Ranger-rogue

[Skrum]

I was thinking earlier today about what classes could plausibly be a subclass of another, it occured to me that ranger and rogue would be an awesome "gestalt."

My thought was to take away ranger's spells, but give them sneak attack progression, cunning action at 2nd, steady aim at 3rd, and uncanny dodge at 5th. And the more I think about it the more I love it.

Rangers getting spells has always rubbed me the wrong way. To me, they're a very grounded, gritty survivalist, living off the land by their wits and toughness. Vancian spells are just not that at all. If you squint really hard their spells can be reflavored as like feats of martial prowess and nature knowledge, but it doesn't really work all that well.

But if a ranger could strike weak spots with their hunter's experience, effectively skirmish and hide, and keep themselves safe with preternatural reflexes....I mean that's really freaking cool.

[Kane0]

Well someone asked me to help them with a spell-less ranger (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?595643-By-request-Workshopping-another-Ranger) a while back, it did end up pretty Roguelike (minus the sneak attack).

[animorte]

Yeah, you could easily drop a lot of the mediocre Ranger class features and just swap in a couple from Rogue. I still like the spell availability personally.

[RogueJK]

There was a similar hybrid class in Pathfinder, known as the Slayer, which was a spell-less Ranger/Rogue hybrid. More of a tracker/bounty hunter than the Ranger's hunter/wilderness guide.

[Skrum]

What do y'all think of the balance on this? Damage out of the box would be pretty good, but overall seems like it would match nicely with paladin, rune knight, etc. (power-wise)

[Kane0]

Would they still be getting extra attack? I would want to scale back the SA progression and cunning action, uncanny dodge and steady aim I don't think is super necessary.

[Skrum]

Would they still be getting extra attack? I would want to scale back the SA progression and cunning action, uncanny dodge and steady aim I don't think is super necessary.

Yes to extra attack for sure (keeping it that is)

I could see slowing the SA progression, I guess (though I don't find it all that good RAW). Maybe make it 1d6/3 levels. I could also see getting rid of Steady Aim.

But cunning action and uncanny dodge are good abilities that really make the skirmishing, medium or light armor character work. I think they are very necessary. They are losing their spellcasting for these features, after all. No hunter's mark, no goodberry, no zephyr strike, no pass without trace. Those are good spells.

[Talionis]

Balancing is hard without multiple tables beta testing.

I have always seen most of the Ranger spell list as “low” to no magic as many of the spells affect damage.

It’s never been a bad or hard multi class. They both are Dexterity based so you don’t really need to homebrew.

[Kane0]

I feel like Hunter already does half of what you're looking for, but if you specifically want to remove spellcasting then trade Favored Enemy/Foe and Spellcasting for Sneak Attack progressing at levels 1, 5, 9, 13 and 17 (because you get fighting style, extra attack, and better Hit Die/proficiencies and this conveniently matches levels you would get higher level spells) and Cunning Action at level 2 with some sort of improvement at 14 because this would double up with Vanish and Favored Enemy/Foe improvements. Level 6 you might be able to throw in a ribbon too, which could just be standard Favored Enemy.

Edit: Oh and don't forget Primal Awareness if you're ditching casting, will have to swap something in there too.

[Skrum]

Balancing is hard without multiple tables beta testing.

I have always seen most of the Ranger spell list as “low” to no magic as many of the spells affect damage.

It’s never been a bad or hard multi class. They both are Dexterity based so you don’t really need to homebrew.

Rogues are horrible multiclassers. Their one and only damage dealing ability stops increasing if you don't keep leveling rogue. Rogue is a 1 level dip, 2 level dip, or pure rogue.

[AdAstra]

Rogues are horrible multiclassers. Their one and only damage dealing ability stops increasing if you don't keep leveling rogue. Rogue is a 1 level dip, 2 level dip, or pure rogue.

That's, not remotely true. Rogues are wonderful (okay, revising this, they're just a really good option for tons of characters) for multiclassing specifically because there are so many viable points to get into or out of the class.

