Rogues main damage mechanic is a bad representation of their fantasy. [Archive]

JellyPooga

2023-08-01, 12:15 PM

...seems like such a weird thing to be the class keystone.

It's not the Class Keystone. Look at the suite of Rogue features with a new lens, where Sneak Attack is granted at 1st level and doesn't feature further on the Class Table, but just describes how it increases by level in the one entry (i.e. "Sneak Attack: At 1st level you do more damage, etc. etc. You deal 1d6 extra damage at 1st level, increasing by 1d6 every other level thereafter" or words to that effect, rather than every other line on the table reading "Sneak Attack Xd6"). The layout of how it's presented makes the reader imagine it's a more prominent feature than it actually is. The true strength of the Rogue is not in how much damage they do, but rather what they can do besides damage. Can they deal damage? Yes, they keep up with the expected numbers as far as HP/damage goes, but Sneak Attack really is just a "keep up" mechanic, not a primary feature.

Consider how easy it is to generate that extra damage; all that's needed is for a friend to be in the combat. That's not a condition, that's a status quo.
Now consider every other feature of the Rogue Class; how many of them are extra damage or a modification of the extra damage dealt? How many of them key off of Sneak Attack in the same way that, for example, Wizard features key off of their spellcasting or the Clerics features key off of Channel Divinity, or the Barbarian's key off of Rage, or the Monks key off of Ki, etc?

A keystone Class Feature should be the one that the Class interacts with the most as far as development/progression goes; for the Barbarian, for example, they get better at attacking for damage whilst taking it; more uses of Rage, subclass features that only function while in Rage, extra damage when they critically hit (which they do more often than other classes due to Reckless Attack), etc. Other than the Assassin subclass, which Rogue features (subclass or otherwise) key off of Sneak Attack? What features are modified by it? Even interact with it at all? There's one aspect of Cunning Action (hide as a bonus action) that facilitates Sneak Attack as a byproduct of being able to hide in combat more easily. Apart from that, the list is pretty thin.

Now consider Cunning Action as a whole; Dash, Disengage or Hide as a bonus action. How many subclasses grant additional uses for that Cunning Action (or other uses for a) bonus action; the Thief's Fast Hands, the Masterminds Master of Tactics, the Inquisitives Eye for Detail and more. The keystone feature of the Rogue is not Sneak Attack, it's bonus actions and skills. They get more bang for their buck as far as their personal action economy goes; both the core chassis and your choice of subclass will dictate how you make more from your turn than merely attacking for damage. Many people slate the Rogue as being a weak grappler, for example, because they don't have Extra Attack and therefore can't take advantage of grappling their foe, yet they also ignore the fact that they can do the one useful thing of grappling a foe, which is the ability to put that foe exactly where you need them to be by using Cunning Action to Dash and drag that foe where others, who are better suited to dealing damage, can take advantage of that target being grappled. Or they can Disengage to avoid the meatshield standing infront of the actually important enemy in the combat (e.g. a spellcaster). Likewise, skills are a massive aspect of what a Rogue does and their features expand upon the higher numbers they enjoy from Expertise into more uses than other get. The Swashbuckler's Panache makes Persuasion a combat ability as well as granting additional non-combat function, for example.

Sneak Attack is a nice damage buff relatively comparable to the extra damage you might enjoy from a feature like Fighting Style, but it's far from the Rogues main feature or keystone ability. If further proof is needed, let's look at the legacy aspect of it. Did the 2e Thief get bonus damage? Sure, they got backstab which could do a bit of extra damage once per combat. Is anyone under the impression that Backstab was the Thief's keystone ability? No, it's their ability to move not just stealthily (anyone can do that), but without sound or being seen at all. Or their ability to climb a sheer surface that none other can climb without magic. It's the skills that make the Rogue and their ability to take advantage of opportunity, not how much damage they can deal.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-01, 12:20 PM

The problem with the OP's premise is that they're hanging the entire suite of what's expected of the Rogue as a whole on a single Class Feature.

Expertise, Cunning Action, Fast Hands, Uncanny Dodge, Slippery Mind, Evasion, Use Magic Device, Panache...just some of the features available to Rogues and their subclasses that fulfil the expectations of the Rogue Class, with Sneak Attack being the least of them (except maybe Thieves Cant). Sneak Attack is not the Rogues "main feature" in the same way that Spellcasting is to a Wizard or Cleric, Extra Attack is to the Fighter, or Rage the Barbarian. Sneak Attack is the devs way of saying "you can (barely) keep up in combat damage, but it's not your main schtick, dawg". Yes, Sneak Attack takes up a whole lot of print space on the Class Table, but it's also not worth a whole lot unless that's what you want it to be; e.g. by building for Sentinel/other off-turn Sneak Attack, or the Assassin subclass.

The Rogue is an opportunist and should be seen as such:
- They're tougher than they look on paper with Uncanny Dodge and Evasion, allowing them to weather the damage they need to do the thing that needs doing.
- They're faster than most so can be where they need to be to do the thing that needs doing.
- They're just enough of a threat that they can't be ignored.
- They have the skills to be able to do the thing and do it with small chance of failure, or next-to-zero chance once they have Reliable Talent.

So yeah, the Rogue is fast, has a bag'o'tricks, can use poison/disabling attacks, etc. It's just not Sneak Attack that's facilitating it.
Adventurer. (And all of those points are good).

Agreed. Sneak Attack is but one small piece of the Rogue.

And there are fictional depictions of a "rogue" all over the place. Including things that fit way better in many other D&D classes or just don't fit in D&D at all. The Grey Mouser is but one facet of the gem. So too is a burglar/burrahobbit Baggins. So too is the Thief of Baghdad. So too is Ali Baba. Or Aladdin, or even Robin Hood
Some of the issues here are more mindset than systemic.
1) D&D combat (especially HP/damage) is an abstraction. Sneak Attack represents both the single powerful hit on a vital spot, and the death by a thousand cuts; it's all in how you narrate it. {snip}
3) A class is a specific lens on the game - it's not meant to capture every concept. If you want a rogue that relies more on, say, tricky magic or overall martial prowess than hitting vital spots, you can - you just need to multiclass. You can still be considered a "rogue."
Well played.

stoutstien

2023-08-01, 12:30 PM

It's not the Class Keystone. Look at the suite of Rogue features with a new lens, where Sneak Attack is granted at 1st level and doesn't feature further on the Class Table, but just describes how it increases by level in the one entry (i.e. "Sneak Attack: At 1st level you do more damage, etc. etc. You deal 1d6 extra damage at 1st level, increasing by 1d6 every other level thereafter" or words to that effect, rather than every other line on the table reading "Sneak Attack Xd6"). The layout of how it's presented makes the reader imagine it's a more prominent feature than it actually is. The true strength of the Rogue is not in how much damage they do, but rather what they can do besides damage. Can they deal damage? Yes, they keep up with the expected numbers as far as HP/damage goes, but Sneak Attack really is just a "keep up" mechanic, not a primary feature.

Consider how easy it is to generate that extra damage; all that's needed is for a friend to be in the combat. That's not a condition, that's a status quo.
Now consider every other feature of the Rogue Class; how many of them are extra damage or a modification of the extra damage dealt? How many of them key off of Sneak Attack in the same way that, for example, Wizard features key off of their spellcasting or the Clerics features key off of Channel Divinity, or the Barbarian's key off of Rage, or the Monks key off of Ki, etc?

A keystone Class Feature should be the one that the Class interacts with the most as far as development/progression goes; for the Barbarian, for example, they get better at attacking for damage whilst taking it; more uses of Rage, subclass features that only function while in Rage, extra damage when they critically hit (which they do more often than other classes due to Reckless Attack), etc. Other than the Assassin subclass, which Rogue features (subclass or otherwise) key off of Sneak Attack? What features are modified by it? Even interact with it at all? There's one aspect of Cunning Action (hide as a bonus action) that facilitates Sneak Attack as a byproduct of being able to hide in combat more easily. Apart from that, the list is pretty thin.

Now consider Cunning Action as a whole; Dash, Disengage or Hide as a bonus action. How many subclasses grant additional uses for that Cunning Action (or other uses for a) bonus action; the Thief's Fast Hands, the Masterminds Master of Tactics, the Inquisitives Eye for Detail and more. The keystone feature of the Rogue is not Sneak Attack, it's bonus actions and skills. They get more bang for their buck as far as their personal action economy goes; both the core chassis and your choice of subclass will dictate how you make more from your turn than merely attacking for damage. Many people slate the Rogue as being a weak grappler, for example, because they don't have Extra Attack and therefore can't take advantage of grappling their foe, yet they also ignore the fact that they can do the one useful thing of grappling a foe, which is the ability to put that foe exactly where you need them to be by using Cunning Action to Dash and drag that foe where others, who are better suited to dealing damage, can take advantage of that target being grappled. Or they can Disengage to avoid the meatshield standing infront of the actually important enemy in the combat (e.g. a spellcaster). Likewise, skills are a massive aspect of what a Rogue does and their features expand upon the higher numbers they enjoy from Expertise into more uses than other get. The Swashbuckler's Panache makes Persuasion a combat ability as well as granting additional non-combat function, for example.

Sneak Attack is a nice damage buff relatively comparable to the extra damage you might enjoy from a feature like Fighting Style, but it's far from the Rogues main feature or keystone ability. If further proof is needed, let's look at the legacy aspect of it. Did the 2e Thief get bonus damage? Sure, they got backstab which could do a bit of extra damage once per combat. Is anyone under the impression that Backstab was the Thief's keystone ability? No, it's their ability to move not just stealthily (anyone can do that), but without sound or being seen at all. Or their ability to climb a sheer surface that none other can climb without magic. It's the skills that make the Rogue and their ability to take advantage of opportunity, not how much damage they can deal.

Sneak attack is easy to trigger but also easy to prevent so it becomes a major focus point during combat. (And it does so in a very boing fashion). It becomes a game of using the other features to try to trigger it as often as possible so while it not the strongest or most impactful feature they get you always seem to come back around to it. Hence the keystone reference.

Damage is also obligingly in the 5e paradigm and shouldn't be a key feature period unless it's well above the curve. Everybody brings it in spades. No reason to shoehorn rogues into a single avenue.

ZRN

2023-08-01, 12:33 PM

So first off, the new Cunning Strikes from the playtest does a good job (by the relatively low bar of 5e martial classes) of offering some status-effect type stuff in lieu of some of your SA damage.

I don't think rogues are supposed to be the "flurry of fast attacks" guys in 5e. In fact, I'd argue that "fast attacker guy" isn't really a part of the rogue archetype, at least before the MMORPG days (when rogues got locked into the "DPS" role and therefore had to have some reason their daggers did more damage than a fighter's giant sword). I don't think there's a single edition of D&D where rogues consistently got more attacks than fighters; quite the opposite for most editions (where rogues' worse BAB/THAC0 progression and/or other game mechanics meant they got fewer attacks.) Rangers, maybe. Monks, certainly. But rogues? No, they've always been the "one effective hit" guys.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-08-01, 12:39 PM

Sneak attack is easy to trigger but also easy to prevent so it becomes a major focus point during combat. (And it does so in a very boing fashion). It becomes a game of using the other features to try to trigger it as often as possible so while it not the strongest or most impactful feature they get you always seem to come back around to it. Hence the keystone reference.

Damage is also obligingly in the 5e paradigm and shouldn't be a key feature period unless it's well above the curve. Everybody brings it in spades. No reason to shoehorn rogues into a single avenue.

Honestly, I don't see that it's really easy for monsters to prevent. Doing so reliably means both
- preventing any of the rogue's allies from being within 5 feet (this doesn't stop the swashbuckler)
- imposing outright disadvantage on the rogue.

One or the other isn't good enough, because rogues have a multitude of ways of gaining advantage (cancelling out disadvantage OR compensating for not having an ally nearby). So you need to do both. And monsters don't have many tools for that that are reliable. The only reliable disadvantage one is restraining--fear is not very common, neither is the poison effect. And restraining is something any rogue is going to be super good at getting out of simply by getting proficiency/expertise in Acrobatics.

The game assumes that Sneak Attack procs ~100% of the rounds that the rogue is actually engaged. It's balanced around the assumption that SA happens regularly.

LudicSavant

2023-08-01, 12:40 PM

I think the OP is right on the money. Rogues badly need more options and versatility, and inflicting status effects and the like is a time honored classic for the archetype.

WotC is at least making baby steps towards remedying this in 1D&D with Cunning Strikes.

Honestly, I don't see that it's really easy for monsters to prevent. Doing so reliably means both
- preventing any of the rogue's allies from being within 5 feet (this doesn't stop the swashbuckler)
- imposing outright disadvantage on the rogue.

I do both of those things on a regular basis.

Like Stoutstein says, Sneak Attack is pretty easy to disrupt for tactical players/DMs. And since SA only brings up your damage to "alright I guess" instead of actual big numbers, losing it even occasionally can really put the Rogue behind the curve if they're not one of the subclasses that can easily switch gears (like Arcane Trickster).

Add to that that they have worse non-combat features than a Bard and they're in a pretty disappointing spot atm.

stoutstien

2023-08-01, 12:49 PM

Honestly, I don't see that it's really easy for monsters to prevent. Doing so reliably means both
- preventing any of the rogue's allies from being within 5 feet (this doesn't stop the swashbuckler)
- imposing outright disadvantage on the rogue.

One or the other isn't good enough, because rogues have a multitude of ways of gaining advantage (cancelling out disadvantage OR compensating for not having an ally nearby). So you need to do both. And monsters don't have many tools for that that are reliable. The only reliable disadvantage one is restraining--fear is not very common, neither is the poison effect. And restraining is something any rogue is going to be super good at getting out of simply by getting proficiency/expertise in Acrobatics.

The game assumes that Sneak Attack procs ~100% of the rounds that the rogue is actually engaged. It's balanced around the assumption that SA happens regularly.

The first condition isnt a really a huge issue alone. It's takes a highly mobile class that wants to prioritize targets and says "you better just attack the same enemy as your friend or risk doing npc porter energy levels of damage." That kinda sucks but you can overcome it with the second bullet but The second one is my actual point. They can generate advantage but it warps all those cool features to that sole goal. How often do rogues spend their cunning action/ bonus action *not* attempting to generate advantage if they don't already have it? It's taking a massively flexible and fun ability and giving it a boring repetitive task.

I also have a complaint that rogues are really not good at sneaking up and eliminating targets b/c advantage and disadvantage are so common that most times they wash out and then they *need* a helper to overcome that in the somewhat iconic role of sentry elimination.

By moving that damage to a shareable rider basically it allows them to do rogue stuff without feeling like they are giving up their damage potential.

animorte

2023-08-01, 01:06 PM

1DnD is adding Cunning Strikes to give you buttons for the tricksy stuff, but to be clear, you always had the ability to improvise actions/conditions as a rogue.
That's exactly the point I was going to make.

Also, I'm not quite sure where this idea of them not being useful out of combat comes from...

LudicSavant

2023-08-01, 01:07 PM

Also, I'm not quite sure where this idea of them not being useful out of combat comes from...

Other classes (especially Bard) have better versions of Rogue non-combat abilities.

It's not that Rogues aren't useful, it's that they're not as useful.

stoutstien

2023-08-01, 01:13 PM

Also, I'm not quite sure where this idea of them not being useful out of combat comes from...

it's mostly DC bloat and features being spaced poorly but still Rogues are the second best at gambling when it comes to ability checks but that does not hold much light compared to the 100% success rate of applied spell casting.

The frequency even half casters can toss out perfect solutions to common challenges makes them nothing more than resource taxes to maintain pacing.

animorte

2023-08-01, 01:25 PM

Other classes (especially Bard) have better versions of Rogue non-combat abilities.

It's not that Rogues aren't useful, it's that they're not as useful.
Honestly, I should hope that any full caster should put them to shame (save Sorcerers, and even then I've never had a problem). And I don't think anybody quite measures up to the Bard, to be fair.

Theodoxus

2023-08-01, 01:39 PM

LudicSavant

2023-08-01, 01:49 PM

I've never ever seen a Bard handle anything OOC at all efficiently outside of social interactions, and that was solely due to emphasizing Cha - something a Sorcerer or Warlock can do just as well, and a Paladin tends to do better just because of the whole boy scout reputation they typically have.

The fact that you've never seen a Bard take advantage of their abilities doesn't change the fact that they have said abilities, and that they're mathematically better than the Rogue versions.

They've got way more going on than just investing in the same Cha as a Sorcerer or Paladin.

stoutstien

2023-08-01, 01:54 PM

You guys must play very different games than I do.

The Rogue is great at the whole 'one shot, one kill' philosophy (bundled with Gloomstalker or not). I've never ever seen a Bard handle anything OOC at all efficiently outside of social interactions, and that was solely due to emphasizing Cha - something a Sorcerer or Warlock can do just as well, and a Paladin tends to do better just because of the whole boy scout reputation they typically have.

I still don't understand the weird love for Cunning Actions, when the best status effect is 'dead', and the Rogue is trading their ability to make 'dead' faster for lesser status effects. But I've ranted on that in the past.

Personally, I think people bring too much baggage with class names. "I want my Rogue to be fast; move fast, strike fast, get out of Dodge! fast." "Maybe play a Monk?" "No, I want the Rogue to be like that, not a Monk". /sigh

Because once a game becomes "dead is the best status effect" you are starting a pattern that will continually shift one-way and actively prevent a ton of potential content. Every feature is now directly compared to HP reduction even if the went miles out of their way to prevent it (at first anyways but they started to slip back into old habits halfway through)

As for the Bard and ability checks, they can combine expertise, rider dice, and spells. They have a higher floor and ceiling enough times a day that the rogue cannot realistically catch up AND they can share it which is way more powerful as you can focus resources more effectively.

Having a high realive ability score is the smallest part of the puzzle for ability checks ironically.

Just to Browse

2023-08-01, 02:03 PM

Looking at your examples--

One Thousand Cuts: I actually think the issue here is that too much stuff gets described as "rogue fantasy". Master thieves, actual poison-using assassins, people with bags of random items, anime ninjas, and most anyone with high mobility have all been called "rogue" at one point or another despite having very little to do with one another. The original Greyhawk thief and the original World of Warcraft rogue are leagues apart from one another conceptually, united only by the fact that both concepts refer to unarmored people with knives.

If you want to make a character that kills foes with one thousand cuts, you actually should play a two-weapon fighter or ranger with high Dexterity. Maybe your class name won't line up with a TVTropes article, but I don't think we should blame the rogue's fundamental mechanism just because it fails to support 4 significantly different character fantasies.

