy didn't have the Robe for his whole career, obviously, but at some point the combination of being able to roll and rely on a minimum of 15-19 was sufficient to make the DM sigh.

Now when it comes to disabling traps, you don't even need expertise in many parties- Guidance and/or a Bard can make anyone proficient with Thieves' Tools able to overcome most traps, especially if you have two such characters and one can Help the other.

That's isn't how passive ability checks work regardless of what Crawford says. Part of the issue is the lack of providing both an active and passive DC in a lot of the published material so DMs fall back using one for both which sort of works until you have to decide on the specific parameters were a passive check is called for in the first place.

[Tanarii]

The problem with the passive Perception came about because of Crawford's statement that passive Perception is a "floor" when it comes to Perception checks- so no matter what is rolled, you can't do worse than your passive Perception.

He's wrong. Sort of. IF you can use passive perception, then any follow up rolled checks against the same thing will need to be better. But:

- usually since it's still a secret check, you still use passive perception anyway. Because the "passive" in passive perception doesn't mean the character is passive. A character "actively" looking for something when they don't know anything is there still uses passive perception. Another thing Crawford was wrong about in the very same video on stealth/hiding.

- you are denied use of your passive perception if you're focusing on something else instead of paying attention for danger. Examples given in the PHB are the common adventuring tasks: Navigating, Foraging, Tracking, Mapping. But the DM can have it apply if e.g. you're busy tossing a room and no one is on duty watching for approaching enemies.

- as I mentioned, it doesn't usually matter unless time is of the essence. You can just take ten times as long and automatically succeed if success is possible. So the party can take ten times as long to toss a room, or move at 1/10th the pace. Even if there are wandering monster / encounter (events) checks, at least now the players have an interesting decision to make: Proceed cautiously and succeed but have more event checks, or move at a normal pace and use passive perception, or move at a fast pace and take -5 to perception. Keeping in mind they'll often be taking -5 to passive for disadvantage due to dim light as well, for anything not immediately in their bright light radius.

[Sorinth]

I have seen this in practice. When playing AL, where the adventures are pre-made, a Rogue with Expertise in Perception saw all the traps. Every time. DM's simply had to remove traps from encounters because the Rogue said "lo, there is a trap". Maybe they had some problems dealing with the trap, but it was so rare as to be not worth talking about.

Enemies trying to sneak up on the party? The Rogue says "lo, there are enemies lurking in the shadows!". Same result.

This has more to do with the relatively binary nature of such challenges than anything else, but it shows how the Rogue trivializing challenges can make the game less fun. Further, it means nobody else's Perception really matters- the Rogue has this.

But wait, what happened when the same thing happened in a home game, you ask? Amazingly, the DC's of Perception checks went up! Now the Rogue could occasionally fail! Huzzah, the game is saved...

Except when you realize that now everyone else's Perception REALLY doesn't matter...

The thing is it's a DM's choice to trivialize the challenges by having a single skill check. For example the ambush situation could just as easily be resolved as everyone roll initiative, anyone with a PP that's less then 14 is surprised. Basically by the time you spot the ambush with your perception it's too late to avoid the ambush, but there's still a benefit to having invested in perception and the Rogue's 20 PP doesn't make the Clerics 15 PP any less useful.

You can do similar things with traps, seeing the trap doesn't have to be the end of the challenge. If there's a pit trap where the floor is an illusion in a corridor noticing the trap is step 1, but you can't disarm a pit so you still have the challenge of finding a way past. Another trap might have a way to disarm by jamming a rod into some gears but doing so will no doubt cause a loud noise, does the party still want to disarm it?

The bottom line is it's the DM choosing to make things binary pass/fail based on a skill check that trivializes the challenge. If you don't want to play a game where skill checks are pass/fail and only the DC matters then don't, nothing forces 5e to be that way beyond peoples assumption of that's how it's supposed to work.

[Psyren]

On the subject of passive perception - at our table we modify the Observant feat to buff Passive Perception and Passive Insight instead of Passive Investigation (since the latter tends to be an oxymoron.)


I have seen this in practice. When playing AL, where the adventures are pre-made, a Rogue with Expertise in Perception saw all the traps. Every time. DM's simply had to remove traps from encounters because the Rogue said "lo, there is a trap". Maybe they had some problems dealing with the trap, but it was so rare as to be not worth talking about.