While it can be a bit rough starting out rogue and switching to an Extra Attack class, since you need to wait till level 5 in that class for the biggest benefit, that benefit (extra damage and an extra chance to get sneak attack) is well, well worth it, and there's almost always still some worthwhile stuff to take advantage of in the meantime, like fighting styles, Monk bonus action attacks, that sorta thing. And multiclassing into rogue works fine, too, whether you want a dip or to commit for a good few levels, because that Sneak Attack damage works well for basically anyone that makes attacks with ranged or finesse weapons, not to mention all the other rogue tools. If you feel like your Dex-based martial isn't going to be getting a lot out of the next level or two, Rogue's almost always a strong pick to start leveling instead. There's few levels that you desperately need and similarly few that aren't giving you anything significant.

Nearly every class's tools stop getting stronger when you stop putting levels into them. The few exceptions are things like Cantrips and Paladin Smites (and the latter requires you to multiclass into another spellcaster).

[Skrum]

.

Nearly every class's tools stop getting stronger when you stop putting levels into them. The few exceptions are things like Cantrips and Paladin Smites (and the latter requires you to multiclass into another spellcaster).

My point is SA is built around continually getting better, and 2d6 extra damage at level 8 just, uh, doesn't really have the same ring.

Rogues are good to dip in to, but I feel like that's exactly what I said - have your main class, dip rogue for cunning action, or maybe even a subclass. But if I've already got 5 levels in something else, switching to rogue puts my SA 3d6 lower than it would've been. That's a lot. Fighter 5 rogue 2 has a 1d6 SA *once per round* (with massive limits on weapons). I could've gone ranger and gotten the same number of expertise skills, an extra fighting style, and Hunter's Mark which adds 1d6 *per attack* to any weapon. Or warlock 2 - hex, invocations, a patron power....like yah I'm comparing rogue to the best dip in the game, but that's exactly what the competition is.

[Yakk]

Suppose you start with Fighter 5.

Then you want to add some Rogue. Going Rogue 3 for, say, Assassinate is tempting.

At that point, do you go Rogue 5 (for +1d6 damage and defensive reaction), or Gloom 3 (for +1 attack on your surprise round, which can be doubled with action surge?)

Ok, now you are Fighter 5/Rogue 3/Gloom 3 (L 11 total).

You can advance Rogue or Ranger or Fighter for an ASI. Fighter gets +1 healing surge, and Rogue gets a smaller HD.

For 2 levels, everyone gets an ASI.
Ranger 5 is a dead level. Wait, maybe not; MC rules for spellcasting only kick in if you have 2 spellcasting classes? So Ranger 5 gives you new spells, not Ranger 4.
Rogue 5 is +1d6 SA and defensive roll.
Fighter 7 is a subclass ability.

Rogue 6/7 is good for expertise, evasion and +1d6 SA.
Fighter 8/9 is ASI+Indomidable+2 second wind HP.
Ranger 6/7 is Tasha's stuff, a spell casting level, and a subclass feature (wisdom saving throws, a half-feat).

I could see going pure Rogue after Fighter 5/Gloom 3 really. Maybe Fighter 5/Gloom 4/Rogue 11 (Rogue 12 is just an ASI, Gloom 4 is an ASI, more HP and a spellcasting level). You get reliable talent as a capstone.

Of course, this is probably best done as

Gloom 5/Fighter 4/Rogue 11

This can also be done leaving Rogue, but a bit harder. If you get BM 3 you can start using sharpshooter efficiently as a Rogue. Gloom 3 ups your stealth abilities hugely. Both give you a double attack on the ambush round.

Assassin 3+X/Gloom 5 gives you a 3 attack ambush round, then go Fighter 2 for 6 attack, then BM 3 to leverage Sharp Shooter (precision attack works great with SS, as it makes the -5 far less of a problem).

There is the dead level problems however.

[Keravath]

What do y'all think of the balance on this? Damage out of the box would be pretty good, but overall seems like it would match nicely with paladin, rune knight, etc. (power-wise)

I think it would be a bit over the top.

Sneak attack, cunning action (bonus action, hide, disengage, dash), evasion - added to the base ranger except without spellcasting.