Tricksy / Tool Use: D&D 5e doesn't actually support this archetype at all, in my experience, which is why I also don't think it's right to point the finger at sneak attack here. Just recently, WotC realized that controlling melee fighters are a popular concept, and not only are they trying to support the concept in 1D&D, they're doing so by integrating control effects into sneak attack. So the issue here has less to do with sneak attack as a mechanic, and more to do with WotC failing to support the fantasy over the last 10-ish years.

LibraryOgre

2023-08-01, 02:17 PM

You know what would work pretty well as a replacement for Sneak Attack?

Battlemaster maneuvers.

Obviously, it steps on the Battlemaster a bit, but start a rogue with one maneuver and one superiority die, as a d6. Every time they would get another sneak attack die, they instead learn a maneuver and get another superiority d6.

Now, at 20th level, you have:

Battlemaster: 6 superiority dice (d12s), 9 manuevers
Rogue: 10 superiority dice (d6s), 10 manuevers.

Maybe pare it back to 1d6, then every even die for rogues, so they would be 6 superiority dice (d6s), and 6 maneuvers.

Not nearly as good as a battlemaster, but it opens up making the rogue a tricky combatant, rather than just a stabby one.

Corran

2023-08-01, 02:23 PM

The true strength of the Rogue is not in how much damage they do, but rather what they can do besides damage.
Let me arbitrarily (to help illustrate a point) pick 2 characters. One is a fighter with either GWM/PAM or SS/CBE who attacks every single turn. The second is a bard who casts one (let's assume effective) concentration spell on turn 1 and then sings (no benefits). Where does the rogue stand compared to these characters in terms how the rogue is contributing?

Without overcomplicating, I'll just assume that the rogue in question wont match the fighter in damage output under the average scenario. I also dont see how everything else that the rogue can do other than damage, can surpass big spells (and I am not talking at high tiers when one could just say "oh, but that's when the game breaks"), again, under your average scenario.

I agree that the rogue has lots of other stuff with which they can match (and other times exceed) the damage difference between them and other martial classes. And at the same time, I see their damage as something necessary to match (and other times exceed) spellcasters.

I've played a rogue in a few encounters where my SA was turned off (cause drow). It wasn't the end of the world as there were ways with which I was able to contribute. But it was a major blow and I felt it. It's not like the class is designed to work well in combat without brining any damage to the table at all (I can build on my own experience and think of exceptions, but that's what they'll be, exceptional scenarios).

Edit: Poison and fear are also a pain.

Consider how easy it is to generate that extra damage; all that's needed is for a friend to be in the combat. That's not a condition, that's a status quo.
Nitpick: Not for ranged attacks before steady aim (at least not always or not without compromising for a different target). Needing to rely on bonus action hiding when it didn't make sense was what had kept me away from the class (I had dipped and one time I used it for a melee strogue, but that was it) before steady aim saw print.

Now consider Cunning Action as a whole; Dash, Disengage or Hide as a bonus action. How many subclasses grant additional uses for that Cunning Action (or other uses for a) bonus action; the Thief's Fast Hands, the Masterminds Master of Tactics, the Inquisitives Eye for Detail and more.
I think the big deal is that it effectively allows the rogue to be slippery in combat. Thief's hands, etc have no association with cunning action other than the bonus action competition. You could remove the "as part of cunning action" and you end up with the same thing, though with no common naming umbrella and thus implied synergy. I agree with your point that cunning action is very very central to the rogue, but I dont understand why you chose to justify it the way you did.

The keystone feature of the Rogue is not Sneak Attack, it's bonus actions and skills.
Plus how well you can dish out and withstand damage. Depending on the nature of the game (eg how much combat there is and how difficult they are, how much does the DM allow you to accomplish with skills, etc) some will be more important than others.

They get more bang for their buck as far as their personal action economy goes; both the core chassis and your choice of subclass will dictate how you make more from your turn than merely attacking for damage.
Yep. Quoting this cause I think it's an important point.

Many people slate the Rogue as being a weak grappler, for example, because they don't have Extra Attack and therefore can't take advantage of grappling their foe, yet they also ignore the fact that they can do the one useful thing of grappling a foe, which is the ability to put that foe exactly where you need them to be by using Cunning Action to Dash...
Another good point.

Sneak Attack is a nice damage buff relatively comparable to the extra damage you might enjoy from a feature like Fighting Style
I'd say extra attack.

It's the skills that make the Rogue and their ability to take advantage of opportunity (which many times translates to dealing damage), not (just) how much damage they can deal.
Added with bold my take on it.

Theodoxus

2023-08-01, 02:43 PM

Nitpick: Not for ranged attacks before steady aim (at least not always or not without compromising for a different target). Needing to rely on bonus action hiding when it didn't make sense was what had kept me away from the class (I had dipped and one time I used it for a melee strogue, but that was it) before steady aim saw print.

Just curious why? Ranged sneak works just as well (arguably better) with an ally standing next to your target as a melee sneak attack. Steady Aim is nice (though really just reproduces Pack Tactics via a bonus action instead of a race choice - arguably one that no longer exists, depending on the setting), but isn't a requirement for ranged sneak...

da newt

2023-08-01, 02:52 PM

"but to be clear, you always had the ability to improvise actions/conditions as a rogue. Throwing sand in someone's face, kicking them in a sensitive area to incapacitate them briefly, tying their shoelaces together etc were all already possible in 5e."

Could you please elaborate on what you meant by the above? There aren't really any rules that I know of that support throwing sand in someone's face to impose a condition, or kicking in a certain place to do anything (baring monk stunning strike), or tying anyone's shoelaces together during combat that results in any condition etc ...

I'm a big fan of rogues. SA and CA are game-isms that allow you to expound upon simple 'I attack' or 'I cast spell' turns allowing for a little bit more cleverness - but I do want for just a little more ... I love a BM / rouge MC - it might not be optimal but I enjoy all the mundane buttons. It fits my fantasy dex warrior very nicely.

Corran

2023-08-01, 02:56 PM

Just curious why? Ranged sneak works just as well (arguably better) with an ally standing next to your target as a melee sneak attack. Steady Aim is nice (though really just reproduces Pack Tactics via a bonus action instead of a race choice - arguably one that no longer exists, depending on the setting), but isn't a requirement for ranged sneak...
Because without advantage I wouldn't be effective against enemies without any allies of me next to them. Which is part of the beauty of archery/ ranged attacking (ie usually more targeting freedom). Whether it's against a flying enemy your party's melee's have trouble getting to, a target 100' away from the party, etc.

I mean, I could do that, with cunning action hiding. And I dont suppose I've yet met a DM who wouldn't grant me some slack if I told them that this is how my rogue is supposed to keep up damage wise (though I would certainly understand if a DM was strict about hiding so that things can keep making sense). But I did not like the visual of it. "Hiding" behind tables or whatever just in a (silly) attempt to justify a hide check (which would translate to advantage, and thus sneak attack). Steady aim does away with this silliness (and it's a nice feature, cause it grants advantage at the cost of movement, which I find an interesting choice), so now you are hiding when it makes sense and you dont have to push it.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-01, 03:06 PM

I love a BM / rouge MC - it might not be optimal but I enjoy all the mundane buttons. It fits my fantasy dex warrior very nicely. Why not make a dex warrior whose tool proficiency is thieves tools from background?

LudicSavant

2023-08-01, 03:16 PM

Just curious why? Ranged sneak works just as well (arguably better) with an ally standing next to your target as a melee sneak attack.

Because it's not at all reliable (even things like "turn order not lining up right" can deny your sneak attack), and it gets less reliable the more tactical the table is (because monsters are far more likely to kite, control, inflict disadvantage, break line of sight, use cover, use good positioning, make proper use of prone, etc etc).

Also, needing to have an ally in melee range of every target you want to deal non-trivial damage to negates some of the advantages of being an evasive ranged character. Something like being able to Cunning Action dash away or hide doesn't deny an enemy a target if you've got an ally in melee.

And it also means the enemy has to fulfill fewer conditions to successfully control / mitigate the party's actions. For example, if you have a crazy axe rushdown man and a sniper, you might be able to avoid the axe man by flying, or the sniper by diving into that ravine, but you can't avoid both. But if the sniper is a Rogue who needs an ally within 5 feet, you only have to avoid the crazy axe rushdown man, because non-sneak damage is negligible.

Basically, the win conditions against you are easier.

Tanarii

2023-08-01, 03:16 PM

- Fast (death by a thousand cuts)
- Hitting vital organs or slipping a weapon through a vulnerable point
Outside of D&D, my impression is the first of these two defines Rogue. They're the many attacks with a light weapon class. Whereas Fighter/Barbarian types are the one big hit with a 2 handed weapon types.

D&D having it the other way around is a consequence of sacred cows more than anything else. Fighters got many attacks vs less than one HD, but they were the effective melee combatants anyway. Thieves were ineffective in melee unless they could Backstab, which was close to impossible in a general melee anyway, and generally required ambushing. Thieves were archers, not melee combatants.

Theodoxus

2023-08-01, 03:21 PM

The fact that you've never seen a Bard take advantage of their abilities doesn't change the fact that they have said abilities, and that they're mathematically better than the Rogue versions.

They've got way more going on than just investing in the same Cha as a Sorcerer or Paladin.

Maybe with a party of sever or eight people, or if you're playing a campaign of Castles and Cantinas...

Because once a game becomes "dead is the best status effect" you are starting a pattern that will continually shift one-way and actively prevent a ton of potential content. Every feature is now directly compared to HP reduction even if the went miles out of their way to prevent it (at first anyways but they started to slip back into old habits halfway through)

As for the Bard and ability checks, they can combine expertise, rider dice, and spells. They have a higher floor and ceiling enough times a day that the rogue cannot realistically catch up AND they can share it which is way more powerful as you can focus resources more effectively.

Having a high realive ability score is the smallest part of the puzzle for ability checks ironically.

And again, you're talking about a completely different style of game. If you're not playing Castles and Cantinas, the Bard isn't bringing enough oomph compared to a Rogue in all other categories to justify the rest of the party covering their butt. Certainly not in a prototypical 4 person party.

As for the 'dead' status. I can see where it wouldn't be as appealing in this whimsical C&C game you and Ludic are playing. Yeah, you probably want the 'Alive' status for the bigger bounty on a Dead or Alive poster. Or, you need the hermit to divulge his secrets and that's a lot easier alive than casting Speak with Dead. So sure, there's a place for burning SA dice to get better results. But 9/10 games, dead is still the best status most of the time.

You know what would work pretty well as a replacement for Sneak Attack?

Battlemaster maneuvers.

Obviously, it steps on the Battlemaster a bit, but start a rogue with one maneuver and one superiority die, as a d6. Every time they would get another sneak attack die, they instead learn a maneuver and get another superiority d6.

Now, at 20th level, you have:

Battlemaster: 6 superiority dice (d12s), 9 manuevers
Rogue: 10 superiority dice (d6s), 10 manuevers.

Maybe pare it back to 1d6, then every even die for rogues, so they would be 6 superiority dice (d6s), and 6 maneuvers.

Not nearly as good as a battlemaster, but it opens up making the rogue a tricky combatant, rather than just a stabby one.

This I could definitely get behind. It also jives quite well with my idea of granting Monks Flurry of Blows a number of attacks equal to their Proficiency Bonus (reducing the damage to a max of d6 as well). Thousand cuts (well, bruises, I guess) and all.

LudicSavant

2023-08-01, 03:23 PM

Maybe with a party of sever or eight people, or if you're playing a campaign of Castles and Cantinas...

It's true with any party size, and with almost any non-combat task. It's not just social stuff, it's pretty much everything.

Even a subclassless Bard is going to have just as much Expertise as a Rogue, Jack of All Trades, and Bardic Inspiration providing a bigger bonus than Expertise (which stacks with more things than Expertise does) to whoever in the party is best suited to a task. And that's before we even talk about their most important feature (their spellcasting and Magical Secrets).

And again, you're talking about a completely different style of game. If you're not playing Castles and Cantinas, the Bard isn't bringing enough oomph compared to a Rogue in all other categories to justify the rest of the party covering their butt.

What category, exactly, do you think a Rogue is bringing so much more oomph than a Bard in?

stoutstien

2023-08-01, 03:38 PM

Wait... whimsy is bad ...in DnD... the roleplaying game...about dragons and stuff....

If I wanted a well tuned combat simulator I'd play that but DnD definitely ain't that.

Someone playing a rogue should be about fulfillment beyond the race to zero just like every other class or what's the point?

animorte

2023-08-01, 04:07 PM

Someone playing a rogue should be about fulfillment beyond the race to zero just like every other class or what's the point?
Always a valid point that I appreciate.

Devils_Advocate

2023-08-01, 06:17 PM

... Wait. Is a modern D&D player arguing that directly doing damage is nearly always the most efficient way to bring enemy HP totals down to zero, and therefore buffs and debuffs are wastes of time? Oh my gosh, it's like encountering a unicorn!

I don't think that most players agree that a Rogue makes a much better murderhobo than a Bard, provided that both are built for the purpose. If anything, I think that the consensus is that full spellcasters are more powerful in combat as well as outside of it.

Sure, you're liable to encounter more Bards than Rogues that trade off combat effectiveness for social skills... because Bard is more geared towards that sort of character, and thus the more likely choice of class for such a character. That doesn't mean that the Bard class is a worse tool for creating an effective combatant. Like, even if it is, it doesn't follow from that data.

Skrum

2023-08-01, 07:50 PM

So, I'm coming from a place of thinking rogue is an underpowered class on multiple fronts - they don't do enough damage/have enough options to keep pace in a more combat focused game, AND their out of combat features are 95% trivially outclassed by spells.

With that in mind, here's what I think the actual complaint is: rogue is an underpowered class without enough options across the spectrum of the game. Lol shocking I think that, right?

2e's backstab made a lot of sense conceptually, but it was bothersome enough to use that it wasn't very good as a feature. So, like many other legacy features that have stuck around through different editions, it was made easier and easier to use. 5e's sneak attack is abstracted far enough out that it's hard to say exactly what it's supposed to be representing; it's just a damage boost that requires the player to jump through a few hoops to use. Not great stuff, TBH, on any level.

More than any other class, I think the rogue needs a rework (except maybe the warlock....but yeah, it's rogue). They NEED cooldown-type abilities. Need Them lol. DnD is a team game. Each character acts at a table, within a team, made up of other characters. And when the entire rest of the table has a multitude of tactical and strategic options based on resource use, and the rogue is just like "I do like 1-2 things but I can do them all day," like that's just not a functional character design within the context of a TTRPG. It would give them more of an identity, it would make it more clear what exactly they are *doing* and what the ability is supposed to represent, and would put them more in lockstep with every other class. Being the outlier in a team game is rarely a good thing, it just creates friction.

Schwann145

2023-08-01, 09:51 PM

Witty Username

2023-08-02, 01:03 AM

Amechra

2023-08-02, 01:08 AM

I also wonder if part of the problem is that combat scales too much.

You go from fighting stuff with ~30 HP at 1st level (which is something that you could feasibly handle in a round or two just from base cantrip/weapon+stat damage) to hundreds of HP by 20th (where you need a ton of damage boosts to chew through that much bulk in a timely manner). On top of that, everyone is supposed to meaningfully contribute to chewing through the Mighty Wall of HP, so it's not like you could just give Rogues a small thematic damage boost (like, say, letting them use a larger damage die for Finesse or Light weapons) and call it a day.

Makes me think that maybe 5e would be a better game if damage and HP totals hit a soft cap early on, with harder monsters being harder because you have to brave weirder and wilder places to get to them in the first place instead of giving them hundreds of health.

Arkhios

2023-08-02, 02:46 AM

Kind of an awkward transition of topic, but when I was designing my homebrew subclass Thug (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tFCegPw4Mrhu0f85iR4C6l-3ArEdM82G/view) (or Roguish Archetype: Thug, also found in my signature) one of the things I tried to address is the fact that in some fantasy portrayals rogues are the ones making a huge amount of stabs and slashes with their small blades rather than stabbing once for "instant death".

In short the subclass mechanic plays around with substituting sneak attack dice for alternative abilities and effects (called Dirty Tricks) either in place or in addition to dealing sneak attack damage. For example, Slice and Dice lets you substitute 3d6 to possibly deal 2d6 damage to a second target if the initial attack roll would hit it. One possible substitution could be just give the Thug an option to make two attacks instead of one, by substituting 3d6 from their sneak attack for one turn, or maybe even more attacks at respective levels. Such as 6d6 at 11th level for three attacks or even as much as 10d6 at 20th level for four attacks, but that might step a bit too much on the fighter's toes.

Edit: Admittedly, after some time, looking at the subclass now I can see there are obvious flaws in this mechanic and I should make some fixes to it, but obviously I can't remember my password for Homebrewery :smallbiggrin::smallredface:

JellyPooga

2023-08-02, 04:34 AM

Because it's not at all reliable (even things like "turn order not lining up right" can deny your sneak attack), and it gets less reliable the more tactical the table is (because monsters are far more likely to kite, control, inflict disadvantage, break line of sight, use cover, use good positioning, make proper use of prone, etc etc).

Also, needing to have an ally in melee range of every target you want to deal non-trivial damage to negates some of the advantages of being an evasive ranged character. Something like being able to Cunning Action dash away or hide doesn't deny an enemy a target if you've got an ally in melee.

And it also means the enemy has to fulfill fewer conditions to successfully control / mitigate the party's actions. For example, if you have a crazy axe rushdown man and a sniper, you might be able to avoid the axe man by flying, or the sniper by diving into that ravine, but you can't avoid both. But if the sniper is a Rogue who needs an ally within 5 feet, you only have to avoid the crazy axe rushdown man, because non-sneak damage is negligible.

Basically, the win conditions against you are easier.
Kiting, control, disadvantage, line of sight, positioning and prone conditions are all things that the Rogue, with their superior speed and manoeuvrability, are uniquely suited to averting, avoiding or mitigating. It's part of the Rogue package that whether they're operating at range or up close, unless they've built into it they're no less effective, not in the same way that a Paladin or Barbarian is always going to be significantly less effective at range compared to melee, or an archery based Ranger or Fighter has no business building outside their ranged speciality. It's the undersung strength and dichotomy of the Rogue; they're great with good equipment, but it doesn't matter what that equipment is; they're natural switch-hitters and they have the subsidiary features to back it up; mobility for range and toughness (uncanny dodge, evasion) for melee. In your example, if the sniper is indeed a Rogue, merely diving into a ravine isn't going to be as easy a solution to avoid them and they'll be just as effective piggy-backing the axe-man into melee, or they might forget either tactic in favour of grappling, shoving or otherwise imposing the self same difficulties you claimed were the foil of the ranged Rogue at the top of your post.