Enemies trying to sneak up on the party? The Rogue says "lo, there are enemies lurking in the shadows!". Same result.

This has more to do with the relatively binary nature of such challenges than anything else, but it shows how the Rogue trivializing challenges can make the game less fun. Further, it means nobody else's Perception really matters- the Rogue has this.

But wait, what happened when the same thing happened in a home game, you ask? Amazingly, the DC's of Perception checks went up! Now the Rogue could occasionally fail! Huzzah, the game is saved...

Except when you realize that now everyone else's Perception REALLY doesn't matter...

It's very easy to make everyone's Perception matter; everyone who failed to notice the enemies when a fight breaks out is surprised, simple. Even if the rogue with expertise is never surprised, that doesn't help anyone else.


A 5th level Rogue with 12 Wisdom has the same Perception (assuming they took Expertise in it-something I personally have never done on any Rogue I’ve played) as an 18 Wis Cleric with proficiency.

They don’t get better till level 11, unless they put a lot into Wisdom. And that’s only for active checks-Reliable Talent doesn’t do anything for passive.

For passive, a 12 Wis Rogue is only better than a proficient Cleric (assuming 16 Wis to start, and +2 at levels 4 and 8) at level 13.

Also this. Even a rogue who really focuses on it is still likely to not be that much better than a Wis-based character at most levels.


Or... the rogue succeeding on all of that made the encounters more fun for the PCs, and the rogue felt useful for pointing out all the traps.

Imagine, specialists being good at the thing they specialize in, what a baffling scenario.

+1 in other words.

[Segev]

Imagine, specialists being good at the thing they specialize in, what a baffling scenario.

It is fascinating (and annoying) how often DMs seem to think that specialists need to fail at what they specialize in a significant amount of the time for the game to be "challenging." Rather than having the challenge be in how they apply their specialty.

[Psyren]

It is fascinating (and annoying) how often DMs seem to think that specialists need to fail at what they specialize in a significant amount of the time for the game to be "challenging." Rather than having the challenge be in how they apply their specialty.

That, and varying challenges so that different specialties are needed, including ones the party may be weaker at.

But the DM artificially inflating DCs because he wants the rogue to fail at something he's good at is not it. Though you can certainly introduce a harder than normal trap or something as a one-off, so long as you justify it narratively.

[animorte]

That, and varying challenges so that different specialties are needed, including ones the party may be weaker at.

But the DM artificially inflating DCs because he wants the rogue to fail at something he's good at is not it. Though you can certainly introduce a harder than normal trap or something as a one-off, so long as you justify it narratively.

That and granting time constraints or an active encounter around them while the skill checks are happening.

I've played several games that have something of this sort. Here's an example: One person must push the wheel around to lift the platform (which has a roof to it, so flight isn't going to help) while the rest of the party needs to keep incoming waves from stopping the lift.

[Segev]

That, and varying challenges so that different specialties are needed, including ones the party may be weaker at.

But the DM artificially inflating DCs because he wants the rogue to fail at something he's good at is not it. Though you can certainly introduce a harder than normal trap or something as a one-off, so long as you justify it narratively.

Exactly. And then tehre are group checks. While perception is one where only one needs to succeed, stealth is one where the rogue being Mr. Neverfail only means you need one fewer person to roll well to have the party succeed.

[Pex]

It is fascinating (and annoying) how often DMs seem to think that specialists need to fail at what they specialize in a significant amount of the time for the game to be "challenging." Rather than having the challenge be in how they apply their specialty.


That, and varying challenges so that different specialties are needed, including ones the party may be weaker at.

But the DM artificially inflating DCs because he wants the rogue to fail at something he's good at is not it. Though you can certainly introduce a harder than normal trap or something as a one-off, so long as you justify it narratively.

The rules could do a better job explaining this. Have an example even. Show the numbers. Explicitly tell the DM this is supposed to happen.

[Segev]

The rules could do a better job explaining this. Have an example even. Show the numbers. Explicitly tell the DM this is supposed to happen.