Damage wise - ranger spells didn't help much except for hunter's mark - and you didn't mention whether the ranger would keep their favored foe ability and other abilities like gloomstalker extra attack in the first round, hunter's extra damage die every turn etc

So this is a base ranger WITH sneak attack damage added on top - essentially giving the ranger effectively the same damage as a rogue and the ranger combined. At level 5 the ranger picks up extra attack giving them another chance to land sneak attack. Between bonus action hide and steady aim, at least one of those attacks is likely to be with advantage every turn. The ranger can also pick up the archery fighting style - making them more likely to land that sneak attack every turn as well.

If you want something balanced - I think you'd either need to lean toward the Scout Rogue idea which essentially a spell less ranger already in almost everything but name - or give the ranger some rogue features but not include sneak attack - Or if you do go that way, at least consider halving the progression rate (2d6 at level 5, 3d6 at level 9 ...) and perhaps remove some of the ranger extra damage features which sneak attack would replace.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I was thinking earlier today about what classes could plausibly be a subclass of another, it occured to me that ranger and rogue would be an awesome "gestalt."

My thought was to take away ranger's spells, but give them sneak attack progression, cunning action at 2nd, steady aim at 3rd, and uncanny dodge at 5th. And the more I think about it the more I love it.

Rangers getting spells has always rubbed me the wrong way. To me, they're a very grounded, gritty survivalist, living off the land by their wits and toughness. Vancian spells are just not that at all. If you squint really hard their spells can be reflavored as like feats of martial prowess and nature knowledge, but it doesn't really work all that well.

But if a ranger could strike weak spots with their hunter's experience, effectively skirmish and hide, and keep themselves safe with preternatural reflexes....I mean that's really freaking cool.

I think in this instance, you would want to differentiate from the Rogue in some ways. I think there is room in the game design for this kind of psuedo class. Taking away spellcasting is a pretty big hit to the Ranger as they have several really good options at their disposal. BUT giving all of the Rogue features really steps into the Rogue space. Why Rogue when you can "Slayer" so to speak. Your instincts are correct as the two classes really fit together very well. If we are in a vacuum and we aren't worried about stepping in the Rogue's design space then I would say it's pretty good to combine many of their features.

I would offer some sort of balance between the two here, while avoiding sneak attack and cunning action as those are the two CORE rogue features.

Some sort of marking ability that benefits from multiple attacks like hunters mark but with more features.
The marking of creatures is where defensive abilities come into play. Being able to halve damage on the first hit by said creature, or allow rerolls against it gives defensive options without going into the evasion/uncanny dodge space.
The Tasha's enhanced mobility on-top of Natural Explorer would feel right, especially adding the ability to retrain natural explorer.
Enhanced senses - some sort of way to get blindsight/blind sense
Later levels marking multiple creatures
A mount or animal companion



I think these all add the diversity needed to the class that overcome the spellcasting gap without going directly into the Rogue's space.

[kazaryu]

My point is SA is built around continually getting better, and 2d6 extra damage at level 8 just, uh, doesn't really have the same ring.

Rogues are good to dip in to, but I feel like that's exactly what I said - have your main class, dip rogue for cunning action, or maybe even a subclass. But if I've already got 5 levels in something else, switching to rogue puts my SA 3d6 lower than it would've been. That's a lot. Fighter 5 rogue 2 has a 1d6 SA *once per round* (with massive limits on weapons). I could've gone ranger and gotten the same number of expertise skills, an extra fighting style, and Hunter's Mark which adds 1d6 *per attack* to any weapon. Or warlock 2 - hex, invocations, a patron power....like yah I'm comparing rogue to the best dip in the game, but that's exactly what the competition is.

rogues get 2 expertise at level 1, not just the 1 that rangers (might) get if your DM uses the optional rule sin tasha's. and going that second level of rogue also gets you cunning action, not just SA and expertise. so even at that level its not as cut-and dried as you pretend. with that said..yeah, i mean you can look at basically any multiclass and if you choose the right breakpoint it will look weak. oh man, why would an 18th level wizard take a level in fighter...it only gets them a fighting style and second wind. sorcadin is a terrible multciass because if you go 5sorc/1paladin all you get is...idk, a 5 point lay on hands?