What category, exactly, do you think a Rogue is bringing so much more oomph than a Bard in?Not using resources. The point is that the Rogue doesn't need to be dealing damage to be effective; yes, Sneak Attack lets the Rogue keep up in the damage department, but it's not what they do best. If you're going out of your way to mitigate the damage a Rogue can do, and this follows on from my response to your previous post, you're devoting effort and resources towards mitigating a secondary focus. It's comparable to the argument against "top-up" combat healing with Cure Wounds instead of "yo-yo" healing with Healing Word; yeah, it's not a complete waste of resources, but it's probably not the best use of them. The Rogue isn't there to be the best damage dealer or combat control, or even the best anything of much, really; they're there to be the spanner in the works, the fly in the ointment. Just annoying enough to force you to work around them, but also tenacious enough to require significant diversion of resources whilst not using any of their own.

More than any other class, I think the rogue needs a rework (except maybe the warlock....but yeah, it's rogue). They NEED cooldown-type abilities. I very much disagree that the Rogue needs limited use resources. It's the primary draw for me that they don't and it's also their strength. Sure in an alpha-strike 5-min adventuring day, the Rogue appears weaker than other classes, but the game isn't designed around that paradigm. Over the course of an adventuring day, the Rogue is uniquely positioned to assist or extend the utility and effectiveness of others' resources. As I've mentioned in a previous post, if a Rogue picks a lock instead of the Wizard casting Knock, then that's just as good as the Rogue casting whatever spell the Wizard ends up casting instead of Knock. If the Rogue takes a hit and halves the damage with Uncanny Dodge, that's just as effective as the Fighter using Second Wind to heal that damage back. Being second best, but being able to do it without using resources is a particularly valuable ability in the extended adventuring day in order to allow the rest of the party to reserve their resources for the 5-minutes that count. It's not something that's immediately obvious; the aggregate effect isn't going to be noticeable in any one combat, much like a +1 to hit doesn't seem very interesting or noticeable, but over time the effect can be much more significant than other more fancy, but situational abilities.

Mastikator

2023-08-02, 05:49 AM

The real problem boils down to the fact that Rogue is not a combat-oriented class, but D&D is a combat-oriented game, so Sneak Attack is the "we gotta give them something to keep up" ability.

Is it a perfect fit? No. Does it get the job done? Arguably.
Because there's no room in D&D for someone who just sucks at combat. But that's the core of what the Rogue is - someone who is great at all sorts of things other than fighting. And all of those lightly armored, fast, knife-wielding assassin types that most people associate with "Rogue?" Yeah, those are Fighters and Rangers.

In AD&D the thief class granted backstab ability which dealt extra damage if the thief attacked from behind. Every version of D&D has had a rogue in some form and every rogue has had sneak attack in some form. It's not something given to let them keep up, it's a sacred cow of the highest order.

stoutstien

2023-08-02, 06:30 AM

Kiting, control, disadvantage, line of sight, positioning and prone conditions are all things that the Rogue, with their superior speed and manoeuvrability, are uniquely suited to averting, avoiding or mitigating. It's part of the Rogue package that whether they're operating at range or up close, unless they've built into it they're no less effective, not in the same way that a Paladin or Barbarian is always going to be significantly less effective at range compared to melee, or an archery based Ranger or Fighter has no business building outside their ranged speciality. It's the undersung strength and dichotomy of the Rogue; they're great with good equipment, but it doesn't matter what that equipment is; they're natural switch-hitters and they have the subsidiary features to back it up; mobility for range and toughness (uncanny dodge, evasion) for melee. In your example, if the sniper is indeed a Rogue, merely diving into a ravine isn't going to be as easy a solution to avoid them and they'll be just as effective piggy-backing the axe-man into melee, or they might forget either tactic in favour of grappling, shoving or otherwise imposing the self same difficulties you claimed were the foil of the ranged Rogue at the top of your post.

The issue is after a point all those things rogues can do just mean they break even at best. they are a lot tougher than they look on paper but they also lack ways to capitalize on it without super specific tactics that are very easy to counter.
Steady aim was designed to address this but it's more focused on the symptom rather than the actual ailment. At the end of the day the rogue's decision tree is less complicated than the barbarian.

da newt

2023-08-02, 07:13 AM

Quote Originally Posted by da newt View Post
I love a BM / rouge MC - it might not be optimal but I enjoy all the mundane buttons. It fits my fantasy dex warrior very nicely.

Why not make a dex warrior whose tool proficiency is thieves tools from background?

I prefer the addition of cunning actions, SA, expertise, uncanny dodge, evasion to the counterparts that a straight dex warrior would provide - it creates a more well rounded PC (especially outside of combat). Yeah a samurai or ranger or monk or XXX could also be a well rounded dex/sneak warrior too, but I'm partial to BM/swashbuckler or soul-knife.

LudicSavant

2023-08-02, 07:28 AM

Kiting, control, disadvantage, line of sight, positioning and prone conditions are all things that the Rogue, with their superior speed and manoeuvrability, are uniquely suited to averting, avoiding or mitigating.

Uniquely suited? Hardly.

There are plenty of characters who can match or exceed the maneuverability of a Rogue, and they don't nonbo themselves while doing it. And Bards are one of them!

A Rogue is often significantly easier to counterplay than a character of similar range or mobility, precisely because you don't need to counter those things to deny them sneak attacks. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25836414&postcount=33)

A Rogue that's double dashing away is a Rogue that's not using their bonus action to generate Advantage. A Rogue that has an ally in melee is one that's not achieving a full party kite. A Rogue that's using Steady Aim is one that's not moving at all (unless they're on a mount, in which case the mount is vulnerable, and unlike a Bard their mount isn't going to be from Find Greater Steed or something).

Meanwhile Glamour Bards are spamming full party reaction movement like it's going out of style.

Not using resources.

Attrition of resources doesn't stop just because you aren't burning limited-use features. It stops when an encounter or challenge is resolved.

This is why in practice (as test after test has shown), replacing a party member with a Champion tends to make the party last for fewer encounters before needing to rest, rather than more. The same principles that cause this to happen also apply to the Rogue.

The point is that the Rogue doesn't need to be dealing damage to be effective

Sure, but they're behind a Bard in skill use and (when Arcane Tricksters) magic, too.

So, while you may feel it's effective, the relevant question is whether it's as effective.

Corran

2023-08-02, 09:02 AM

Attrition of resources doesn't stop just because you aren't burning limited-use features. It stops when an encounter is resolved.

This is why in practice (as test after test has shown), replacing a party member with a Champion tends to make the party last for fewer encounters before needing to rest, rather than more. The same principles that cause this to happen also apply to the Rogue.
Yep. Having a button letting you spend resources when you press it (eg battlemaster) is better than turning that button into a passive that you distribute equally between X rounds of combat (eg champion), because not all threats and encounters tend to be of the same difficulty. In fact if I was going with a martial build on a high attrition scenario, the first picks that would come to mind would be an AT and an EK, precisely because these subclasses have buttons that can deal with "stress" when it comes up.

Unlike the champion though (who can build towards but not without overspending/ overstretching), even the non-button rogue will fair ok against attrition, because at the very least mobility and being a switch hitter are valuable in attrition scenarios (as can ability checks and stuff like evasion and uncanncy dodge, but I think the two first are the most valuable rogue attributes for that).

JellyPooga

2023-08-02, 09:04 AM

So, while you may feel it's effective, the relevant question is whether it's as effective.

I've already stated that Rogue is not the best at any given thing. The thing they're best at is being resourceless and that's no small thing. Are other characters potentially more manoeuvrable? Sure. But they spend resources to do it, whether it's a spell slot, Ki points or whatever. Are they the best tank? No, but they're still highly HP efficient with Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. Are they a superlative striker, able to deal massive damage? Not really, but they don't have to wait for the next encounter or day to be decent enough. And so on and so forth. Yes, others are better than the Rogue, but the Rogue saves those better characters resources by being good enough to do the "everyday" stuff. Does it make the Rogue shine in the big boss fight? No. Then again, like I compared before, the +1 sword the Fighter is wielding isn't having any big, show-off moments either, but it's undeniably a valuable asset.

I would be willing to bet that a Rogue would be a better stand in as a "resource free" alternative to the Champion. All things being equal, the Rogues HP is more efficient and they are vastly more versatile, able to handle many more types and styles of encounter, saving the rest of the party from having to use their resources except where they're required. I've said it once and I'll say it again, the Rogue is the parties best friend and the party is the Rogues best friend. They're not the "lone wolf" style characters so common to the perception of them. You make mention about how if the Rogue is doing one thing with their bonus action they're not doing another, but that's entirely irrelevant; the focus of the Rogue is in breadth of ability, not depth.

I also very much dislike Steady Aim. It's an additional feature designed to shore up a perceived weakness, when that weakness wasn't relevant to the Rogues role in the first place. It's a feature for players that want to play the Rogue like they'd play a Fighter or Ranger, which it's so evidently not. If you're not happy staying out of the spotlight, don't play a Rogue. Never make the mistake of thinking the Rogue is anything but a support character and should be judged as such, not by the metric of what they can do directly, but what they facilitate the party to achieve. The Bard is arguably better at support, true, but the Rogue is more versatile, durable and circumstantially valuable (e.g. in use of terrain) where the Bard gives bigger numbers and a broader range of "silver platter" options in the form of bardic inspiration, spell buffs and control, at the cost of utilising resources. Of course the Bard appears better because something that has limited resource should be better than something that doesn't. That's not any kind of revelation, but it also doesn't take away from the value of the Rogue outside of the white room of direct comparison between Classes.

MoiMagnus

2023-08-02, 09:31 AM

I think I understand what you're getting at, but I don't really see how they could implement more of a lightning-fast or status-based rogue without some potentially major balance problems.

Would it? Madbear is basically asking for the Rogue to be pushed neared to the Monk. The correspondence would be:

Lot of small attacks with a weak weapon like a dagger <-> Lot of small attacks unarmed
Poisons <-> Stunning strike
Weird manoeuvres giving status effect <-> Grappling

(But without the supernatural theme of the Monk)

Sure, it would be harder to balance, but in the same way that the monk is hard to balance, so not exceptionally hard.

Corran

2023-08-02, 09:57 AM

Are other characters potentially more maneuverable? Sure. But they spend resources to do it, whether it's a spell slot, Ki points or whatever. Are they the best tank? No, but they're still highly HP efficient with Uncanny Dodge and Evasion. Are they a superlative striker, able to deal massive damage? Not really [more words]
This is a point that can stand on its own without tying it to resource expenditure (as far as resources your character spends during the game that is; you could tie it with resources as far as character building goes I guess). 5e is out for many years now, we've got options. If you know what the encounter is, chances are that there will be at least one option better than a (singleclassed) rogue at the thing that will be most important to be good at during the encounter. Does the encounter feature oversized flying monkeys that drop delicious but deadly coconuts on the pc's so that you presumably need ranged firepower? I'd prefer a higher dpr ranged martial to the rogue. Is killing enemies in a hurry crucial? Then I might prefer a paladin. Is stealth important? Then I might prefer a shadow monk. Is blocking a tile important. Then I might prefer an (STR) EK. Etc etc. The rogue might be the 2nd best, or the 3rd best, or whatever in each individual scenario. The usefulness of the rogue is easier to spot when you dont fix the scenario, because the uncertainty is mitigated by being (tactically; oh, big words :smalltongue:) versatile. That said, I dont expect to see any rogues in most super optimized parties. Spellcasting takes the cake and versatility is further filled in by feats and multiclassing. But as martials go? They are strong, and IMO their strength is very much associated with this versatility.

Another thing that I have not seen anyone mention (though I could say it's hinted in many people's responses), is how enjoyable this versatility is during play. With most martials you tend to be good at just one thing, and all the thinking comes down to how you'll shape the fighting so that that one thing you can do ends up contributing the most. For example, with a ranged dpr it is important to get to a safe position with a good line of sight and perhaps some way to get advantage and you then think what target to pick and you start brining in the damage. With a melee dpr it's the same but you replace defensive with offensive positioning and you also keep an eye out for threats that you'd prefer avoiding. With a tank you think of which enemy you want to distract and then figure out how you'll do it (in the frequent absence of marking-like abilities). The rogue can dip in all of those (and more, but I just restricted myself to the basics of dealing and tanking damage), so there is an added choice of what you want to do this round/encounter. Meaning, you've got to keep a closer eye to how a situation shapes and adapt to what would allow you to contribute the most. I dont want to pretend this will usually be like the equivalent of a check mate in chess, but it's enjoyable to know that you've got in-combat options and to be on the lookout for which one you'll want to use. Not for everyone, and not to the same degree, but that's not necessary and if it was we would just have one class and not multiple of them.

LudicSavant

2023-08-02, 10:02 AM

I've already stated that Rogue is not the best at any given thing. The thing they're best at is being resourceless and that's no small thing.

They are not the best at resolving encounters and challenges with the least overall cost to the party, which is the model of resource efficiency that actually matters.

Again, attrition of resources doesn't stop just because you aren't burning limited-use features. It stops when a challenge is resolved.

This is why in practice (as test after test has shown), replacing a party member with a Champion tends to make the party last for fewer encounters before needing to rest, rather than more. The same principles that cause this to happen also apply to the Rogue.

Yep. Having a button letting you spend resources when you press it (eg battlemaster) is better than turning that button into a passive that you distribute equally between X rounds of combat (eg champion), because not all threats and encounters tend to be of the same difficulty. In fact if I was going with a martial build on a high attrition scenario, the first picks that would come to mind would be an AT and an EK, precisely because these subclasses have buttons that can deal with "stress" when it comes up.

Exactly!

JellyPooga

2023-08-02, 10:15 AM

The issue is after a point all those things rogues can do just mean they break even at best. they are a lot tougher than they look on paper but they also lack ways to capitalize on it without super specific tactics that are very easy to counter.
Steady aim was designed to address this but it's more focused on the symptom rather than the actual ailment. At the end of the day the rogue's decision tree is less complicated than the barbarian.

The point is that the Rogue doesn't have to capitalise on them because that's the parties job, not the Rogues alone. Does anyone criticise the Fighter for not having control options? Or the Bard for not having good damage? Well, yes, they do, but they are mistaken for it, IMO. It's easy to laud the Wizard for being able to do it all...but can they truly do everything if they're not supported through the day? Maybe at high level, but for the more common Tier 1-2 play, the Wizard has some glaring weaknesses if they're wanting to go solo. It's a team game and the Rogue exemplifies that aspect of the game. The Bard can provide more support than the Rogue, sure. The Paladin or Ranger can do more damage or provide better buffs, sure. The Barbarian is a better tank, without doubt. The Wizard is more versatile than the Rogue, true. Which of them can stand in on any or all of those roles and do it without compromising any other role they care to fill? Which of them can do it without use of their resources? Or without rest? When the circumstances aren't conducive to the optimal conditions required by those other Classes, such as protracted or extended encounters, who will still be there to cover the retreat? Who else is capable of staying back and controlling the encounter, using every opportunity available, to allow the others to set up more favourable conditions and still have the speed and manoeuvrability to get back to safety and take their position in the line? When there are no more buttons to press, who is still just as capable as they were at the start of the day?

At the end of the day, the Rogue is the fail-safe against anything the GM cares to throw at the party, able to turn the tables (literally, if need be) to utilise not only what's inherent to their own class and other features, but that which isn't written on their character sheet. That's where the Rogue shines and that's what the white room doesn't reveal because it's entirely dependent on the specific scenarios and circumstances presented to them.

Much of my argument falls down when the campaign is designed to showcase the fun toys and power-buttons that most Classes like to throw around when everything is shiny and bright. When the chips are down and the clouds are rolling in is, however and in my opinion and preference, when the Rogue comes into their own and when the more creative aspects of the game come to the fore. For me, playing the game of "press button X to solve situation Y" is less fun than being presented a challenge or puzzle that's solved by applying your "buttons" in creative or unusual ways. For example, using Fast Hands to tip a table and either block a line of attack/sight or create difficult terrain might be subject to A) GM discretion, B) the circumstance of having a table to tip in such a way that's going to achieve the desired result and C) not be quite as effective as achieving that same effect with a spell like Grease or Fog Cloud (to use some low-level examples)...but it's way more fun (for me) to utilise the opportunity when it was presented as well as allowing that spell slot to be used in a different encounter where that opportunity isn't present.

When the campaign is designed to present opportunities as much as it presents challenges, the Rogue is there to take advantage with it's versatility. When the campaign is designed to push the limits of what the PC's are capable of, the Rogue is there to pick up any slack and support what the others do best. When the campaign showcases a variety of encounter styles, the Rogue is ideally suited to contributing across the board; rather than taking a back seat to the one character specialised for it, they're there to step in when the specialist isn't available or play 2nd fiddle and assist when they are. In a game where theory-craft tells us specialisation is better than versatility, the Rogue is there to prove that theory wrong because in actual practice the white-room theory is often incorrect or worse, not nearly as fun as it's made out to be.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-02, 10:15 AM

I prefer the addition of cunning actions, SA, expertise, uncanny dodge, evasion to the counterparts that a straight dex warrior would provide - it creates a more well rounded PC (especially outside of combat). Yeah a samurai or ranger or monk or XXX could also be a well rounded dex/sneak warrior too, but I'm partial to BM/swashbuckler or soul-knife. Well answered. :smallsmile: And to self answer a bit, battle master cool moves cost resources, while a lot of rogue stuff is always on.

MadBear

2023-08-02, 10:16 AM

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-02, 10:23 AM

It's not that it shouldn't exist, it's that it limits what other archetypes that can be explored. No, it doesn't. SA being a thing does not prevent, for example, Acrane Trickster from being a very effective Rogue subclass. I find the lack of imagination and flexibility to be squarely in your corner here.
SA existing also doesn't prevent the rogue scout subclass from being an effective Spell-less Ranger variant. (This we discovered in play, and we are all somewhat surprised).

JellyPooga

2023-08-02, 10:32 AM

They are not the best at resolving encounters and challenges with the least overall cost to the party, which is the model of resource efficiency that actually matters.

Again, attrition of resources doesn't stop just because you aren't burning limited-use features. It stops when an encounter is resolved.

This is why in practice (as test after test has shown), replacing a party member with a Champion tends to make the party last for fewer encounters before needing to rest, rather than more. The same principles that cause this to happen also apply to the Rogue.