Eh, to be fair, this is a case where the rules aren't to blame. The DCs given may not close the loop on what is or is not a "hard" task, but they do tell us that we should expect DCs for most things to be between 10 and 15. It does seem pretty unreasonable that most DCs would be "hard" to "nigh impossible," doesn't it? That's because it is not how things are meant to run. If somebody can make a "nigh impossible" check regularly, they're just awesomely amazing. That isn't a sign that everything needs to be nigh impossible in order to challenge them; it is instead a sign that they shouldn't be challenged most of the time when that comes up.

[Psyren]

The rules could do a better job explaining this. Have an example even. Show the numbers. Explicitly tell the DM this is supposed to happen.

The rules should explain that specialist characters should be allowed to be good at things?

[Pex]

Eh, to be fair, this is a case where the rules aren't to blame. The DCs given may not close the loop on what is or is not a "hard" task, but they do tell us that we should expect DCs for most things to be between 10 and 15. It does seem pretty unreasonable that most DCs would be "hard" to "nigh impossible," doesn't it? That's because it is not how things are meant to run. If somebody can make a "nigh impossible" check regularly, they're just awesomely amazing. That isn't a sign that everything needs to be nigh impossible in order to challenge them; it is instead a sign that they shouldn't be challenged most of the time when that comes up.

:smallwink:

Ok, it's not really about that, but I do think the game should be more explicit even if it means having gamespeek. Have it as a sidebar showing an example of play, one where the DM lets a player do something just because he wants to and another scenario where the DM gives a DC but by happenstance one PC can make the roll on a 1 so that PC autosucceeds while another player has to roll.

It could also help to explain more on what it means to provide for a challenge. It's fine for particular tasks to be challenging but also advise the challenge is not about any particular task but the overall plot of the adventure. It's not about climbing a wall. The party climbs the wall, and if it matters as long as the party does something to avoid being spotted climbing the wall they climb the wall without being spotted no rolls needed. The challenge is in whatever mission the party needs to do on the other side of that wall. In the meanwhile you can have narrative. The barbarian player gets to feel strong and tough because his job is to carry the sorcerer as he climbs. The sorcerer feels awesome with repeated castings of Minor Illusion to make the wall area they are at appear as it was as if no one was there. The DM should not be ornery in the precise timing of where the barbarian is and the Minor Illusion.

Even put another way, there is a challenge of climbing the wall without being spotted. The players came up with a solution, so it works just because it works because the players thought of it solving the challenge.

[Dimers]

The rules should explain that specialist characters should be allowed to be good at things?

If the PHB or DMG explicitly said such a thing, it'd obviate the need for quite a few threads, including this one. Rogues and bards get to be good at their choice of skills. Rangers being good in the wilderness doesn't ruin the exploration/travel game. Great Weapon Masters and Sharpshooters are supposed to dish out lots of damage. It's okay to bypass encounters with pass without trace. That kind of thing.

Ahh, who am I kidding, lots of people would still consider it wrong even if the rules said it. :smalltongue:

[tenshiakodo]

Something I do see a lot is die rolls for the sake of rolling dice.

Let me explain. To get into the deep goblin mines, the players must climb down the sides of a treacherous shaft cut into rock.

In most games I've played in, this would require some hard DC Athletics rolls, specialized climbing tools, or outright magic for the party to proceed.

But hold on a second- isn't the point to succeed at this task? What happens if the party fails? Or falls to their doom hundreds of feet to the rock below?

Is the DM really prepared to say "oh, you all rolled bad, well that's the end of tonight's adventure!"?

As I once remarked to a DM who watched his session implode because he thought everyone would bypass a terrain feature easily, "if you don't want a result to occur, don't let it be a possibility in the first place".

The opposite of this is true as well, when a DM has everyone roll for a trivial task, like climbing up a ladder. Not only should most everyone be able to make this check, what's the benefit of watching someone fail? Schadenfreude?

[Corran]

Something I do see a lot is die rolls for the sake of rolling dice.

Let me explain. To get into the deep goblin mines, the players must climb down the sides of a treacherous shaft cut into rock.

In most games I've played in, this would require some hard DC Athletics rolls, specialized climbing tools, or outright magic for the party to proceed.

But hold on a second- isn't the point to succeed at this task? What happens if the party fails? Or falls to their doom hundreds of feet to the rock below?

Is the DM really prepared to say "oh, you all rolled bad, well that's the end of tonight's adventure!"?