point is a fighter 5 rogue x picks up massively starting exactly right after you decided to break it off. next level they get an extra SA die and on top of a subclass feature. you claim that 2d6 SA damage doesn't hit the same...but its the same damage benefit you get from PAM. the next level they get an ASI, then uncanny dodge and a 3rd SA die (now its almost the equivalent of a full glaive attack, but with better accuracy). next level is a bit of a dud, but 2 more expertises ain't bad (if you're building for combat you now have expertise in perception, athletics, and investigation + 1 more. but those are (i think) the most common skills in combat). next level is another SA die and evasion. etc. it goes on. its not a bad multiclass. it just depends on how you want to build. yeah, they could have gone warlock and gotten a bit more Sword and sorcery. they could have gone gloomstalker for a good nova build. they could have gone barbarian for some extra tankiness and reckless attack. but Rogue does, objectively, offer its own unique and powerful benefits.

[Skrum]

rogues get 2 expertise at level 1, not just the 1 that rangers (might) get if your DM uses the optional rule sin tasha's. and going that second level of rogue also gets you cunning action, not just SA and expertise. so even at that level its not as cut-and dried as you pretend. with that said..yeah, i mean you can look at basically any multiclass and if you choose the right breakpoint it will look weak. oh man, why would an 18th level wizard take a level in fighter...it only gets them a fighting style and second wind. sorcadin is a terrible multciass because if you go 5sorc/1paladin all you get is...idk, a 5 point lay on hands?

I wasn't intentionally trying to cheese it, I was looking at 2 level dip options. Cunning Action is like 75% of the reason to dip rogue, IMO, since SA will at most be a few d6, and expertise skills are nice but generally not build-defining. Rogue 3 looks nice because subclasses....but again, that's most classes.




point is a fighter 5 rogue x picks up massively starting exactly right after you decided to break it off. next level they get an extra SA die and on top of a subclass feature. you claim that 2d6 SA damage doesn't hit the same...but its the same damage benefit you get from PAM. the next level they get an ASI, then uncanny dodge and a 3rd SA die (now its almost the equivalent of a full glaive attack, but with better accuracy). next level is a bit of a dud, but 2 more expertises ain't bad (if you're building for combat you now have expertise in perception, athletics, and investigation + 1 more. but those are (i think) the most common skills in combat). next level is another SA die and evasion. etc. it goes on. its not a bad multiclass. it just depends on how you want to build. yeah, they could have gone warlock and gotten a bit more Sword and sorcery. they could have gone gloomstalker for a good nova build. they could have gone barbarian for some extra tankiness and reckless attack. but Rogue does, objectively, offer its own unique and powerful benefits.

My opinion on rogues being poor dip classes is based on two primary factors
1) SA doesn't do great damage even on a rogue. Ergo, not progressing SA relegates it to, well not a ribbon ability, but absolutely a secondary feature. No one in the world is dipping rogue 3 because they *really want* 2d6 of SA dice.
2) SA works with shockingly few weapons. Most classes do not use SA-compatible weapons. This is not only frustrating, but limits the potential use of SA. IMO, to accurately assess how much good SA will do, one needs to consider what it's not letting you use (PAM, GWM, most melee weapons).

These two factors are greatly exacerbated by rogues desperately needing Extra Attack, which they rather inexplicably don't get. If you're starting at T3, sure, fighter 5 rogue 7 or something....idk, would be solid. But in the 1-8 range, where most people play? I just don't see it. I struggle to put together a build where rogue couldn't be rather trivially replaced by something else.

[x3n0n]

These two factors are greatly exacerbated by rogues desperately needing Extra Attack, which they rather inexplicably don't get. If you're starting at T3, sure, fighter 5 rogue 7 or something....idk, would be solid. But in the 1-8 range, where most people play? I just don't see it. I struggle to put together a build where rogue couldn't be rather trivially replaced by something else.

Martial damage looks way more internally balanced if you look at PHB-only without feats, especially the usual suspects: XBE/SS/PAM/GWM.

In that world, Sneak Attack damage is competitive (especially in long days where other damage options are too expensive), although not overwhelming.

In a world with lots of easy per-attack damage riders, S.A. doesn't really keep up (in the absence of easy off-turn S.A. opportunities).

Edit: that is, as the game has developed, expectations for martial damage have advanced significantly from the featless PHB baseline, and Sneak Attack basically hasn't advanced at all (unless you count Steady Aim to make it easier to trigger).