Making the same verbatim statement again doesn't prove anything further. I'd like to see the tests you reference regarding the Champion and a demonstration that the Rogue is no better. Of course attrition doesn't stop until the encounter is resolved. I'd go further to say that attrition and resource efficiency shouldn't be judged on an encounter by encounter basis, or even a day by day basis, because not all resources are restored between encounters, nor even between any given day. No, the Rogue might not be able to end an encounter earlier compared to another PC, but they might be able to save a resource for a later encounter, or even another day if the campaign is time critical or limits rests. If the choice is between "resolve encounter by spending resource X" or "resolve encounter by not spending X or spending resource Y, which is lesser than X" then the latter is the superior option. For example, The Bard could cast Dissonant Whispers to end the encounter before the monster gets a turn, or the Rogue could tank the damage and kill it on his turn instead using Sneak Attack. Which was more efficient? Spending a 2nd level slot ending the encounter sooner or a 1st level slot or a HD on healing the damage after the encounter's over? Knock or pick locks? Invisibility or stealth check? Which is more resource efficient? If the Bard then uses the slot it might have used on Invisibility later on to cast Dissonant Whispers, did you account for the Rogues earlier contribution into the efficiency of the later encounter?

That said, it is hard to quantify the value of the Rogue's contribution because very little of it isn't heavily reliant on the specific circumstances that any party might find themselves in and very little of it has a quantifiable outcome in the same way that many spells or class features do.

LudicSavant

2023-08-02, 10:48 AM

Making the same verbatim statement again doesn't prove anything further. I don't need to prove anything further, it was true the first time, and you haven't said anything to refute it.

Heck, you can participate in real play stress tests yourself, if you want. The Gauntlet server currently has nearly 1000 members (mostly drawn from various optimization communities like TTB, 3d6, various optimization youtubers, etc) and runs games regularly that are designed to stress test the limits of builds.

JellyPooga

2023-08-02, 10:57 AM

I don't need to prove anything further, it was true the first time, and you haven't said anything to refute it.I haven't refuted it because I haven't seen it proven and neither have you done so. Hence why I asked for you to do so.

Heck, you can participate in real play stress tests yourself, if you want. The Gauntlet server currently has nearly 1000 members (mostly drawn from various optimization communities like TTB, 3d6, various optimization youtubers, etc) and runs games regularly that are designed to stress test the limits of builds. Not being familiar with it in any way, nor having the time to participate, I can only take your word at face value, hence why restatement without clarification isn't as useful as you might imagine.

titi

2023-08-02, 11:05 AM

stoutstien

2023-08-02, 11:25 AM

The point is that the Rogue doesn't have to capitalise on them because that's the parties job, not the Rogues alone. Does anyone criticise the Fighter for not having control options? Or the Bard for not having good damage? Well, yes, they do, but they are mistaken for it, IMO. It's easy to laud the Wizard for being able to do it all...but can they truly do everything if they're not supported through the day? Maybe at high level, but for the more common Tier 1-2 play, the Wizard has some glaring weaknesses if they're wanting to go solo. It's a team game and the Rogue exemplifies that aspect of the game. The Bard can provide more support than the Rogue, sure. The Paladin or Ranger can do more damage or provide better buffs, sure. The Barbarian is a better tank, without doubt. The Wizard is more versatile than the Rogue, true. Which of them can stand in on any or all of those roles and do it without compromising any other role they care to fill? Which of them can do it without use of their resources? Or without rest? When the circumstances aren't conducive to the optimal conditions required by those other Classes, such as protracted or extended encounters, who will still be there to cover the retreat? Who else is capable of staying back and controlling the encounter, using every opportunity available, to allow the others to set up more favourable conditions and still have the speed and manoeuvrability to get back to safety and take their position in the line? When there are no more buttons to press, who is still just as capable as they were at the start of the day?

At the end of the day, the Rogue is the fail-safe against anything the GM cares to throw at the party, able to turn the tables (literally, if need be) to utilise not only what's inherent to their own class and other features, but that which isn't written on their character sheet. That's where the Rogue shines and that's what the white room doesn't reveal because it's entirely dependent on the specific scenarios and circumstances presented to them.

Much of my argument falls down when the campaign is designed to showcase the fun toys and power-buttons that most Classes like to throw around when everything is shiny and bright. When the chips are down and the clouds are rolling in is, however and in my opinion and preference, when the Rogue comes into their own and when the more creative aspects of the game come to the fore. For me, playing the game of "press button X to solve situation Y" is less fun than being presented a challenge or puzzle that's solved by applying your "buttons" in creative or unusual ways. For example, using Fast Hands to tip a table and either block a line of attack/sight or create difficult terrain might be subject to A) GM discretion, B) the circumstance of having a table to tip in such a way that's going to achieve the desired result and C) not be quite as effective as achieving that same effect with a spell like Grease or Fog Cloud (to use some low-level examples)...but it's way more fun (for me) to utilise the opportunity when it was presented as well as allowing that spell slot to be used in a different encounter where that opportunity isn't present.

When the campaign is designed to present opportunities as much as it presents challenges, the Rogue is there to take advantage with it's versatility. When the campaign is designed to push the limits of what the PC's are capable of, the Rogue is there to pick up any slack and support what the others do best. When the campaign showcases a variety of encounter styles, the Rogue is ideally suited to contributing across the board; rather than taking a back seat to the one character specialised for it, they're there to step in when the specialist isn't available or play 2nd fiddle and assist when they are. In a game where theory-craft tells us specialisation is better than versatility, the Rogue is there to prove that theory wrong because in actual practice the white-room theory is often incorrect or worse, not nearly as fun as it's made out to be.

I should preface that I am a huge fan of the "concept" of the rogue. It just doesn't actively function adequately above or below a rather narrow play style range which is frustrating.

Most of it is just now the class is organized. Huge gaps between subclass features and having the only real unique interaction with the ability checks subsystems pushed all the way back to lv 11 means you have the bulk of the "normal play range" being a static blob of mediocrity unless you go out of your way to seek corner case interactions to ramp the class up. That's just not good design.

**Fighters are often criticized for lacking non damage features outside the select subclasses that address it. That and they are slow as all get out which is worse. You have to actively NOT kite them as a GM sometimes and it's obvious sandbagging when you do it.**

Hael

2023-08-02, 11:44 AM

Other classes (especially Bard) have better versions of Rogue non-combat abilities.

It's not that Rogues aren't useful, it's that they're not as useful.

I would say this is still the Rogues biggest problem.

That they suffer from a worst version of the pre tasha sorcerer vs wizard problem, namely that their schtick and niche is better done by another class, and that a well designed bard will always have a higher ceiling (in every predefined category). For instance, a bard has a much higher damage ceiling (if designed a certain way), or tanking ability (if designed a certain way) or support ability or skill monkey potential.

Thus a rogues mechanical niche is relegated to unoptimized parties or niche setups where you don’t have predefined roles and where you have absurdly difficult attritional play (gritty realism for instance), or games with nonstandard play (featless, no multiclassing, phb only etc).

Corran

2023-08-02, 12:19 PM

Thus a rogues mechanical niche is relegated to unoptimized parties or niche setups where you don’t have predefined roles and where you have absurdly difficult attritional play (gritty realism for instance), or games with nonstandard play (featless, no multiclassing, phb only etc).
Do optimized parties have predefined roles?

stoutstien

2023-08-02, 12:28 PM

Do optimized parties have predefined roles?

Depends on how you define it but I'd say optimal parties would maximize their return for investment while also eliminating risk. That means you would have redundant coverage and basically have everyone be able to do everything well enough to make targeting weakness impossible.

Corran

2023-08-02, 12:37 PM

animorte

2023-08-02, 12:42 PM

I think some people are forgetting that health is also an expendable resource, however you should choose (or not) to distribute it.

stoutstien

2023-08-02, 12:43 PM

Well, not impossible and maybe not everything, but yeah, that's what I had in my mind. But why do you say redundant? Only play will inform to that and sometimes not even that (cause a few tries -skewed or not- may not tell the truth).

Redundant isn't a bad word here. Think redundant safety features to increase margin of error not being made redundant at work.

Who can Mitigation damage? Everybody.

Who can step up and overcome a noncombat challenge? Everybody.

Your wizard gets locked down before they could drop a wall of fire? Who cares because the next man up is just as good at taking control of the pace of the encounter and can probably relieve the pressure if them.

Corran

2023-08-02, 12:48 PM

Redundant isn't a bad word here. Think redundant safety features to increase margin of error not being made redundant at work.

Who can Mitigation damage? Everybody.

Who can step up and overcome a noncombat challenge? Everybody.

Your wizard gets locked down before they could drop a wall of fire? Who cares because the next man up is just as good at taking control of the pace of the encounter and can probably relieve the pressure if them.
Ah, thanks for clarifying.

Sigreid

2023-08-02, 12:54 PM

I just want to remove it because I have a few players who like just about the whole rogue kit besides sneak attack and seems like such a weird thing to be the class keystone.
I'd argue that the rogues keystone is expertise and cunning action. Sneak attack is just generic damage and it doesn't really matter how damge is done, it's just damage.

LudicSavant

2023-08-02, 12:57 PM

Yes, others are better than the Rogue, but the Rogue saves those better characters resources by being good enough to do the "everyday" stuff.

You know how else I could save those better characters resources? By putting another one of them in the party slot that the Rogue took up.

The Bard is arguably better at support, true, but the Rogue is more versatile, durable and circumstantially valuable

I'd say that a Bard is arguably better at support, and versatility, and durability, and access to tools of circumstantial value.

Psyren

2023-08-02, 12:57 PM

To clarify a bit.

One of the reasons, I find the sneak attack problematic as the "default" is that it's a powerful enough tool, that it limits the design options to capture other effective rogue elements. You can't have a rogue with powerful other abilities (bleed, poison, thousand cuts) because all those options need to be weighed against the fact that the rogue is adding this scaling d6 damage dice. It's not that it shouldn't exist, it's that it limits what other archetypes that can be explored.

Honestly, the sneak attack dice could be relabeled "Power strike" and it would fit much better with a barbarian or fighter (with obvious rebalances), because those classes more often typify the "Giant single strike hit".

Rogues are the best nonmagical poisoner, nobody really has bleeds, and SA can be fluffed as "thousand cuts" just fine as I mentioned. Your 6d6 stab could be one massive vital hit or the culmination of a series of precision slashes on a distracted foe - making that distinction is entirely up to you.

And while I know that attacks are not necessarily representative of a single strike, it's about creating harmony with what the player does vs what it represents the characters doing. And while you can narrate that the sneak attack is the result of death by a thousand cuts, it doesn't really feel the same.

I agree that ludonarrative harmony/alignment is important, but not at the expense of balanced gameplay. Yes, visually representing the combat style of a rogue character like Vax'ildan or Zevran/Cole or Vanessa VanCleef likely involves a bunch of acrobatic flips and a dozen stabs per second. But translating that to tabletop, you have to take some liberties, especially once bounded accuracy is factored in.

If your successful 6d6 sneak attack represents one massive hit, or 6 smaller hits that do 1d6 each and nothing else - is there a difference that matters? The power is in your own mind.

stoutstien

2023-08-02, 01:05 PM

I'd argue that the rogues keystone is expertise and cunning action. Sneak attack is just generic damage and it doesn't really matter how damge is done, it's just damage.

Expertise is shares with others(like at this point who doesn't have it?) and cunning action *could* be the keystone but ATM it's just the thing to use to generate sneak attack because it's so conditional.

I consider myself extremely liberal as far as improvised actions go and I still see this as a major flaw.

LudicSavant

2023-08-02, 01:17 PM

I'd argue that the rogues keystone is expertise

Expertise is shares with others(like at this point who doesn't have it?) and cunning action *could* be the keystone but ATM it's just the thing to use to generate sneak attack because it's so conditional.

Yeah. Rogue Expertise isn't special; Bards have the same number of Expertise, and better skill boosters that aren't Expertise, and tons of utility that skills can't even do in the first place.

As for Cunning Action, it's just a bonus action move or disengage or hide. That's not all that special these days -- heck, there are a lot of abilities that do more than one of those things at the same time.

Like... let's take the Glamour Bard. Their bonus action gives a move and a disengage, simultaneously. To the whole party. And a bucket of temp HP too. Oh, but they can "only" move and disengage 15 times a day. Just kidding, they can move and disengage with a bonus action with their low level spell slots, too!

Being able to dash at-will (instead of merely "a helluva lot") might have mattered more if they could use it to do stuff like, say, full party kite, but the need to qualify for sneak attack if they want to do actual damage puts a bit of a damper on their options there, relative to their competition (since you either need to be generating ranged advantage or have an ally in melee, or both if your enemy inflicts Disadvantage -- which is easy to do on ranged attacks).

I would say this is still the Rogues biggest problem.

That they suffer from a worst version of the pre tasha sorcerer vs wizard problem, namely that their schtick and niche is better done by another class, and that a well designed bard will always have a higher ceiling (in every predefined category). For instance, a bard has a much higher damage ceiling (if designed a certain way), or tanking ability (if designed a certain way) or support ability or skill monkey potential.

Thus a rogues mechanical niche is relegated to unoptimized parties or niche setups where you don’t have predefined roles and where you have absurdly difficult attritional play (gritty realism for instance), or games with nonstandard play (featless, no multiclassing, phb only etc).

That's a good way of putting it. Pre-Tasha's Sorcerer had effective stuff, it was just... basically a worse version of what their competition did.

Sigreid

2023-08-02, 01:37 PM

Yeah. Rogue Expertise isn't special; Bards have the same number of Expertise, and better skill boosters that aren't Expertise, and tons of utility that skills can't even do in the first place.

As for Cunning Action, it's just a bonus action move or disengage or hide. That's not all that special these days -- heck, there are a lot of abilities that do more than one of those things at the same time.

Like... let's take the Glamour Bard. Their bonus action gives a move and a disengage, simultaneously. To the whole party. And a bucket of temp HP too. Oh, but they can "only" move and disengage 15 times a day. Just kidding, they can move and disengage with a bonus action with their low level spell slots, too!

Being able to dash at-will (instead of merely "a helluva lot") might have mattered more if they could use it to do stuff like, say, full party kite, but the need to qualify for sneak attack if they want to do actual damage puts a bit of a damper on their options there, relative to their competition (since you either need to be generating ranged advantage or have an ally in melee, or both if your enemy inflicts Disadvantage -- which is easy to do on ranged attacks).

That's a good way of putting it. Pre-Tasha's Sorcerer had effective stuff, it was just... basically a worse version of what their competition did.

But then unfortunately the bards special thing is stomping all.over everyone else's special thing and WoTC had gone out of their way to make every class's special thing less special.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-02, 01:55 PM

Do optimized parties have predefined roles? We had a neat thread a few years ago that tried to wrestle with a framework for how to assess party optimization. And that point, right there, was a bit of a sticking point.

I think some people are forgetting that health is also an expendable resource, however you should choose (or not) to distribute it. I am mulling over whether or not the old 2e "if you take 50 HP or more in one attack, you are dead" has a place in the game anymore. Not sure if 50 is the right number now, maybe 75 or 80 would be better with HP inflation in WotC era.

But then unfortunately the bard's special thing is stomping all.over everyone else's special thing and WoTC had gone out of their way to make every class's special thing less special.

Slipjig

2023-08-02, 02:00 PM

Why not make a dex warrior whose tool proficiency is thieves tools from background?

That's always my question. For both the Rogue and the Monk, people seem to want to jam all kinds of character concepts into these classes that actually fit much better under another class. If you want to play a sneaky, light-weapon fighter that inflicts status effects, play a Shadow Monk (if you want to be super sneaky), an Open Hand Monk, or a Dex Fighter Battlemaster. If you want to play a heavy-armor-wearing polearm wielder, that's a Fighter (even if the real-life people you are modeling your character on were a religious order). Nothing says that your polearm-and-plate Fighter can't live in a monastery and meditate.

stoutstien

2023-08-02, 02:09 PM

That's always my question. For both the Rogue and the Monk, people seem to want to jam all kinds of character concepts into these classes that actually fit much better under another class. If you want to play a sneaky, light-weapon fighter that inflicts status effects, play a Shadow Monk (if you want to be super sneaky), an Open Hand Monk, or a Dex Fighter Battlemaster. If you want to play a heavy-armor-wearing polearm wielder, that's a Fighter (even if the real-life people you are modeling your character on were a religious order). Nothing says that your polearm-and-plate Fighter can't live in a monastery and meditate.

Which comes full circle. What is the rogue's thematic and mechanical niche? If it doesn't have one what should it be with an eye towards what players who want to play a rogue would want?

Currently they are too broad with theme and too narrow in mechanics. They are like the anti warlock.

Corran

2023-08-02, 02:14 PM

We had a neat thread a few years ago that tried to wrestle with a framework for how to assess party optimization. And that point, right there, was a bit of a sticking point.
I remember. My three biggest takeaways from that thread:
1) Optimizing generally and not against a specific challenge that you know about is difficult and requires too much game mastery.
2) Optimizing not to lose against not specific challenges seems easier (and maybe safer) than most other approaches and is kind of inside my comfort zone.
3) Bardic inspiration is a cool feature and not the situational unreliable garbage I had thought it to be (talking about unjustified biased opinions).

Ah, I miss Max Wilson's posts...

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-02, 02:33 PM

MadBear

2023-08-02, 02:37 PM

No, it doesn't. SA being a thing does not prevent, for example, Acrane Trickster from being a very effective Rogue subclass. I find the lack of imagination and flexibility to be squarely in your corner here.
SA existing also doesn't prevent the rogue scout subclass from being an effective Spell-less Ranger variant. (This we discovered in play, and we are all somewhat surprised).

It absolutely does limit the design scope. Because sneak attack can deal a significant amount of damage, any subclass must take that damage into account when balancing what abilities their giving and what that ability will do. But thanks for the insult though. Seriously, seems like a ****ty way to communicate.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-02, 02:47 PM

It absolutely does limit the design scope. . No it doesn't. See, we both have an opinion. Now what?
Not gonna rehash the whole thread, but your assertion is not supported

Amnestic

2023-08-02, 03:09 PM

Which comes full circle. What is the rogue's thematic and mechanical niche? If it doesn't have one what should it be with an eye towards what players who want to play a rogue would want?

Currently they are too broad with theme and too narrow in mechanics. They are like the anti warlock.

Old: Delete Ranger! It has no niche!
New: Delete Rogue! It has no niche!

Could give 'em a bunch of group utility features ("Rogue Tactics"). Move over Warlord, Rogue is the mundane team-enhancer now :smallcool: After all, what is a dashing rogue without his motley crew? It's Ocean's 11, not Ocean's 1! Mastermind's already a step towards that, I suppose.

Corran

2023-08-02, 03:27 PM

Still in touch with Max, played some games with him, and he's still as incisive as ever. :smallsmile:
Then I place a bounty of 10 boxes of cookies if you can get him to return, so that we can pick his brain for ideas. Another 10 boxes of cookies for Contrast, another poster with good ideas and insights about the game I haven't seen posting for some time.

stoutstien

2023-08-02, 03:33 PM

Old: Delete Ranger! It has no niche!
New: Delete Rogue! It has no niche!