As I once remarked to a DM who watched his session implode because he thought everyone would bypass a terrain feature easily, "if you don't want a result to occur, don't let it be a possibility in the first place".

The opposite of this is true as well, when a DM has everyone roll for a trivial task, like climbing up a ladder. Not only should most everyone be able to make this check, what's the benefit of watching someone fail? Schadenfreude?
Obviously what I am going to say is not the only way to handle this, but what I generally try to do in situations like these goes along these lines. I'll have at least two approaches in mind (usually that's enough to let me approximate on the fly whatever it will be that the players will think to do). The harder one wont involve a check which if you fail something bad happens. But for the easier approach I may want to hide it behind an ability check. Think of it how in LotR the fellowship can go either through Moria or over the mountain. To make it easier I could set it up that not everyone has to roll for the ability check, or at least that they dont all have to roll under the same stakes. Maybe one person can do the task (eg climb the cliff) and help others (eg throwing ropes) either bypass it entirely or grant them some sort of advantage (either actual advantage on rolling or a safe fail if they dont make it; eg they dont fall to their death, instead they are held by the rope or whatever). But if they fail that could very well lead to either character death or severe injury (to the extent that it may not allow characters who fail to help as much or at all with the upcoming encounters - so choosing the skill check does not necessarily lock down the other path, but failing in the skill check may have the party weakened up to being down one or more pc's). While the alternative approach involves encounters (combat, traps or whathaveyou) that the party may be eager to bypass. It's a choice, and as a DM I want to make it as difficult as possible, cause when I am playing I enjoy these kind of hard choices and I instinctively think that others do as well). Of course, I'll lay down the stakes beforehand, so that the players will know what failing at the skill check does, and I'll also make sure to present such choices when the players have a good idea about what to expect if they instead choose to "go through the front door" instead of ''climbing the cliff''. Ability checks can and sometimes should be as deadly as combat can be, especially if you can use them as an alternative to combat (which is kind of why they exist in the first place).

[LudicSavant]

If the PHB or DMG explicitly said such a thing, it'd obviate the need for quite a few threads, including this one. Rogues and bards get to be good at their choice of skills. Rangers being good in the wilderness doesn't ruin the exploration/travel game. Great Weapon Masters and Sharpshooters are supposed to dish out lots of damage. It's okay to bypass encounters with pass without trace. That kind of thing.

Ahh, who am I kidding, lots of people would still consider it wrong even if the rules said it. :smalltongue:

Yeah... and that's if they even deigned to read it. An awful lot of people skip the DMG, and they really shouldn't in this edition, even if they're not a DM (because for whatever reason, this edition puts a lot of rules for player abilities in the DMG, such as that Arcana both detects and disarms magic traps, or how Persuasion actually works, or the fact that 5e does have its own version of a 'take 20' mechanic in it, or the way that AoE shapes actually work on a grid, or... goes on for about an hour) :smalltongue:

[tenshiakodo]

Obviously what I am going to say is not the only way to handle this, but what I generally try to do in situations like these goes along these lines. I'll have at least two approaches in mind (usually that's enough to let me approximate on the fly whatever it will be that the players will think to do). The harder one wont involve a check which if you fail something bad happens. But for the easier approach I may want to hide it behind an ability check. Think of it how in LotR the fellowship can go either through Moria or over the mountain. To make it easier I could set it up that not everyone has to roll for the ability check, or at least that they dont all have to roll under the same stakes. Maybe one person can do the task (eg climb the cliff) and help others (eg throwing ropes) either bypass it entirely or grant them some sort of advantage (either actual advantage on rolling or a safe fail if they dont make it; eg they dont fall to their death, instead they are held by the rope or whatever). But if they fail that could very well lead to either character death or severe injury (to the extent that it may not allow characters who fail to help as much or at all with the upcoming encounters - so choosing the skill check does not necessarily lock down the other path, but failing in the skill check may have the party weakened up to being down one or more pc's). While the alternative approach involves encounters (combat, traps or whathaveyou) that the party may be eager to bypass. It's a choice, and as a DM I want to make it as difficult as possible, cause when I am playing I enjoy these kind of hard choices and I instinctively think that others do as well). Of course, I'll lay down the stakes beforehand, so that the players will know what failing at the skill check does, and I'll also make sure to present such choices when the players have a good idea about what to expect if they instead choose to "go through the front door" instead of ''climbing the cliff''. Ability checks can and sometimes should be as deadly as combat can be, especially if you can use them as an alternative to combat (which is kind of why they exist in the first place).