[kazaryu]

My opinion on rogues being poor dip classes is based on two primary factors
1) SA doesn't do great damage even on a rogue. Ergo, not progressing SA relegates it to, well not a ribbon ability, but absolutely a secondary feature. No one in the world is dipping rogue 3 because they *really want* 2d6 of SA dice.
an extra 7 damage per round isn't a secondary feature. as i pointed out its as much damage as PaM gives you. and no, obviously if someone is investing 3 levels in any class, its not for a specific feature. rogeus give ALOT. expertise is amazing on str based martials. obviously not build defining. cunning action gives a ton of mobility options. and then SA gives some solid extra damage on top. its a fair tradeoff for 3 levels.


2) SA works with shockingly few weapons. Most classes do not use SA-compatible weapons. This is not only frustrating, but limits the potential use of SA. IMO, to accurately assess how much good SA will do, one needs to consider what it's not letting you use (PAM, GWM, most melee weapons).all classes that make weapon attacks use weapons that proc SA. sure..the rogue dip is going to be much less useful is your character is great weapon focused...thats like saying 'wizard is a bad dip because what if you're playing a barbarian'. obviously not every class is going to make a good multiclass for every build. that doesn't make it a bad dip. my entire point is that different multiclass options bring different benefits. sure, 2 levels of warlock can get you an alternative ranged attack thats decent and hex. thats better for overall damage dealing...but it isn't going to get you the mobility and skill based utility you get from rogue. and neither are going to give you the tankiness you can get from barbarian. etc. its about what you're looking for in the build.


These two factors are greatly exacerbated by rogues desperately needing Extra Attack, which they rather inexplicably don't get. If you're starting at T3, sure, fighter 5 rogue 7 or something....idk, would be solid. But in the 1-8 range, where most people play? I just don't see it. I struggle to put together a build where rogue couldn't be rather trivially replaced by something else. really..how are you replacing the cunning action trivially? or even the expertise' for that matter? ya know not everyone uses tasha's. to be honest it sounds more like you're trying to force rogue to fit a predetermined mold, rather than trying to create a build based around what rogues are good at.

[Skrum]

an extra 7 damage per round isn't a secondary feature. as i pointed out its as much damage as PaM gives you. and no, obviously if someone is investing 3 levels in any class, its not for a specific feature. rogeus give ALOT. expertise is amazing on str based martials. obviously not build defining. cunning action gives a ton of mobility options. and then SA gives some solid extra damage on top. its a fair tradeoff for 3 levels.

Agree to disagree.



all classes that make weapon attacks use weapons that proc SA.

As in classes with martial proficiency are proficient with weapons that could be used with SA? SA is dexterity weapons only (finesse or ranged). That means most weapons other martial classes would use are out. Greatsword, great axe, maul, halberd, short spear, hand axes, javelins, unarmed strikes (unless you're a monk), none can be used with SA. That's painful.



what rogues are good at.

What are rogues good at? Cause all I really see is cunning action (which is legitimately and admittedly good). Expertise? Rangers, bards. Damage? There's lots of options. Even cunning action loses some luster when one can be a goblin or orc.

At the end of the day, if you like rogues, I'm happy for you. I find them quite lackluster though, and in need of some help. I think x3n0n has it exactly right - rogues are fine in a PHB-only game. But if the majority of current material is available, they really didn't get the updates they needed to keep up with other options.

[AdAstra]

Sneak Attack works for literally any ranged weapon. The only "categories" that don't have any ranged or finesse weapons to work with are great weapons and two-handed reach weapons. And while those are really good weapons, those other options, like sword and board or Longbow/Hand Crossbow are there and work well.

Sneak Attack often looks like less damage than say, an extra attack, but not only is it way easier to get more sneak attack damage than it is to get extra attacks, the raw damage numbers aren't the only factor. Because Sneak Attack procs on a hit that meets the conditions, it effectively becomes more "accurate" when you make more than one attack, because you only need to hit once to trigger all your SA damage. The "accuracy" of Sneak attack is extremely high when making multiple attacks. Sneak Attack and Extra Attack by themselves are cumulative, but the two together are somewhat multiplicative. More attacks means more successful Sneak Attacks.