Could give 'em a bunch of group utility features ("Rogue Tactics"). Move over Warlord, Rogue is the mundane team-enhancer now :smallcool: After all, what is a dashing rogue without his motley crew? It's Ocean's 11, not Ocean's 1! Mastermind's already a step towards that, I suppose.

Oh I don't want to delete it. I want to make it fill it's thematic shoes so to say.

Slipjig

2023-08-02, 03:33 PM

Which comes full circle. What is the rogue's thematic and mechanical niche? If it doesn't have one what should it be with an eye towards what players who want to play a rogue would want?

Currently they are too broad with theme and too narrow in mechanics. They are like the anti warlock.

My point was that if you want to play 1,000 Cuts Speedster, you don't actually want to play a Rogue. And if you want to play a Sohei, you don't actually want to play a Monk. No game design can accommodate every character concept within a given class. If there's already a class that fits your fantasy, play that class.

LudicSavant

2023-08-02, 03:58 PM

I remember. My three biggest takeaways from that thread:
1) Optimizing generally and not against a specific challenge that you know about is difficult and requires too much game mastery.
2) Optimizing not to lose against not specific challenges seems easier (and maybe safer) than most other approaches and is kind of inside my comfort zone.
3) Bardic inspiration is a cool feature and not the situational unreliable garbage I had thought it to be (talking about unjustified biased opinions).

Sound like good takeaways!

Bardic Inspiration is indeed super good.

As a skill amp, it's a larger bonus to Expertise, stacks with everything, and can be bolted onto not yourself, but whoever in the party had the best bonus to that skill.

As a save amp, it's a larger bonus than Proficiency.

As an attack amp, it's comparable to Precision Attack on whoever in the party would most benefit from such.

Tasha's added even more uses in Magical Inspiration, in which case it can also be translated directly into Hit Points or Guaranteed Damage (like a mini-smite).

And that's all off the same pre-cast that can be used 15 times in a 2 short rest day. And that's before we talk about how much subclasses buff it.

Edit:
And the subclasses add some pretty huge capabilities to it.
- Glamour makes it generate nearly as much temp HP as one round of Twilight CD, while also giving the entire party an extra Dash and Disengage.
- Swords can simultaneously give a mini-smite and a bigger AC bonus than Shield that stacks with everything (action economy free) and a damage boost, and that's only one of its options. One of the other options is a better version of the Battlemaster Fighter's Pushing Attack that offers no save, and comes with a mobility amp attached!
- Eloquence gives a better save debuff than Heighten Spell metamagic. As if that wasn't enough, it also significantly boosts all of the normal uses of Bardic Inspiration so that they aren't consumed unless they create a success.
- Lore gives Cutting Words, which can do things like deny an enemy an entire round as a Reaction, among many other things.

It can be used against any ability check, attack roll, or damage roll.

Some notable cases: Damage Rolls
- Effects that can hit multiple targets simultaneously use one damage roll for all targets. If you Cutting Words the damage roll, you cut it for everyone in an AoE, offering a party contribution similar in scope to a Mass Healing Word. You can even considerably weaken a Nuclear Wizard's Magic Missile.

- Cutting a damage roll does more than just save HP, it also can preserve effects like Armor of Agathys for extra hits, or lower the DC of Concentration checks.

Some notable cases: Ability Checks
- Dropping an enemy's initiative can be incredibly valuable. If you switch them from 'beating the party's initiative' to 'behind the party's initiative,' congratulations, they just lost an entire turn with no save. Yes, it's that good.

- You can use Cutting Words on dispel and counterspell checks, essentially getting back a spell slot that otherwise would have gone kaput.

- You can cut Athletics checks to make it easy to grapple/shove people. Who needs Strength when you have wit?

- Some spells use ability checks instead of saving throws, such as Telekinesis or folks trying to break out of Wrathful Smite. You can Cutting Words any such attempts!

- Stacks with a Warlock's Hex penalty to ability checks, too, which can make attempts to break free of grapples and certain spells just doomed to fail basically forever.

Some notable cases: Attack Rolls
- This works pretty much exactly like you expect it to and it's great value against foes with strong individual attacks. Particularly since you alter the roll after a roll is made.

- Try grabbing the Moderately Armored half-feat (or a 1-level multiclass dip) to stack with this. It's not quite armor+shield+Shield, but it's the next best thing and quite spammable.

JellyPooga

2023-08-02, 04:06 PM

You know how else I could save those better characters resources? By putting another one of them in the party slot that the Rogue took up.Hmm yes, saving their resources by spending my own. Efficiency personified :smallannoyed: The point is not that another class can do one thing better, it's that the Rogue can do many things well enough, without compromising their ability to do anything else, at the cost of being just a little worse than someone more specialised (or who uses limited resources to be better).

Plugging in a Fighter isn't going to help when you need a scout. Plugging in a Wizard when you need a thief isn't going to help. Plugging in an AoE blaster Sorcerer doesn't help when you need someone to avoid the wall of minions, steal the evil wizards magic staff and throw it to the Cleric to cancel the ritual before the princess gets ganked by the plot-device demons before grabbing the bad guy, dragging his sorry out-of-spells butt-cheeks down the stairs and into range of the really rather unhappy Barbarian who's more than willing to teach the bad little wizard the meaning of pain.

Would a Bard be better at all that? Yeah, if he spent a spell (known and slot) on grappling (probably Enlarge/Reduce) as well as Expertise in Athletics. But then he wouldn't also be fast. Or able to tank any hits from that wall o' minions. Or have the bonus action to chuck the staff. Yeah, he could do it but it'd take three, maybe four turns where the Rogue is doing it in two. Without spending any spell slots. Could a Wizard or Cleric do it with Summon/Conjure spells? Yeah, probably...but it'd cost spell slots. Could a Monk do it? Yeah, probably, but it'd cost Ki points. Spell slots and Ki points or whatever other resources that could be spent on ganking the minions during the mop-up, effecting the dramatic escape as the Tower of Doom collapses around the intrepid heroes, or even as banal as scoring a better reward when the princess is returned.

Do you not recognise how being "good enough" at many things is better than overcompensating on one or two? Sharpshooter is great for the extra damage it offers. Better than many Feats in the game. It's nothing but a penalty when the only foes you're fighting have 5HP each. A specialised character is great when the circumstance calls for it, but being able to overkill Thing (A) is pointless when all you need is to be able to do Thing (B) well enough and is still a waste when doing Thing (A).

The problem with the argument that Bards or Wizards are teh best thing evar is that they're only really the best when they have perfect foresight. Catch a Wizard with his pants down and he won't have just the right spell prepared, if he even has spell slots available. Bards are versatile, but are versatile in the way that a Fighter can either be a great archer or a great melee fighter, but only average to fair at the other; they're reliant on having a specialised build (mostly their ever so limited spells known choices). The Rogue's core chassis, on the other hand, is versatile in a way the others don't even touch; they're reactively opportunistic out of the box before even talking about how they can specialise with subclass, feats etc.

Corran

2023-08-02, 04:09 PM

Oh I don't want to delete it. I want to make it fill it's thematic shoes so to say.
Part of the theme just went away with the simplification of the skill system. If we had a bigger number of skills, crass / cross class proficiency and even class restricted skills, the rogue would shout louder to the player who wants to cut their teeth with ability checks. This part of the theme still exists, and expertise but particularly reliable talent do a good job with what we have now as a skill system, but it's not the same level of customization, so the theme is less supported. Untying INT from skills was also another factor, as now if you want to play a smart fighter type, you are looking at who get INT based spells, while in the past your typical rogue would also fit the concept (it still does, as with rogues I feel free to spare points for CHA or INT or whatever really, but it's not to the same degree).

Another change that broadens/ dilutes the theme is the change from backstab to sneak attack. Ease of play and balance concerns aside, backstab is way more specific and defines a class more strictly than current sneak attack does. That's not to say that sneak attack does not still carry some of the old flavor, as it still makes the rogue play more like an opportunist than a highly skilled professional (mostly due to the sneak attack's requirements, secondarily because of how you can use it with OAs), just not to the same extent. I think this change might have been influenced by making feats optional while also having fewer of them. Because with less feat support a rogue could no longer justify a more unreliable/ situational damage bump. Or it was the other way around, and the change to SA came first and then there was far less need than any rogue specific/appropriate feats.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-02, 04:30 PM

Another change that broadens/ dilutes the theme is the change from backstab to sneak attack. Ease of play and balance concerns aside, backstab is way more specific and defines a class more strictly than current sneak attack does. Meh. The Grey Mouser was a sword and dagger guy. Which vision of a rogue are you trying to champion here?

For my money, UMD ought to show up earlier, level wise ...

LudicSavant

2023-08-02, 04:52 PM

I think some people are forgetting that health is also an expendable resource, however you should choose (or not) to distribute it.

Indeed.

Hmm yes, saving their resources by spending my own. Efficiency personified :smallannoyed:

You say that sarcastically, but yes, that's pretty much exactly how it works. In order to actually cause your party to survive a greater number of challenging encounters per day than they would with an alternate party member, you must make favorable investments -- be it action economy, HP, or any other resource -- in order to slow the attrition caused by enemy actions or other challenges. Tactical players don't burn resources just to show off, they do it because they determine that not doing so will cost them more than doing so.

Unless you are actually able to reduce the impact of enemy existence to zero (such as via infinite healing, remote play, or other such shenanigans), you're not actually resourceless. Enemies will be spending your resources for you, and your capabilities will determine how fast they can do that.

This principle can seem unintuitive, but it's nonetheless true. A "resourceless" character will not necessarily help a party last for more encounters than a resource-burning one. Just saying "but my abilities are resourceless" doesn't necessarily mean you're a better character for endurance challenges. If it did... well heck, you could buff a class just by removing any of its limited use features and replacing them with nothing at all -- and that doesn't work, for reasons that should hopefully be apparent.

Edit:
Lemme put it this way. The neutral state (e.g. what happens if you do nothing at all) is not "no resources are spent." It's "challenges do bad stuff to your party at an uncontested rate." Optimal resource efficiency is in large part about finding the way to slow this as much as possible. It's not about whether or not you're "resourceless," it's about how much your resources -- be they hit points, action economy, spell slots, anything at all -- buy before the clock hits zero. And unless you can consistently reduce attrition of enemy actions to literally nothing, the clock will eventually hit zero, you do not have unlimited time to make up performance gaps after the competitor runs out of resources.

Which is why so-called resourceless characters often never catch up. Which isn't to say that they necessarily can't, but it's a very unsafe assumption to think that just because you're a so-called 'resourceless' character, that you will catch up, even if the number of combats per day is infinite (because the number the party can survive isn't infinite).

Corran

2023-08-02, 05:27 PM

Sound like good takeaways!

Bardic Inspiration is indeed super good.

As a skill amp, it's a larger bonus to Expertise, stacks with everything, and can be bolted onto not yourself, but whoever in the party had the best bonus to that skill.
Yes. It's also good in non optimized play. Giving it to your barb friend to help with intimidation and other stuff like that. I bet it really makes your character feel like a buffer in those sorts of situations. I can imagine it being pretty great at group checks too (and decent if the DM is not using group checks, moreso if you cannot afford to split for some reason). It's a little weird that bards cannot apply it to themselves (like a bard would not be full of themselves), but they get lots of proficiencies, expertise and jack of all trades, so I guess it was made so to balance out.

As a save amp, it's a larger bonus than Proficiency.
I disliked it for that because of the not ongoing effect (that aura of protection had spoiled me with), but I was neglecting its big upside of not restricting anyone's position (at the same time I was overestimating the advanced radius of 30', which is not really much; another realization, particularly when I started playing more with theater of the mind).

As an attack amp, it's comparable to Precision Attack on whoever in the party would most benefit from such.
A rogue! With the single big attack. Haha! Though there are plenty of other good candidates.

Tasha's added even more uses in Magical Inspiration, in which case it can also be translated directly into Hit Points or Guaranteed Damage (like a mini-smite).
Hmm, sounds like a bit of warlord being shoved into the bard chassis. Not sure if I like it. Sounds like a useful feature though.

- Glamour makes it generate nearly as much temp HP as one round of Twilight CD, while also giving the entire party an extra Dash and Disengage.
First impression is that it could be a good party wide retreat option (ready action and clockwork initiative, so that -most- monsters go at the same time) would help. It would be funny to combine it with an oversized (enlarge?) pegasus. Heh, everyone disengages and mounts the pegasus and it's off!

Also great for AoE's, when sculpt spells, careful, evasion, shield master, freedom of movement and other stuff like these are not an (great) option (which will likely be often enough). Hmm, that's more likely its typical use.

Any other good uses?

- Swords can simultaneously give a mini-smite and a bigger AC bonus than Shield that stacks with everything (action economy free) and a damage boost, and that's only one of its options. One of the other options is a better version of the Battlemaster Fighter's Pushing Attack that offers no save, and comes with a mobility amp attached!
This subclass steps on too many toes considering it has also full spellcasting attached from the main class.

- Eloquence gives a better save debuff than Heighten Spell metamagic. As if that wasn't enough, it also significantly boosts all of the normal uses of Bardic Inspiration so that they aren't consumed unless they create a success.
Yeah, this is pretty strong. Anything that helps with not having the dice mess with a good solution (eg polymorph, banishment, etc) is very good (heighten less so because the opportunity cost is too big). Interestingly, while checking eloquence now, their silver tongue feature is excellent (considering they get it that soon as well). Hmm, a three level dip in bard doesn't sound so bad.

- Lore gives Cutting Words, which can do things like deny an enemy an entire round as a Reaction, among many other things.
Yeah, yeah, cutting words is great. The only subclass I am adequately familiar with. After additional magical secrets I'd say it's my favorite feature that they get.

LudicSavant

2023-08-02, 05:51 PM

First impression is that it could be a good party wide retreat option (ready action and clockwork initiative, so that -most- monsters go at the same time) would help. It would be funny to combine it with an oversized (enlarge?) pegasus. Heh, everyone disengages and mounts the pegasus and it's off!

Also great for AoE's, when sculpt spells, careful, evasion, shield master, freedom of movement and other stuff like these are not an (great) option (which will likely be often enough). Hmm, that's more likely its typical use.

Any other good uses? Oh my yes. It's a highly flexible and potent ability.

In addition to enabling full party kite strategies, it also can do rotating frontline strategies in close quarters. As a Glamour Bard, you often get to decide which characters the monster is allowed to attack, simply because of your mastery of positioning. Thus you can sort of start tanking with the whole party's hp, knowing that you can easily shift people on and off the front.

And not only that, you're also giving everyone in the party non-expiring temp HP each time you do this, so that helps even more with that tactic.

It also can be used for things like, say, letting the grappler drag people more times, off turn, into hazards. So like, grappler grabs a guy, drags it into your Cleric's spirit guardians, then you pop the inspiration and they get dragged again (and trigger the damage again). Not bad for a bonus action that's also simultaneously letting the entire party reposition, and providing a temp HP boost to everyone.

It's also just like... a significant battery of temp HP, able to provide 3 digits of temp HP per party member over the course of a 2 short rest adventuring day.

Devils_Advocate

2023-08-02, 06:33 PM

nobody really has bleeds
Huh? So what? If not for Sneak Attack, no one would really have precision strikes. Do you think that that's an argument for designing Sneak Attack out of the game? Not much point to having classes and/or subclasses if they don't get distinctive features that fit their themes, if you ask me.

I agree that ludonarrative harmony/alignment is important, but not at the expense of balanced gameplay.
I mean... yeah, the general consensus is that one should try not to unbalance the game with whatever changes one makes. Is there some way in which that's particularly relevant here? Characters who make several attacks per round aren't exactly a new thing. Are you bearing in mind that MadBear proposed that as a replacement for Sneak Attack for some Rogues?

If your successful 6d6 sneak attack represents one massive hit, or 6 smaller hits that do 1d6 each and nothing else - is there a difference that matters? The power is in your own mind.
Individual capabilities vary. My own powers of voluntary hallucination are fairly limited, something that probably makes "feel" matter a lot more for many gamers.

Tanarii

2023-08-02, 07:46 PM

Honestly, the sneak attack dice could be relabeled "Power strike" and it would fit much better with a barbarian or fighter (with obvious rebalances), because those classes more often typify the "Giant single strike hit".

And while I know that attacks are not necessarily representative of a single strike, it's about creating harmony with what the player does vs what it represents the characters doing. And while you can narrate that the sneak attack is the result of death by a thousand cuts, it doesn't really feel the same.
A-yup. This is the real "problem" with Rogues vs Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin.

Rogues should be the first class to be getting Extra Attack, especially if you're considering scaling up to 4 attacks by Tier 4. Then Monk and Ranger, both of which are also in the archetypical running for "death by a thousand cuts".

Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian should be the first of the six martial classes to be considered for never getting Extra Attack, and instead getting some kind of scaling bonus damage to their single attack.

Psyren

2023-08-02, 07:52 PM

Huh? So what?

So it's basically irrelevant to 5e? PF2 has a Bleeding condition, and the game is designed around that; 5e doesn't.

I mean... yeah, the general consensus is that one should try not to unbalance the game with whatever changes one makes. Is there some way in which that's particularly relevant here? Characters who make several attacks per round aren't exactly a new thing. Are you bearing in mind that MadBear proposed that as a replacement for Sneak Attack for some Rogues?

I covered that in my first post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?658294-Rogues-main-damage-mechanic-is-a-bad-representation-of-their-fantasy&p=25836213&viewfull=1#post25836213); you don't need homebrew to replace Sneak Attack with multiple attacks or spells etc, multiclassing can do that. (You can of course homebrew if you want to, but I was pointing out an approach that already exists in the game.) Hell, you don't even need Rogue to get Expertise, though of course they get it early enough that you can start there without too much fuss.

Individual capabilities vary. My own powers of voluntary hallucination are fairly limited, something that probably makes "feel" matter a lot more for many gamers.

You don't need to "hallucinate" to recognize that attacks and damage are abstractions in D&D. People abstract D&D combat all the time, just look at stuff like Vox Machina.

Witty Username

2023-08-02, 08:56 PM

I wouldn't mind rogue getting short and long rest abilities on top of what they already do. Some high level features to make Tier 3 worth considering in play is always welcome.
I don't like the idea of rogue getting short/long rest abilities in place of what they already do. That route lies monk and it doth suck, for one. But also I like character that actually pay attention to positioning, party composition and creating favorable outcomes. Or not just full replaceable by fighter because it does a better job at the same stuff.
--
Maybe I have been forever corrupted from back when sneak attack was called backstab, but I much prefer the single attack for rogue. If I ambush some one from behind and nead to stab them 50 times before I deal good damage, I feel like my stealth attempt probably failed. One prick to the back of the neck and they drop feels more in line with that.