I get what you're saying, but I just don't see myself ever being ok ending a session because the party all died attempting to get past an obstacle. I've died to stuff like this (only one time, thankfully) and I was left going "huh. well. that was anticlimactic"). Like, ok, sometimes the super deadly trap kills the party three steps away from victory.

But putting an obstacle like that right in the beginning of the adventure? That's some Tomb of Horrors level stuff right there.

[Tanarii]

But putting an obstacle like that right in the beginning of the adventure? That's some Tomb of Horrors level stuff right there.
Several lauded WotC 3e adventures include this: linear adventures with potential major terrain blockers.

Sunless Citadel has 2 in one adventure. Although the 1st one (the entrance) is more likely to become a blocker if they let any enemies survive and get around them to cut off their escape route.

This is why well designed adventuring sites and adventures have multiple branches with cross connections to create loops.

[tenshiakodo]

Oh right, Sunless Citadel, the rats. I even ran that adventure and I forgot about being randomly attacked by rats when descending into the ravine.

[MadBear]

So to point out a couple things.

1. The thread is more about how having a class that specializes in skills means that martials have one fewer thing they can be good at.

2. I'm not arguing that a rogue shouldn't have a high neigh impossible skill check.

The problem arises in that martials need a high strength and high constitution. How many skills fill that role (literally 1). Which means that they get one skill tops that they'll compete for being best at (assuming a grappler rogue isn't in the party).

Rogues are a dex class first. How many skills fit there? (3 and all are good, in fact one let's them compete to stop the one good skill of a strength character). Because they are a SAD class they can pick a second skill attribute at to also ensure they're good/best at even more skills.

This is less of a dm problem, and more of it a philosophy of design problem. Because now a martials niche is too be the best at fighting. But that's something that the game works too make everyone balanced at, and in that regard they're only best at single target dps and not aoe at all.

So wizards are going to using spells to be good at other pillars of the game and also effective in combat. Rogues crush most other skills and are effective in combat. Fighters.... The they're good but not necessarily best at fighting... And only if it's single target dps....

I'd love to see abilities for fighters that add to their niche in the future. Because right now it's pretty shallow.

[Jervis]

So to point out a couple things.

1. The thread is more about how having a class that specializes in skills means that martials have one fewer thing they can be good at.

2. I'm not arguing that a rogue shouldn't have a high neigh impossible skill check.

The problem arises in that martials need a high strength and high constitution. How many skills fill that role (literally 1). Which means that they get one skill tops that they'll compete for being best at (assuming a grappler rogue isn't in the party).

Rogues are a dex class first. How many skills fit there? (3 and all are good, in fact one let's them compete to stop the one good skill of a strength character). Because they are a SAD class they can pick a second skill attribute at to also ensure they're good/best at even more skills.

This is less of a dm problem, and more of it a philosophy of design problem. Because now a martials niche is too be the best at fighting. But that's something that the game works too make everyone balanced at, and in that regard they're only best at single target dps and not aoe at all.

So wizards are going to using spells to be good at other pillars of the game and also effective in combat. Rogues crush most other skills and are effective in combat. Fighters.... The they're good but not necessarily best at fighting... And only if it's single target dps....

I'd love to see abilities for fighters that add to their niche in the future. Because right now it's pretty shallow.

Bit of a unpopular opinion but, fighters, barbarians, and rogues should be rolled into the same class with some of their gimmicks rolled into subclass features. Really I was always of the opinion that barbarian should just be totem warrior and a fighter subclass but that’s a tangent. Rogues messed up skill checks in ADnD because they made things everyone could feasibly be able to do into concrete rules that they also happened to suck at. In 3.5 they had trapfinding which is the only existing feature i’m aware of that not only doesn’t help you at all but makes everyone else worse by making something everyone should be able to do a class feature. 5e mostly fixed it by doing the smart thing and making them good at something but honestly Barb, Fighter, and Rogue have a problem of not having enough concepts behind them to make a lot of subclasses and they multiclass between each other all the time anyway. So why not just make one class to be the designated normal guy (which is why I will refer to this class as Guy). Guy would need to either lean into sneak attack rules and make extra attack much less common or ditch sneak attack and be the main sharp stick swinging specialist. Higher skill checks and ideally some way to boost them also somewhat offsets caster supremacy at some levels by giving you some fun things to do. Great now I have to add Guy to my list of homebrew to make