Compare say, a Sharpshooter Crossbow Expert Fighter 11 vs a Sharpshooter Fighter 6 Rogue 5, classic high damage ranged builds. Let's say that an average enemy will be hit about 50% of the time when using the -5/+10. The Fighter 11 gets an extra hand crossbow attack (4) over the Rogue (3), which will usually deal 1d6+15 (18.5 avg.), which certainly looks like more than the 3d6 (10.5 avg.) extra that a Rogue gets. However, in terms of actual average DPR, it's worth about half that because that attack will frequently miss. On the other hand, Sneak Attack will only "miss" 1/8 of the time, because it can proc on any of the 3 attacks the Fighter/Rogue makes. And while it's a small contribution, Sneak Attack also benefits way more from crits than most attacks. So that 18.5 damage attack ends up more like 9.25 DPR (+0.175 from crits), and that 10.5 damage Sneak Attack ends up more like 9.188 (+~0.9188 from crits, because while it's only a 5% chance of a crit per attack, it's a 10% chance that your first hit is a crit since missed attacks won't proc SA in the first place, and said crit will do 3d6 extra damage worth of sneak attack, not counting the crit damage of the attack itself). So in this scenario, Sneak Attack does more damage on average and is also usually more consistent. Not to mention the fact that the pure Fighter would need to go all the way to 20 to get a 4th attack, while the Fighter/Rogue can either start working on those 5 extra levels of Fighter, or keep going in Rogue and get more Sneak Attack every other level, or both.

This is leaving out a lot of stuff like Action Surge (benefits Extra Attack), subclass features, reaction attacks (harder to get with Ranged Attacks, but extremely rewarding for Rogues), but the principle holds. Sneak Attack is basically always worth much more than it looks like when compared to attacks or per-hit effects, and is extremely compatible with multiclassing.

[kazaryu]

As in classes with martial proficiency are proficient with weapons that could be used with SA? SA is dexterity weapons only (finesse or ranged). That means most weapons other martial classes would use are out. Greatsword, great axe, maul, halberd, short spear, hand axes, javelins, unarmed strikes (unless you're a monk), none can be used with SA. That's painful. SA only works with weapons that *can* use dex. not weapons that only use Dex. rapier is a d8 weapon, meaning its on par for damage with literally any other one handed weapon you can use. the only type of martial character that can't use SA is a two-handed warrior.




What are rogues good at? Cause all I really see is cunning action (which is legitimately and admittedly good). Expertise? Rangers, bards. Damage? There's lots of options. Even cunning action loses some luster when one can be a goblin or orc. rangers get 1 expertise (and thats if the DM is using optional rules from Tasha's, bards have to wait till level 3. rogues get 4 expertises in the level range that you're concerned with, 2 premier defensive abilities. and thats on top of significant abilties you can get from subclass options. yeah, they're lackluster in damage, because they're the gods of whatever ability checks they decide they wanna spec into. just because a class doesn't output damage on par with classes that are specifically specialized for damage, doesn't make them a bad class. there are other aspects to the game besides damage.

and if you're specifically talking about a lvl 2 dip...well, we've already covered that. cunning action, expertise, and SA are well worth it if you're looking for mobility.


At the end of the day, if you like rogues, I'm happy for you. I find them quite lackluster though, and in need of some help. I think x3n0n has it exactly right - rogues are fine in a PHB-only game. But if the majority of current material is available, they really didn't get the updates they needed to keep up with other options. its not about what i like, its about people trying to force classes into boxes they weren't designed to fit. As the game stands, rogues *should not* do better damage. if they did better damage, then as a class they would obfuscate any need to play any of the non-magic martials. because a rogue can do just as good of damage, while also providing out of combat utility that you can't get from other classes.

Now, i don't personally think thats a bad thing. im comfortable with the idea of some classes being better at out of combat stuff. the ability check system still allows everyone to contribute. But if you think rogues are too weak, then you need to revamp basically all of the martial classes to keep them relevant.

[Skrum]

Now, i don't personally think thats a bad thing. im comfortable with the idea of some classes being better at out of combat stuff. the ability check system still allows everyone to contribute. But if you think rogues are too weak, then you need to revamp basically all of the martial classes to keep them relevant.