Honestly multiple attacks feels more barbarian to me, fly into a frenzy and overcome defenses with overwhelming aggression.

What would people's oppinion's be of rogue getting expertise on attack rolls as well as skills? So their gimmick is they will not do as much damage but theirs would be practically garunteed.

AdAstra

2023-08-03, 02:21 AM

The big resource-using abilities I'd like to see Rogues get would be dice manipulation along the lines of its capstone. There's already elements of it in there, from Reliable Talent to, again, the capstone, but abilities like that are both useful and thematic to the concept of someone taking advantage of skill, luck, whatever to manipulate outcomes favorably.

Unfortunately magic tends to nab the most powerful dice manipulation stuff for rather arbitrary reasons. In many ways I'd like to see more "meta" abilities like die manipulation more restricted to martials with things like Fighters' Indomitable and Stroke of Luck, while spells stick more with explicit effects.

JellyPooga

2023-08-03, 05:50 AM

... saying "but my abilities are resourceless" doesn't necessarily mean you're a better character for endurance challenges.

{{Scrubbed}}
Your comment about replacing limited resources with nothing is clear demonstration that you view the lack of resource expenditure as an inherent weakness. Or to put it another way, you only see the worst case scenario which requires a resource to be spent, not the adventuring day that the majority of campaigns are actually going to present. Yes, spending a spell slot is going to be the best solution in many cases. In other cases, just having the right skill or feature will do just fine...and Rogues are very good at having all those "just fine" abilities that don't require a resource to be spent. Not everything needs the overkill of a spell being spent or Ki being used and that's where the Rogue shines; in doing the "everyday" well enough that the Wizard or Bard don't have to be burning their spells and features to get through challenges that the Rogue can breeze through.

As you say, everything is a resource; from HP and spell slots to action economy and mobility (aka time and space). Do you not recognise the advantages in action economy and mobility that the Rogue enjoys in that regard? If not, then I suggest you don't recognise the value of what a Rogue brings to the table and aren't qualified to judge them.

Do not forget that the Rogue isn't just a character that has few, if any abilities gated by limited use per rest, but they are resource efficient in other regards. Heavy use of bonus actions is a major part of this, giving them action efficiency, but so is their HP efficiency through Uncanny Dodge and Evasion (pound for pound, the Rogue is more HP efficient than a Fighter once they've passed level 5) and because of Sneak Attack, they're "attack efficient" too in as much as it's easier to manipulate the outcome of a single roll than many. The Fighter might do more damage over their several attacks, but it's easier to buff the Rogue to get good enough damage to be useful.

Those Classes using limited resources might have bigger numbers and flash, but Rogues have efficiency as their ally. Are they a necessary member of every party? No. In a game where the party is covering all their bases, ensuring they're always well rested and have a key for every lock, yeah, the Rogue could feel redundant. The perfect game, as I just described, a) doesn't exist and b) isn't (for me) fun to play. For one, it requires a higher degree of metagame collaboration than I'm comfortable with, that often compromises the roleplaying aspect of the game in order to ensure you're playing at peak performance. It also relies on perfect conditions or manipulating the game to replicate that; 5-minute adventuring days is an extreme example of such manipulation, but is also an inevitable end result if you really do espouse truly optimal play, at which point you've already come to the game with assumptions which throw out the balance of the game, to include the value of any Class that isn't at least a half-caster, if not a full-caster.

Hael

2023-08-03, 05:51 AM

Depends on how you define it but I'd say optimal parties would maximize their return for investment while also eliminating risk. That means you would have redundant coverage and basically have everyone be able to do everything well enough to make targeting weakness impossible.

I’ve found that you generally need some redundancy and overlap, but you hit diminishing returns rapidly. For instance in a party of 5 an amazing tank with one capable offtank (in parties where we actually need to ‘tank’ in the first place) is better than having 5 so so tanks. On the other hand, merely having one creates the possibility for a really bad party wipe if that tank is disabled or not present.

So in the context of a rogue and their kit, you always get something that will give you some good skill monkeying. You always get a decent scout. And from there, you need to build them to do specific things. For instance if they need to do ok damage, well you have to invest and pay some opportunity cost (for instance a feat to provide scagtrips, and another one to enable SAs on an offturn for instance). If you want them to tank, well that really requires access to spells or perhaps some multiclassing (like artificer dips). If you want them to be a face, you need cha or some spells/racials/subclasses.

What has been found, I think, over the course of 5es lifetime, is that this latter ‘flushing’ out endeavour (whether you specialize in one area or generalize in all) is very restrictive for a rogue relatively speaking. Meanwhile something like a bard can often acquire roles rather effortlessly.. Often with a single magical secret.

stoutstien

2023-08-03, 06:25 AM

I’ve found that you generally need some redundancy and overlap, but you hit diminishing returns rapidly. For instance in a party of 5 an amazing tank with one capable offtank (in parties where we actually need to ‘tank’ in the first place) is better than having 5 so so tanks. On the other hand, merely having one creates the possibility for a really bad party wipe if that tank is disabled or not present.

So in the context of a rogue and their kit, you always get something that will give you some good skill monkeying. You always get a decent scout. And from there, you need to build them to do specific things. For instance if they need to do ok damage, well you have to invest and pay some opportunity cost (for instance a feat to provide scagtrips, and another one to enable SAs on an offturn for instance). If you want them to tank, well that really requires access to spells or perhaps some multiclassing (like artificer dips). If you want them to be a face, you need cha or some spells/racials/subclasses.

What has been found, I think, over the course of 5es lifetime, is that this latter ‘flushing’ out endeavour (whether you specialize in one area or generalize in all) is very restrictive for a rogue relatively speaking. Meanwhile something like a bard can often acquire roles rather effortlessly.. Often with a single magical secret.

Assuming we are talking about optimized tuned play, the concept of a "tank" is already moving in the wrong direction. Mitigation and control is just too cheap to aquire to really need them (which is unfortunate for the troupe) outside of very limited situations. Those situations are the ones the party already have the largest chances of success (single target encounters with tactical positioning freedom.)

That's why things like the glamor bard with a few select magical secret picks are better tanks than subclasses like the cav fighter at a much smaller overall investment.

The whole idea that rogue's should seek off turn SA or use spell casting is my complaint. The class shouldn't need super specific builds to feel effective. it's the same issue I have with SS and GWM being used as a reason not to fix other classes.

Basically I want rogue to have their own bardic inspiration level of feature. Doesn't have to be a dice pool or anything but it should at least be as impactful and cool.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-03, 07:00 AM

A-yup. This is the real "problem" with Rogues vs Fighter, Barbarian and Paladin.

Rogues should be the first class to be getting Extra Attack, especially if you're considering scaling up to 4 attacks by Tier 4. Then Monk and Ranger, both of which are also in the archetypical running for "death by a thousand cuts".

Fighter, Paladin and Barbarian should be the first of the six martial classes to be considered for never getting Extra Attack, and instead getting some kind of scaling bonus damage to their single attack. Why isn't this in blue text? :smallcool:

I'd like to echo Ludic's point on bard expertise, somewhat. To me, being a full caster suggests that maybe scale back the expertise to two from four. One for the first accession and one more for the second accession.

Corran

2023-08-03, 07:08 AM

Meh. The Grey Mouser was a sword and dagger guy. Which vision of a rogue are you trying to champion here?

For my money, UMD ought to show up earlier, level wise ...
UMD is use magic device?

Dont have a specific fictional character in mind. My complaint is mostly with the skill system (which applies to to the rogue) and also perhaps that rogues dont get that much out of INT than they did in 3e I guess. So, theme wise, I guess it's the sort of looking like an underdog who will outwit/ outskill you, or something like that (as opposed to the fighters, barbarians, rangers and paladins who will do a bit less of that and make up for the difference with brute force, weapon skill, smites, or whatever).

For example. Innuendo was preserved as thieves' cant and it's something unique to the rogue that adds its bit of flavor to the class. Same with use magic device that was added to the thief. But things like read lips, decipher script, sense motive, use rope (and others) that were either available just to the rogue or that the rogue would be the best at, either have been opened for everyone or the gap was decreased. Feats like expertise (prof bonus penalty to attack but bonus to AC IIRC) which the rogue could take more easily because of the INT requirement and which could make the rogue play differently when combined with their other assets (eg sneak a little ahead, find enemies, backstab one, and use expertise to stay alive while your allies turn the corner so that the mage can blast and the heavy hitters can do the smashing) no longer exist (you get replacements for everything required to attempt this kind of approach, but the rogue is more easily replacement as a scout because of the simplification of skills, sneak attack is triggered more easily so you are no longer in search for flat footed opponents for anything other than the obvious team wide benefit, and your defensive burst, though it still exists, has been reduced to uncanny dodge/ defensive duelist plus potentially dodge and evasion).

The game does not suffer from the simplification of skills (only the customization bit when making characters, which is neither here not there), as your characters can still attempt to do the same things they always did. But the rogue had an edge that they lost. The absence of rogue specific feats like how GWM seems for a barbarian and SS seems for a ranger, could be seen as a blessing in disguise (assuming cunning strikes gets added and is as good as people make it sound), as it lets you spend your feats on stuff that could add some flavor (like observant or linguist), but most of these benefits (sense motive, read lips, speaking more languages) used to be part of the rogue kit anyway. It seems like features got shuffled around a bit, but something was lost along the way.

animorte

2023-08-03, 07:14 AM

I think a valid point being made here is not that Rogue and it's "unlimited resource expenditure" are particularly good or bad (especially when we get down to comparing it to something like the Bard). It's more that Rogue can consistently do things on a smaller scale, primarily for themselves. Sure you can get creative and there are times when it benefits others, but it never amounts to just how easy and versatile those same things can be shared.

Essentially, the Rogue and its utility is, generally speaking, a bit more selfish. It's great just for the Rogue. But D&D typically happens to be a team game and their light doesn't shine quite as bright with that in mind.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-03, 07:41 AM

UMD is use magic device? Yes.

I think a valid point being made here is not that Rogue and it's "unlimited resource expenditure" are particularly good or bad (especially when we get down to comparing it to something like the Bard). It's more that Rogue can consistently do things on a smaller scale, primarily for themselves. Sure you can get creative and there are times when it benefits others, but it never amounts to just how easy and versatile those same things can be shared.

Essentially, the Rogue and its utility is, generally speaking, a bit more selfish. It's great just for the Rogue. But D&D typically happens to be a team game and their light doesn't shine quite as bright with that in mind. Well, since the Rogue originated as Thief, of course they have a bit of a selfish streak. :smallsmile:
FWIW: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/96625/22566

animorte

2023-08-03, 07:59 AM

Well, since the Rogue originated as Thief, of course they have a bit of a selfish streak. :smallsmile:
Thematically, this class nails it! :smalltongue:

Corran

2023-08-03, 08:08 AM

Oh my yes. It's a highly flexible and potent ability.

In addition to enabling full party kite strategies, it also can do rotating frontline strategies in close quarters. As a Glamour Bard, you often get to decide which characters the monster is allowed to attack, simply because of your mastery of positioning. Thus you can sort of start tanking with the whole party's hp, knowing that you can easily shift people on and off the front.

And not only that, you're also giving everyone in the party non-expiring temp HP each time you do this, so that helps even more with that tactic.

It also can be used for things like, say, letting the grappler drag people more times, off turn, into hazards. So like, grappler grabs a guy, drags it into your Cleric's spirit guardians, then you pop the inspiration and they get dragged again (and trigger the damage again). Not bad for a bonus action that's also simultaneously letting the entire party reposition, and providing a temp HP boost to everyone.

It's also just like... a significant battery of temp HP, able to provide 3 digits of temp HP per party member over the course of a 2 short rest adventuring day.
Of course, grappling. And I dont see any clauses about friendly creatures, so it has the potential to work with minions (that do the grappling) I think.

The rotating the front line thing can be good but you need multiple well rounded characters for it to work well (good defenses, strong opportunity attack, good offenses both from melee and range).

===============================================

You know where this character would work really well? In your party of celestial warlocks. Drop one of the warlocks for one of these guys. The warlocks are well rounded enough to work well both from melee and from range (strong OA's as well with warcaster), and the rotating effect can help them make the most of their healing (cause it's stronger if they self-heal IIRC).

Additionally, mantle of inspirations could(?) be used along with minions (that the bard could certainly acquire; not sure if the warlocks can get any) and hazard effects like wall of fire and guardian of faith (even stacking them if necessary), so that the minions help line up enemies and the warlocks have an easier time repelling them to the hazzards. Heck, with a strong range party-wide attack and a bit of added movement if needed (the bard has to get ranged attacks via dipping), it's the easiest thing to lure dumb (but strong) enemies into a trap where they are stuck between zombies and hazzards while the warlocks keep blasting them back and forth.

Essentially, the Rogue and its utility is, generally speaking, a bit more selfish. It's great just for the Rogue. But D&D typically happens to be a team game and their light doesn't shine quite as bright with that in mind.
It can be seen that way because rogues tend to be the best candidates for certain fairly common buffs (invisibility, inspiration, anything that grants extra attacks or attack bonuses on a single attack, etc). The buffer might disagree, but that's not the point.

Think about it like that. The paladin is good at buffing allies and is also good in melee. Team player, huh? Well yeah, but there are negatives which could be viewed as selfish (not the word I'd actually use). Because heavy armor can hurt ability checks (mostly stealth) and a melee specialization pushes the party more into melee. If how you approach encounters is not fixed out of habbit, then who is the better team player? The one who does not cut off paths of action of course.

JellyPooga

2023-08-03, 09:01 AM

It can be seen that way because rogues tend to be the best candidates for certain fairly common buffs (invisibility, inspiration, anything that grants extra attacks or attack bonuses on a single attack, etc). The buffer might disagree, but that's not the point.

Think about it like that. The paladin is good at buffing allies and is also good in melee. Team player, huh? Well yeah, but there are negatives which could be viewed as selfish (not the word I'd actually use). Because heavy armor can hurt ability checks (mostly stealth) and a melee specialization pushes the party more into melee. If how you approach encounters is not fixed out of habbit, then who is the better team player? The one who does not cut off paths of action of course.

+1 agree here. The Rogue is absolutely a team player. Moreso than many other Classes that appear to be team-focused but in truth are just spotlight diva's. The Paladin is a prime candidate here, with their auras and healing, but as Corran points out, they will dictate the style of the game to fit their modus operandi of close-fighting melee way more than the flexibility of the Rogue ever will. Similarly, the Glamour Bard that Ludic is so keen to espouse the benefits of with it's Mantle of Inspiration might be a great way to enhance the durability and mobility of the whole team...but how often is that actually going to be useful in play? How often does the Wizard really need a get-out-of-dodge move if the front-line is doing its job properly? What about the Barbarian that wants to sit still and tank some damage? What about the Fighter that wants to use their reaction for an Opportunity Attack or the melee Wizard saving it for Shield? Yes, activating the ability to use your reaction is great and all, especially when it comes with a decent-ish amount of tempHP, but it does come at an opportunity cost that many, if not most, Classes are going to have to consider. The Bard activating that features is saying "Do what I want you to do or you're wasting my resources"...which in some cases will be at the opportune moment (which is probably going to be pretty rare if the other characters are utilising their own resources/actions appropriately), but will more likely be a waste of the feature's potential at best, or a spotlight move to showcase themselves at worst. Team player on the surface, but with an undercurrent of selfish showboating.

The Rogue, on the other hand, might appear to be selfish; a lot of Rogue players tend toward the "lone wolf" style of play; solo scouting, stealing for themselves, glory-hogging and kill-stealing, etc. That's a problem with the player, not the class, however. Rogues are capable of filling many roles, from scout to tank to controller; they are what the team needs them to be in that moment and they don't have to rest a day to prepare the right spells, they don't have to change their build at level up to fit how the party dynamic has developed or really change anything; they just...start doing what's needed. Need a scout? Rogue raises a hand. Need an archer? Rogue's got your back. Need a Tank? Guess who's strapping on their trucker boots? Yes, the Rogue is capable of solo or selfish actions, but they're also an amazing team player that is a great target for buffs, benefitting from them significantly more than many of their counterparts, as well as being capable of facilitating whatever the team needs. You will also almost never hear the Rogue say "Hey guys, I think we should rest, I'm out of...X,Y,Z" unless it's HP (which, after a certain point should never really be an issue, assuming you have sufficient consumables i.e. healing potions, to replenish them). Seems pretty unselfish to me!

Tanarii

2023-08-03, 09:09 AM

Why isn't this in blue text? :smallcool:Because the main point of the OP, before everyone went down completely unrelated rabbit holes, was spot on.

Rogues should be the "death by a thousand cuts/punches" martial combat classes.

(Monks and Rangers too, but Monks already are. Rangers are often built to be that way, but unfortunately they don't deliver at TWF very well compared to Archery, S&B or 2H. Which is weird because the FS and class intro blurb encourages folks to go that route.)

Fighters, Barbarians and Paladins should be the "hammer with a huge attack" martial combat classes.

D&D, for historical-become-sacred-cow reasons, has it back to front for Rogues vs 3 of the Fighter-type archetypes.

Skrum

2023-08-03, 10:48 AM

One of the players I play with has a rogue support character that's quite effective; high mobility, solid damage output, grappling (allies and enemies, as the situation calls for it), scouting, even throwing himself into a tanking roll if it means saving another character.

But I still find this character build to be damning of rogues, and here's why: he's more ranger than rogue. Gloomstalker boosts his skirmishing abilities by giving effective invisibility against many enemies. It also gives extra attack, which I will absolutely die on the hill of rogues needing. This character also has the mobility feat, which combined with gloomstalker's pseudo-invisibility, means he RARELY has to spend his cunning action disengaging. He also has custom scimitars that take 1 attune slot for both and add a d6 of fire damage to each attack.

Rogue BY ITSELF can't do these things all that effectively. Like the monk, they are incredibly bonus action starved. Also like the monk, their boosters like to give them credit for ALL uses of cunning action in a single turn, but of course they can only use one. If a class that gets an ability that lets them do something (disengage easily), but also benefit from taking a feat that lets them do the same thing (mobility), that's a *really good* indication their base ability is not functioning properly or is underpowered.

=================

I get a lot of the design philosophy behind 5e was to make a simplified, easy to understand game while also running as far away from 4e as possible. And sadly, that ended up drudging up a lot of bad class designs of 3e.

The Factotum was right there. WotC made the good version of the rogue. But no, they went for one with sneak attack.

titi

2023-08-03, 11:08 AM

Because the main point of the OP, before everyone went down completely unrelated rabbit holes, was spot on.

Rogues should be the "death by a thousand cuts/punches" martial combat classes.