[animorte]

So wizards are going to using spells to be good at other pillars of the game and also effective in combat. Rogues crush most other skills and are effective in combat. Fighters.... The they're good but not necessarily best at fighting... And only if it's single target dps....

I'd love to see abilities for fighters that add to their niche in the future. Because right now it's pretty shallow.
This is where I've considered the balance of the game. It would certainly make sense to me if martials were the best at single target damage, casters were better at AoE damage, and then the other more (arguably) supportive style classes should be the ones with better combat utility spells. As far as skills go, eh idk.


Great now I have to add Guy to my list of homebrew to make
Here I did a thing not too long ago as an idea that you reminded me of:


Fighter/Warrior (2 subclasses) both masters of melee combat, both durable
- Full force, in your face, no-holds-barred, throw down, bring it on. I'm the tank, front-liner, harder to kill. Zones, pulls aggro, and hits hard. Kind of Barbarian/Paladin.
- All about tactics, dodging, and redirecting as opposed to taking the hits directly. Difficult to escape from. Think Battlemaster meets Monk with CC and mobility.
Caster/Mage (2 subclasses) both able to provide some utility and damage on or off the battlefield
- Will kite enemies and blast all things into oblivion with AoE or single target. Damage focused Sorcerer/Warlock.
- Supports the entire party by any means necessary. Buffs, heals, debuffs, battlefield control. Obviously thinking Cleric/Bard.
Expert/Rogue (2 subclasses) both proficient in many skills, particularly getting places
- Specializes in infiltration, typical thief, legitimate assassin, confusion at its finest. Imagine our basic Rogue with some Bardic charisma.
- Easily befriends beasts, the best tracker, prefers ranged combat, minor supportive options. Can't see anything but Ranger/Druid+Rogue

Each base class we all know and love(?), but separated by subclasses enough that nobody really outshines anybody else and everyone is very good at what they do best.

[Pex]

So to point out a couple things.

1. The thread is more about how having a class that specializes in skills means that martials have one fewer thing they can be good at.

2. I'm not arguing that a rogue shouldn't have a high neigh impossible skill check.

The problem arises in that martials need a high strength and high constitution. How many skills fill that role (literally 1). Which means that they get one skill tops that they'll compete for being best at (assuming a grappler rogue isn't in the party).

Rogues are a dex class first. How many skills fit there? (3 and all are good, in fact one let's them compete to stop the one good skill of a strength character). Because they are a SAD class they can pick a second skill attribute at to also ensure they're good/best at even more skills.

This is less of a dm problem, and more of it a philosophy of design problem. Because now a martials niche is too be the best at fighting. But that's something that the game works too make everyone balanced at, and in that regard they're only best at single target dps and not aoe at all.

So wizards are going to using spells to be good at other pillars of the game and also effective in combat. Rogues crush most other skills and are effective in combat. Fighters.... The they're good but not necessarily best at fighting... And only if it's single target dps....

I'd love to see abilities for fighters that add to their niche in the future. Because right now it's pretty shallow.

It's not a requirement to be the best. They can still choose proficiency in other skills. However, the absolute most important thing is the DM should stop setting DCs so high. Not everything is DC 15 or 20. DC 10 is perfectly fine to represent a difficulty. The DC doesn't even need to be a multiple of 5. Have DC 12. Have DC 8. The DM might call for opposed rolls. The person/creature/monster can very well have only +0 or +1 to that roll. Sometimes there shouldn't be a roll, the PC can just do it because he wants to. So yes, here that issue is relevant to help DMs stop making everything DC 15 or 20. Those DMs need to see the numbers physically printed next to words printed on the page about specific examples to understand how it's supposed to work. It's not enough to leave it up to DM judgment because DM judgment is making everything DC 15 or 20 which is why non-rogues are feeling inadequate in skill use.