I mean we could go around in circles on this point a million times. Rogues are weak, no rogues are fine, no rogues do this thing, no rogues are actually bad at that thing...lol we've kinda said it all.

In my experience, rogues just don't quite have the oomph they need *even at their core tasks.* Being good at skills is like...well it's fine. Sometimes it's nice, but generally it's a distinct second fiddle. The finale of a campaign or adventure isn't going to be a skill check. So rogues are good at skills, a secondary thing, but they aren't even clearly the best.

And in combat...well the game doesn't quite support what I think they were going for with rogues. Moving in and out of combat is only so useful when anyone can move and attack. So unless your speed is WAY better than theirs, bad guys are just going to move up and attack. And yes, uncanny dodge is great, but I don't think it makes up for low AC.

These are my complaints about rogue. If you don't find that true, well, that's fine. I will definitely admit that even though I think monk and rogue are weak in relative terms, 5e did do a decent job of making sure there's no class that's weak in absolute terms. Even rogues and monks can have their moment in the sun.

[kazaryu]

I mean we could go around in circles on this point a million times. Rogues are weak, no rogues are fine, no rogues do this thing, no rogues are actually bad at that thing...lol we've kinda said it all.

In my experience, rogues just don't quite have the oomph they need *even at their core tasks.* Being good at skills is like...well it's fine. Sometimes it's nice, but generally it's a distinct second fiddle. The finale of a campaign or adventure isn't going to be a skill check. So rogues are good at skills, a secondary thing, but they aren't even clearly the best. nature of the business lol, agree to disagree.


And in combat...well the game doesn't quite support what I think they were going for with rogues. Moving in and out of combat is only so useful when anyone can move and attack. So unless your speed is WAY better than theirs, bad guys are just going to move up and attack. And yes, uncanny dodge is great, but I don't think it makes up for low AC.
.
but...rogues don't have a low AC. like...its slightly lower than a nonshield using fighter... 17 vs 18 (or 19 if your 2H is going defense fighting style instead of great weapon fighting).

[Skrum]

nature of the business lol, agree to disagree.

but...rogues don't have a low AC. like...its slightly lower than a nonshield using fighter... 17 vs 18 (or 19 if your 2H is going defense fighting style instead of great weapon fighting).

That IS low. IMO. 18 flat-out does not cut for characters that are exposed to moderate melee attack frequency. My fighter/warlock wears plate and his winning strategy is nova them down before they beat the stuffing out of him. To be "safe" in melee requires AC over 20 *and* some defensive tricks (shield, cloud rune, silvery barbs, etc).

I will give rogues credit for rarely getting flanked, though. If the table is playing with flanking, that's a real danger, and rogues really are able to avoid/escape flanking situations better than most.

[kazaryu]

That IS low. IMO. 18 flat-out does not cut for characters that are exposed to moderate melee attack frequency. My fighter/warlock wears plate and his winning strategy is nova them down before they beat the stuffing out of him. To be "safe" in melee requires AC over 20 *and* some defensive tricks (shield, cloud rune, silvery barbs, etc).

I will give rogues credit for rarely getting flanked, though. If the table is playing with flanking, that's a real danger, and rogues really are able to avoid/escape flanking situations better than most.

kill the enemy before they kill you is like...literally the basis of combat. obviously you're MORE safe with a higher AC. but 18 is not a low AC. i mean, even for a level 20 cahracter (+11 to hit) thats still a30% chance to miss. and most monsters don't have that high of an AC. combine that with being able to straight up halve the damage from one of the times you get hit...

rogues have a reputation for being hard to kill, and its well earned. tbh it sounds like your playstyle (while valid) is way outside the norms that were considered when the numbers were decided for 5e. nothing wrong with that, but trying to make generalized conclusions based on your experience is going to tend to no end well.

[animorte]

I’ve played a Rogue/Ranger as Ghostwise Halfling. I was able to communicate telepathically with my teammates about my location. Was really fun and effective.

I’ve also built a high level Charisma-based specialist 1v1 duelist Swashbuckler Rogue with some help from Vengeance Paladin and Hexblade. (I’ve also done a modified version including Swords Bard.)