No. Rogues work better as the "1-hit-kill" class better because it's a trope tied to the assassin trope, which rogues are the classe closest to.

Skrum

2023-08-03, 11:36 AM

No. Rogues work better as the "1-hit-kill" class better because it's a trope tied to the assassin trope, which rogues are the classe closest to.

One hit one kill doesn't exist in DnD because of the abstraction of hit points. In real life, great warriors might survive dozens of blows (or boxers taking hundreds of punches), or they might die to a dart that happens to thread through their chainmail or visor. That flat-out cannot happen in DnD, because regardless of whether you're sleeping, stunned, incapacitated, or full ready to go, 120 hit points is 120 hit points.

A fast, cunning combatant that, say, fights with duel daggers is a staple fantasy trope. Rogue *would be* a great pick for that trope, except they don't get extra attack, so they're actually terrible for it.

The assassin subclass is essentially non-functional without the DM bending over backwards to make sure the assassin gets to assassinate. Dragging down the entire class with it is not something I support.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-03, 01:27 PM

Because the main point of the OP, before everyone went down completely unrelated rabbit holes, was spot on.

Rogues should be the "death by a thousand cuts/punches" martial combat classes.

(Monks and Rangers too, but Monks already are. Rangers are often built to be that way, but unfortunately they don't deliver at TWF very well compared to Archery, S&B or 2H. Which is weird because the FS and class intro blurb encourages folks to go that route.)

Fighters, Barbarians and Paladins should be the "hammer with a huge attack" martial combat classes.

D&D, for historical-become-sacred-cow reasons, has it back to front for Rogues vs 3 of the Fighter-type archetypes. Nope.
The original game's author disagrees with you.
(1) Ftr level's worth of attacks versus 1HD or less in original game (example cited in Strat Review Nr 2
(2) AD&D unearthed Arcana formalizing more attacks at higher levels. (Granted, in one minute long rounds).
Thieves got one attack and had to set it up to make it count (Backstab)

Original Monks did get stun, however ... and IIRC, AD&D 1e archers got two attacks per round. (But shooting into melee was a mess/risk0.
Don't have the book handy at the moment.

Fighters (originally Fighting Men) are the best at fighting. That's the trope D&D leans into from day one

LudicSavant

2023-08-03, 01:33 PM

{{Scrubbed}}

:smallconfused:

Similarly, the Glamour Bard that Ludic is so keen to espouse the benefits of with it's Mantle of Inspiration might be a great way to enhance the durability and mobility of the whole team...but how often is that actually going to be useful in play?

This argument is self-defeating.

A single use of Glamour Inspiration is better than a single use of Cunning Action.

Arguing that Glamour Inspiration is not useful in play often enough to use up your resources would mean that Cunning Action being usable more times per day than Glamour Inspiration wouldn't even be a relevant variable.

Or to put it another way, you only see the worst case scenario which requires a resource to be spent, not the adventuring day that the majority of campaigns are actually going to present.

Being in a more casual game doesn't help your case. Say we're in an official WotC module. In such a game, I posit that the adventure will generally run out of challenges before an optimized Bard stops burning hot (because optimized Bards are very resource efficient, and those modules are very easy).

you view the lack of resource expenditure as an inherent weakness.

I hold no such view.

Being a so-called "resourceless" character is not an inherent weakness, but it's not the strength you're making it out to be, either. Since Rogues still suffer attrition (as do their foes), one still needs to actually compare what those abilities are buying over a limited span of opportunity, same as with any other character.

The fact that your features don't consume resources (beyond action economy) doesn't exempt you from the need to demonstrate that the abilities are doing enough.

For instance, one should not assume that a Mastermind Rogue is more resource efficient than a Soulknife or Arcane Trickster just because the Mastermind lacks limited-use features. The question isn't how much resources their features consume, but how much cost to the party there is in order to resolve a given scenario. And sometimes having a Mastermind instead of an Arcane Trickster or Soulknife in your party will make that cost larger. Sometimes having a Rogue in your party instead of a Bard will make that cost larger.

Tanarii

2023-08-03, 01:41 PM

Fighters (originally Fighting Men) are the best at fighting. That's the trope D&D leans into from day one
Yes. That's the original game design that has resulting in a D&D sacred cow that doesn't match the current cultural zeitgeist on Rogue vs Fighter/Barbarian. On lightly armed & armored fast-striking warrior vs moderately to heavily armed and armored hard hitting warrior.

If non-Fighters went back to being mostly useless in combat, it'd be fine. Rogues could switch back to skill monkeys who can plink with arrows during a fight as long as they don't shoot into the melee, or ambush from the shadows with a single melee attack that better kill the enemy / run away back to the party for the main combat if it doesn't because they suck at melee.

Yakk

2023-08-03, 03:06 PM

Burning sneak attack dice is a good mechanic they are offering in D&DOne.

One thought I've had is to burn a sneak attack die (or two) to make another attack, possibly with fixed damage.

Imagine having to pick between these 3 features:

Cripple: When you deal sneak attack damage to a creature, for each die of sneak attack damage they suffer a -1 penalty to their next attack or saving throw before the end of your next turn.

Flurry: When make an attack that could deal sneak attack damage, you can sacrifice any number of sneak attack damage dice before you roll to hit. For each of these rolls, you get an extra attack. These extra attacks deal 1d6 damage, and their damage can only be increased by using your sneak attack damage on them or a critical hit.

Tactician: When you deal sneak attack damage to a creature, future sneak attack damage dice on that creature grow in size 1 step to a max of d12. You can only have larger than normal sneak attack dice on one creature at a time. You can also increase your sneak attack damage dice on a creature by making a Intelligence(Investigation) check against a DC equal to 10 plus 1/10th the creature's HD as an action while you can see the creature.

Those are 3 different "rogue-ish" type combat abilities.

LudicSavant

2023-08-03, 03:39 PM

I'm personally inclined to agree with the notion that the D&D Rogue isn't supposed to be the "death by a thousand cuts" guy -- that's a ludonarrative niche already suited to a Fighter or a Monk, so I'm not exactly left hungry for more (other than just like... generally wishing martials were as good in this system as they are in other systems).

To me the Rogue is the guy who darts in at the right moment for that crucial strike. You don't even see them until there's a single flash of a knife in the dark and arc of blood from a critical wound, before they fade away.

By that same note though, I think things like being able to hamstring or cripple opponents is right on-theme and they should totally have more stuff like that. I want the Rogue to be a guy who capitalizes on a wide variety of advantageous circumstances with big payoffs.

And there's plenty of room to add additional dimensions to that theme (like inflicting status effects) without making them overpowered, since currently they're less the guy who hits hard at a critical opportunity and more the guy who hits okay at a critical opportunity.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-03, 04:31 PM

I'm personally inclined to agree with the notion that the D&D Rogue isn't supposed to be the "death by a thousand cuts" guy -- that's a ludonarrative niche already suited to a Fighter or a Monk, so I'm not exactly left hungry for more (other than just like... generally wishing martials were as good in this system as they are in other systems).

To me the Rogue is the guy who darts in at the right moment for that crucial strike. You don't even see them until there's a single flash of a knife in the dark and arc of blood from a critical wound, before they fade away. Which underscores yet again that the premise of this thread is invalid: there is not one main fantasy for what a rogue is. (The second half of your post has some worthy ideas in it).

@Tanarii: no.
At this point, there is (particularly in WotC era D&D) some overlap between classes. How much their 'ought to be' won't ever be solved since mental models of what "ought to be" differ widely. And there will be some overlap.
Why?
If you have too many classes (a dozen or so in 5e, the explosion of classes in 3.x) and a typical party has 3-6 players then in order to cover the core roles and capabilities needed for a party - which is the actual standard unit of a D&D style RPD - there will necessarily be some overlap built in.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-08-03, 04:49 PM

JellyPooga

2023-08-03, 05:21 PM

This argument is self-defeating.

A single use of Glamour Inspiration is better than a single use of Cunning Action.

Arguing that Glamour Inspiration is not useful in play often enough to use up your resources would mean that Cunning Action being usable more times per day than Glamour Inspiration wouldn't even be a relevant variable.This doesn't follow. I'm not saying that Glamour Inspiration is less useful than Cunning Action; it's definitely a better effect. The point was that utilising a resource that does something good/better isn't always as condusive to being a team player as might be imagined. Yes, in a clutch circumstance, granting the whole team a reaction move plus tempHP is great, but it's also competing with regular BI use and will often encourage your team mates to do something that they might not otherwise want to do, in the same way that a Paladin encorages/forces a player into a more melee focused style of game. Not always best for team play even though it's a team-affecting ability. Using Cunning Action to move yourself whenever it's relevant for you is better than being forced/encouraged to use it when the Bard says so. The fact that it is a limited use ability only reinforces the "showboater" aspect of it.

Being in a more casual game doesn't help your case. Say we're in an official WotC module. In such a game, I posit that the adventure will generally run out of challenges before an optimized Bard stops burning hot (because optimized Bards are very resource efficient, and those modules are very easy). Opinion.

Being a so-called "resourceless" character is not an inherent weakness, but it's not the strength you're making it out to be, either. Since Rogues still suffer attrition (as do their foes), one still needs to actually compare what those abilities are buying over a limited span of opportunity, same as with any other character.

The fact that your features don't consume resources (beyond action economy) doesn't exempt you from the need to demonstrate that the abilities are doing enough. I'll challenge you to demonstrate they're not. I appreciate the difficulty of doing so and have stated it before, because the contribition isn't codified by a specific description in many cases. The span across which the Rogue features must be judged is far greater than the per encounter or per day that one might judge other Classes for the evident reason that one is limitless and one is limited by those same criteria. Your argument boils down to a direct comparison to a magic sword that deals +2d6 damage once per short rest vs a "simple" +1 sword. The value of the latter is going to increase the more encounters you have and the more attacks you have between rests, but that doesn't necesarily mean the former is the better choice across the longer span.

For instance, one should not assume that a Mastermind Rogue is more resource efficient than a Soulknife or Arcane Trickster just because the Mastermind lacks limited-use features. The question isn't how much resources their features consume, but how much cost to the party there is in order to resolve a given scenario. And sometimes having a Mastermind instead of an Arcane Trickster or Soulknife in your party will make that cost larger. Sometimes having a Rogue in your party instead of a Bard will make that cost larger.Again, you're looking at the shorter term value and misrepresenting the long term. Yes, those limited use features are better in the short term because that's the span across which they function. When the circumstance is such that the short term becomes the long term, those limited uses become a hindrance or non-effective because the party has to decide whether to reserve those resources for a later, more critical time.

I'm personally inclined to agree with the notion that the D&D Rogue isn't supposed to be the "death by a thousand cuts" guy -- that's a ludonarrative niche already suited to a Fighter or a Monk, so I'm not exactly left hungry for more (other than just like... generally wishing martials were as good in this system as they are in other systems).

To me the Rogue is the guy who darts in at the right moment for that crucial strike. You don't even see them until there's a single flash of a knife in the dark and arc of blood from a critical wound, before they fade away.

By that same note though, I think things like being able to hamstring or cripple opponents is right on-theme and they should totally have more stuff like that. I want the Rogue to be a guy who capitalizes on a wide variety of advantageous circumstances with big payoffs.

And there's plenty of room to add additional dimensions to that theme (like inflicting status effects) without making them overpowered, since currently they're less the guy who hits hard at a critical opportunity and more the guy who hits okay at a critical opportunity.I agree here. As far as the narrative of the Rogue goes, they're the one that often turns up at the clutch moment, out of nowhere, to finish the bad guy once that tank has taken their beating. I don't think Sneak Attack is a bad representation of what the Rogue is designed to do at all and on that front I disagree with the OP. The Rogue isn't the "flurry of dagger attacks" guy, he's the "right thing at the right time" guy, whether that be the clutch attack, the "right place, right time" moment or the "last minute save, even if it's by the squeak of the teeth" guy.

That's where the lack of limited abilities works for the Rogue. It might not be every encounter; in the majority of encounters, the Rogue is just passing muster, but because they're resource efficient (in action economy, in HP, in Class feature), when you need them to be there, they will save the resources of the party for later, they'll be there to deliver what's needed when all else is lost or already used.

For myself, since 5e's inception, I've wanted to see something like the Battlemaster manouevers on the Rogue chassis, but I'm also happy to play with them as-is because there's so much to play with. Yes, it's circumstantial. Yes, it's "lower powered" compared to the limited use of other classes features. And yes, in published adventures and Combat as Sport or White Room/Arena scenariosn the Rogue appears weak, but the value of the Rogue lies not in the short term, but across the entire span of the campaign, come what may. Sure, if all your adventuring days have the party resting before they've used all their limited use abilities then the Rogue isn't going to showcase what they contribute, but my argument is no different to the one that espouses the value of a support/buff caster, despite having no spotlight, because they enable the party to do what they do best.

At the end of the day, the Rogue needs less healing (mobility, UD, Evasion), is able to be where they're needed, when they need to be there (mobility), deal good enough damage (considering their primary targets, which is the squishies), can react to unexpected as well as common circumstances (versatility) and have options available when others don't (few limited resources). I grant that the Rogue is a reactive package as opposed to an active one; they shine best when the jazz is on the back foot or only when the circumstance allows, but under those circumstances you'll wish you had a useful Rogue instead of a useless specialist.

LudicSavant

2023-08-03, 05:39 PM

Opinion.

I'm sorry, what?

Like, that's not an opinion-based statement. I objectively can beat those adventure paths without ever running dry.

I'll challenge you to demonstrate they're not.

I feel I already have, in my prior posts. You made excuses to not bother looking at real play demonstrations, (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25836980&postcount=61) then say "opinion" when I tell you about the results of real play, and say "white room" if you're pointed at math.

The span across which the Rogue features must be judged is far greater than the per encounter or per day that one might judge other Classes for the evident reason that one is limitless and one is limited by those same criteria.

You keep repeating this, and it's still false; the Rogue is not limitless, because they don't stop the attrition clock (either for their party, or Team Monster). As such, they need to be judged over a finite span of opportunity just like everyone else.

The correct question to ask isn't "how much does it cost to use my abilities." It's "how much does it cost the party to resolve this challenge?" Just because your abilities don't cost resources doesn't mean you can resolve the challenge for free.

Devils_Advocate

2023-08-03, 05:44 PM

So it's basically irrelevant to 5e? PF2 has a Bleeding condition, and the game is designed around that; 5e doesn't.
This thread not only hasn't been limited to discussing the game as it is now, but has been about potential changes from the start. Those potential changes aren't even just relevant to the discussion so much as they are the subject at hand.

I covered that in my first post (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?658294-Rogues-main-damage-mechanic-is-a-bad-representation-of-their-fantasy&p=25836213&viewfull=1#post25836213); you don't need homebrew to replace Sneak Attack with multiple attacks or spells etc, multiclassing can do that. (You can of course homebrew if you want to, but I was pointing out an approach that already exists in the game.) Hell, you don't even need Rogue to get Expertise, though of course they get it early enough that you can start there without too much fuss.
Yeah, but in some cases, that still results in more Sneak Attack, less other Rogue features, and more other class baggage than the player wants. There are reasons why some would prefer the homebrew option beyond not understanding what can be accomplished with multiclassing. My guess is that most who want additional options are already aware of most existing ones, and the issue isn't just that they're unfamiliar with e.g. Shadow Monks.

You don't need to "hallucinate" to recognize that attacks and damage are abstractions in D&D.
Some gamers care about feel, player-facing mechanical aesthetic, or however you want to put it, and want "crunch" that "sells" what's going on on the fiction layer. Flavor-neutral action resolution is what they object to. "It's just an abstraction" not only isn't the solution, it's the problem.

It's not a problem for you, I take it, but I hope that you can refrain from responses to the effect of "Disliking what I like is wrong".

Tanarii

2023-08-03, 06:08 PM

@Tanarii: no.
At this point, there is (particularly in WotC era D&D) some overlap between classes. How much their 'ought to be' won't ever be solved since mental models of what "ought to be" differ widely. And there will be some overlap.
Why?
If you have too many classes (a dozen or so in 5e, the explosion of classes in 3.x) and a typical party has 3-6 players then in order to cover the core roles and capabilities needed for a party - which is the actual standard unit of a D&D style RPD - there will necessarily be some overlap built in.
All of which is irrelevant to Rogues failing to meet the current (as in now well over twenty years old) cultural zeitgeist for what Rogues should be: Agile & fast stabbing warriors.

LudicSavant

2023-08-03, 06:33 PM

Hmm yes, saving their resources by spending my own. Efficiency personified :smallannoyed:

I'm not saying that Glamour Inspiration is less useful than Cunning Action; it's definitely a better effect. The point was that utilising a resource that does something good/better isn't always as condusive to being a team player as might be imagined. Yes, in a clutch circumstance, granting the whole team a reaction move plus tempHP is great, but it's also competing with regular BI use and will often encourage your team mates to do something that they might not otherwise want to do, in the same way that a Paladin encorages/forces a player into a more melee focused style of game. Not always best for team play even though it's a team-affecting ability. Using Cunning Action to move yourself whenever it's relevant for you is better than being forced/encouraged to use it when the Bard says so. The fact that it is a limited use ability only reinforces the "showboater" aspect of it.

I must say, I can't empathize with the notion that support abilities are "forcing allies to do something" or "selfish" or "showboating."

To me, a good team is one that operates basically as seamless extensions of each other. We don't even think about who's using a resource, it's just about what's being accomplished for the team. The Bard is inspiring me not just because they feel like it, but because we both feel like it. Perhaps I am simply blessed with being in less dysfunctional teams. :smalleek:

Edit:
That said, many of the things you say that different party members encourage people to do also applies to Rogues. For example, you mention a Paladin 'encouraging/forcing a player into a more melee focused style of game.' I don't agree about the forcing at all, but as far as providing an incentive to do something, the Rogue certainly does that with regards to people generating advantage, generating off-turn sneak attacks, and having allies in melee range.

If they don't have people helping them to consistently qualify for sneak attack (on and off turn), and (especially at more tactical tables) preventing enemies from negating Sneak Attack, then a Rogue's damage falls off a cliff.

JackPhoenix

2023-08-03, 07:18 PM

strangebloke

2023-08-03, 10:05 PM

Lets talk about the virtues of being "resourceless" by way of analogy.

A car burns gas. It has limited range based on its mileage and fuel tank size. A plane has fuel. It similarly has limited range based on fuel. Bikes do not use fuel. So in this sense, they're "resourceless." So clearly if we're determining the 'range' that each of these vehicles can travel, the bike has the longest theoretical maximum, right? So these vehicles are functionally balanced, yes?

Well

No.

Because of course, bikes are very slow compared to cars and planes, and if you actually try to bike a thousand miles you're either going to drop dead or need to rest and 'refuel.' Your vehicle doesn't use gas, but you, the operator, do have limited stamina, and you will run out eventually. In fact, the plane and the car can get you farther and won't deplete your stamina because the gas/fuel does most of the work for you.

This is the basic problem of a 'resourceless' character. They don't spend resources on things like shield but all that means is that they get hit more. If a wizard runs out of shield a rogue in the same day would have been hit dozens of times by the same point. How much extra damage do you take because you're trapped in a slug fest with a bunch of hobgoblins instead of just blowing them up with a fireball on turn 1?

I've run gritty realism games with 10+ hard/deadly encounters. It isn't a style I'd recommend, but I can easily tell you. The party cleric rarely ever ran out of slots.

Skrum

2023-08-03, 10:40 PM

I grant that the Rogue is a reactive package as opposed to an active one; they shine best when the jazz is on the back foot or only when the circumstance allows, but under those circumstances you'll wish you had a useful Rogue instead of a useless specialist.

So, like others here, I think you're weighing "resourceless" abilities far too highly, and giving rogues far too much credit. But, I will agree with you on one narrow point: the rogue somehow hits their element when the stuff goes sideways. In a recent game in fact, we got into a fight with 2 5-headed hydras that each had legendary actions, and the party had no fire damage. It went badly. No one died through a combination of the monk grabbing the dropped paladin and running up a wall, and the rogue grabbing the dropped fighter and diving into a storm drain. There was more to it than that, but the rogue especially was able to maneuver around and get everyone out. It was a really fun moment, and we all lived to fight another day.

However, I think there's a big "hold on a minute here"
1) my character, the rogue, was a barb/rogue multiclass. His ability to do what he did was predicated on having a ton of hit points, being resistant to the hydras (piercing and poison), and tanking a bunch of hits. And it was MULTIPLE hits (5 heads each, plus a legendary that let them attack with all 5 heads off-turn). Uncanny Dodge would've been near useless. Only character that does what he did either has rage + poison resist, or an AC of 27+

2) if we'd had fire damage, we wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place lol. Swap out my rogue/barb for a caster with some fire damage, and we probably just win.

3) yes, it's cool to be the character that can bail people out in a scrappy, hard-scrabble way. It's legit really fun (the above encounter where we got our butt handed to us was the most fun encounter of the night). But *most of the time,* a more powerful/capable character means the party doesn't end up in that situation at all. This is exactly the resource dynamic that everyone is talking about. And while an occasional butt-kicking is really fun, constantly running away, barely surviving, and *losing fights* is a lot less fun.

Think of it this way: the rogue has great solid mechanics to run away (dimension door is a great mechanic to run away. Cunning action is a solid one). But when it comes to the trope of the tactician that picks their fights carefully, maneuvers their enemies into traps, and acts as a "force multiplier," the rogue has literally *zero* abilities to support that. They can attack, and they can manually run away. That's it. The casters, with slow, hypnotic pattern, synoptic static, etc etc etc, are the classes that can actually do those things. The rogue can....do mediocre damage and manually run away.

Psyren

2023-08-03, 10:52 PM

Some gamers care about feel, player-facing mechanical aesthetic, or however you want to put it, and want "crunch" that "sells" what's going on on the fiction layer. Flavor-neutral action resolution is what they object to. "It's just an abstraction" not only isn't the solution, it's the problem.

It's not a problem for you, I take it, but I hope that you can refrain from responses to the effect of "Disliking what I like is wrong".

I do care about feel. I just happen to recognize the fact that it is not the only consideration when designing a game, rather it is one among many. If you want a system where every single swing or blade flourish should be accompanied by a die roll, you're not wrong to feel that way, that's totally fine. If you want that system to be D&D 5e however, you've either vastly limited the concepts any martial class that isn't Fighter can represent, consigned yourself to a second job's worth of homebrew, or have left yourself nothing to look forward to save disappointment. Again, none of those are "wrong", but me pointing out that there's a fourth option is valid. It may not appeal to you, but my posts generally aren't just for the person I'm replying to; that's why they're posts, rather than PMs.

This thread not only hasn't been limited to discussing the game as it is now, but has been about potential changes from the start. Those potential changes aren't even just relevant to the discussion so much as they are the subject at hand.

Why are mechanical changes on the table for discussion, but not mindset/narrative ones? As I said above, reframing the narrative is an equally valid suggestion, and it may help someone else who is similarly struggling with this issue even if you don't find it helpful.

Yeah, but in some cases, that still results in more Sneak Attack, less other Rogue features, and more other class baggage than the player wants. There are reasons why some would prefer the homebrew option beyond not understanding what can be accomplished with multiclassing. My guess is that most who want additional options are already aware of most existing ones, and the issue isn't just that they're unfamiliar with e.g. Shadow Monks.

If you prefer the idea of homebrewing a multi attack rogue variant to multiclassing, I have no problems with that. That doesn't mean I still won't suggest multiclassing as a possible solution. There's a lot of fertile ground for discussion there - which classes might work, and in what mix? What feats and backgrounds?

And no, I'm not going to make any assumptions about what people who aren't me do or don't know about. People ask questions like how they can get expertise around here all the time, or how Artificers work, and while those questions might seem basic to me, I've been playing D&D for decades and posting regularly on D&D message boards. There are plenty of people who don't have the same breadth of awareness of potential options that you or I do.

Schwann145

2023-08-04, 12:10 AM

The "agile and fast-stabbing" warrior is best represented by... the Fighter. As it should be. Because "Fighter" is a blank-canvas class that is meant to fill whatever warrior style fantasy you wish to use it for.
If you're looking for "guy who is supposed to hit slow and hard by definition," then you need to be looking at the Barbarian.

The Rogue class, meanwhile, is not an extension of the Fighter in the way that a Barbarian or Ranger is. The Rogue is the blank-canvas class for an entirely different style of play: "the expert." The Rogue knows where to stab you to make it really hurt, but they're not "good at it," which is why it requires study (older editions) or advantage (current edition).
If the concept of character you're going for is "agile, fast, deadly warrior" then you need to be looking at Fighter, Ranger, or Monk, because Rogue isn't it.*

If your disagreement with this boils down to some form of, "but X character in media..." I would argue that said character is also better built as a Fighter than a Rogue.
Even the WoW Rogue is mostly just a Fighter. (Assassination is all about poisons, which anyone can use; Combat is all about dual-wielding Fighter; Subtlety is the only spec that is a Rogue, an Assassin Rogue to be specific, and even then it's probably better represented by Shadow Monk).

*- Swashbuckler being the very out-of-place exception. It really should have been a Fighter subclass.

Witty Username

2023-08-04, 02:00 AM

This is the basic problem of a 'resourceless' character. They don't spend resources on things like shield but all that means is that they get hit more. If a wizard runs out of shield a rogue in the same day would have been hit dozens of times by the same point. How much extra damage do you take because you're trapped in a slug fest with a bunch of hobgoblins instead of just blowing them up with a fireball on turn 1?

This depends pretty significantly on the resources expended for what you get though.

For example monks. they get to spend ki to do stuff, so the are obviously better than resourseless characters because they have resources to spend. Focused Aim means you can spend ki to add to attack bonuses. That is obviously better than the fighter's stuff. until you take into account archery style gets the same bonus for free on every attack. For focused Aim to be on par with archery a monk would need something like 30 ki to match archery style.

Rogue has a similar contour in several places in this comparison, step of the wind (ki) vs cunning action (free) for the same effect, or sneak attack (free) vs flurry of blows (ki).

For resources to make a difference, they need to be superior to what the resourceless classes get.

Rogue vs bard, this is somewhat the case. the rogue will still have superior damage options a majority of the time, while the bard as more options for control and support.

vs something like say barbarian or monk, they only match when rage and ki allows, and flounder badly once those options are expended.
--
We could just add extra attack onto rogue? Most of the complaints in rogue's direction amount to them not having it. And its not like the didn't get additional attacks on top of sneak attack in previous editions.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-04, 08:07 AM

All of which is irrelevant to Rogues failing to meet the current (as in now well over twenty years old) cultural zeitgeist for what Rogues should be: Agile & fast stabbing warriors. Recommend reading the 5e PHB to understand what the 5e rogue is supposed to be. In Diablo I she was an archer and had the trap removal skill. We aren't discussing WoW, nor Diablo IV (where you can go Archer or Melee for DPS). We are discussing D&D 5e, and also not 4e where rogue was more or less a Striker.

Just because WoW did it doesn't mean it's the only correct way to depict a rogue. Correct.

The "agile and fast-stabbing" warrior is best represented by... the Fighter. As it should be. Because "Fighter" is a blank-canvas class that is meant to fill whatever warrior style fantasy you wish to use it for. Correct.

The Rogue class, meanwhile, is not an extension of the Fighter in the way that a Barbarian or Ranger is. Which has been true since Greyhawk supplement. (And for that matter Paladin ...)
The Rogue is the blank-canvas class for an entirely different style of play: "the expert." Which WotC identifies in the NPC supplement (eventually published in Tasha's) and is leaning into for D&Done. Rogue as skill monkey fits the game better than MMORPGs do since all MMROPGs have to also enable SOLO PLAY while the core unit of play in D&D TTRPG is the party.

*- Swashbuckler being the very out-of-place exception. It really should have been a Fighter subclass. Not gonna disagree, although I have enjoyed my swashbuckler rogue. :smallbiggrin:

For Tanarii: The Rogue can, from level 1, use two short swords to attack twice (or two daggers) and the only downside is the loss of Dex bonus damage on the second attack. The stabby-stabby is already built into it if one wants to harness the game engine to do that.

Witty Username

2023-08-04, 09:13 AM

For Tanarii: The Rogue can, from level 1, use two short swords to attack twice (or two daggers) and the only downside is the loss of Dex bonus damage on the second attack. The stabby-stabby is already built into it if one wants to harness the game engine to do that.

We could give rogue a fighting style perhaps? two-weapon fighting and archery are good candidates, maybe dueling and blind-fighting as well.

That would fit the proposals of how to improve rogue.

Tanarii

2023-08-04, 09:49 AM

For Tanarii: The Rogue can, from level 1, use two short swords to attack twice (or two daggers) and the only downside is the loss of Dex bonus damage on the second attack. The stabby-stabby is already built into it if one wants to harness the game engine to do that.
Agreed. Fair. Etc. :smallcool:

The 2 weapon stabby-stabby does get support from basic TWF for a Rogue in 5e. And it does a fairly solid job on a calculated DPR front, since it enhances th contribution from Sneak Attack quite a large amount.

In terms of table use it is a little weird though, since IMX very often players that hit with their first attack then skip the second for a cunning action. That's good in terms of round to round tactical decision making, it's just a little weird from the stabby-stabby concept POV.

But at least "I stab you with my two (possibly oversized) daggers" has a solid impact.

(For the folks that think TWF is silly and breaks their verisimilitude that'd be a bad thing, which sometimes includes me depending on my fickle mood. But for purposes of the thread's OP thesis it's a good thing.)

JellyPooga

2023-08-04, 10:04 AM

I'm sorry, what?

Like, that's not an opinion-based statement. I objectively can beat those adventure paths without ever running dry.Anecdotal. You can claim anything you like without proof. Doesn't make it true and it's certainly not a good faith argument.

I feel I already have, in my prior posts. You made excuses to not bother looking at real play demonstrations, (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25836980&postcount=61) then say "opinion" when I tell you about the results of real play, and say "white room" if you're pointed at math.I'm afraid that isn't how referencing and burden of proof works. You might as well make the statement "space and time are related because Einstein"; yes, it's relevant, but it does not prove anything, nor specify what about Einstein (or The Gauntlet) and his work you're actually talking about, beyond that you know vaguely where to source your proof. The onus on research and the display of relevant information is upon you; show me proof in the form of verifiable data, as well as the source. It's not on me to do your research for you and it's not an "excuse" to expect you to back up your own point rather than do it for you. In good faith, I took it upon myself to look up The Gauntlet (again, I knew nothing of it previous to this discussion) and even so, still have no idea where, precisely, you're drawing your data from or what you want me to look at here. You claim that there 1000's of hours of proof that Champions don't make good stand-ins for basically any other class; point me at where, precisely, on this website I can find this information. A link would be nice. You'll also have to prove that data on Champions is relevant to the argument i.e. Rogues. That or show similar data/proof regarding Rogues.

You keep repeating this, and it's still false; the Rogue is not limitless, because they don't stop the attrition clock (either for their party, or Team Monster). As such, they need to be judged over a finite span of opportunity just like everyone else.

The correct question to ask isn't "how much does it cost to use my abilities." It's "how much does it cost the party to resolve this challenge?" Just because your abilities don't cost resources doesn't mean you can resolve the challenge for free.

Ok, can we assume that I accept that Rogues aren't entirely "limitless" or "resourceless" but that I use those terms for brevity and eases sake? Regardless of whether they're completely resourceless or not, the point still stands that not using a resource and still resolving the encounter is better than using a resource to the same end. I've never said the Rogue can solve every encounter for free, I've said that they save resources by the fact that many/most of their resources/features are unlimited (sorry, sorry, I'll clarify; almost unlimited) and they can still resolve encounters. If you are of the opinion that the Rogues features are too weak to play a contributing factor to resolving encounters efficiently, then you need to prove it because my claim that "resolving encounter X without using a limited resource is better than resolving it with one and that Rogues are good at the former" is self-evidently true. If you don't believe it's self-evident, here's my proof:

Example: The challenge is a DC:20 locked door with a trap, DC:20 to spot, DC:20 to disarm (for the sake of argument, let's call it a falling block trap that deals 5d6 damage in a 10ft square in front of the door, Dex Save for half damage). A level 11 Rogue can find and disarm the trap and pick the lock without expending any resource and without fail. Investment: Skill proficiency in Perception, Expertise in Perception and Thieves Tools, Dex:16. Wis:14 (a pretty common, even low-balled Rogue loadout; nothing unusual or niche here). Name one other Class that can bypass this challenge without risk or using any more resources than my core chassis Rogue who, without subclass, equipment (beyond basic thieves tools) or any other feature, resolves this challenge in three rounds. Oh, and stick to Class features only; we're not comparing anything else (though I'll allow Thieves Tools proficiency from Background). This is not an opinion, this is not a white room, it's a single, verifiable challenge that might actually occur in an adventure. Is this a good challenge for a level 11 character? No, it's stupidly easy and is an entirely pointless hurdle that really costs nothing but time, but if you cannot resolve even this easy challenge without expending resources, then my point stands, because the Rogue can definitely resolve or contribute towards harder challenges than that without resource cost, or at least being resource efficient, thus saving the party their limited resources.

Just "having more limited resources" is not the same as having a (near) unlimited resource. Granted, having enough resources to achieve the same end result is comparable to having (near) unlimited resources, but not necessarily better, per se; there are circumstances in which the one will be more useful than the other and vice versa. Harder challenges would tend to favour the resource limited, where longer/endurance challenges favour the resource unlimited, assuming they both end up resolving the challenge.

So, like others here, I think you're weighing "resourceless" abilities far too highly, and giving rogues far too much credit. But, I will agree with you on one narrow point: the rogue somehow hits their element when the stuff goes sideways. In a recent game in fact, we got into a fight with 2 5-headed hydras that each had legendary actions, and the party had no fire damage. It went badly. No one died through a combination of the monk grabbing the dropped paladin and running up a wall, and the rogue grabbing the dropped fighter and diving into a storm drain. There was more to it than that, but the rogue especially was able to maneuver around and get everyone out. It was a really fun moment, and we all lived to fight another day.

However, I think there's a big "hold on a minute here"
1) my character, the rogue, was a barb/rogue multiclass. His ability to do what he did was predicated on having a ton of hit points, being resistant to the hydras (piercing and poison), and tanking a bunch of hits. And it was MULTIPLE hits (5 heads each, plus a legendary that let them attack with all 5 heads off-turn). Uncanny Dodge would've been near useless. Only character that does what he did either has rage + poison resist, or an AC of 27+

2) if we'd had fire damage, we wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place lol. Swap out my rogue/barb for a caster with some fire damage, and we probably just win.

3) yes, it's cool to be the character that can bail people out in a scrappy, hard-scrabble way. It's legit really fun (the above encounter where we got our butt handed to us was the most fun encounter of the night). But *most of the time,* a more powerful/capable character means the party doesn't end up in that situation at all. This is exactly the resource dynamic that everyone is talking about. And while an occasional butt-kicking is really fun, constantly running away, barely surviving, and *losing fights* is a lot less fun.

Think of it this way: the rogue has great solid mechanics to run away (dimension door is a great mechanic to run away. Cunning action is a solid one). But when it comes to the trope of the tactician that picks their fights carefully, maneuvers their enemies into traps, and acts as a "force multiplier," the rogue has literally *zero* abilities to support that. They can attack, and they can manually run away. That's it. The casters, with slow, hypnotic pattern, synoptic static, etc etc etc, are the classes that can actually do those things. The rogue can....do mediocre damage and manually run away.

Rogue/Barbarian is a solid multiclass with a ton of synergy, for sure, but I think you're being a little quick to leap to assumptions. Yeah, resistance to poison and piercing damage is great in that scenario, as would a fire mage be, but it's literally just one specific scenario; what if you were fighting a Fire-Hydra (or whatever), that was immune or resistant to fire damage and breathed fire? The ability to deal fire damage wouldn't be nearly as useful, potentially even wasteful or even counterproductive in a scenario (pulled out of my butt) where fire damage healed your foe instead. Similarly, I think you have to consider that point about piercing and poison damage. For one, poison resistance is very easy to come by (e.g. be a dwarf) and Uncanny Dodge is better, perhaps, that you might imagine. Run the numbers on it; all other things being equal, without spending anything but their reaction, the Rogue is more HP efficient than any other class unless they're being swarmed by a ludicrous number of attacks dealing CR-inappropriately low damage. Yes, the Barbarian pulls way ahead with its higher HD and Rage resistance, a few encounters a day. Yes, a Paladin or Ranger can use Lay on Hands or spells to heal. The Rogue, however, can reduce the damage of one hit every round by half. In an adventuring day of 4 combat encounters, assuming 3 rounds per encounter and that the Rogue is getting hit at least once per round, that's 12 hits per adventuring day. If each hit would have dealt 10 damage (incidentally, that's the average damage of a MM Orc hitting with a greataxe, just so we have a baseline), that's an effective +60hp that the Rogue has. At level 20, on average, a Fighter has a mere 20 additional HP over the Rogue. The Barbarian has 40hp extra. At level 20. Assuming the Rogue has sufficient HP/healing to survive the day, he has that effective +60hp at level 5. At that level, the Fighter is enjoying a mere +5hp and the Barbarian +10hp...unless they use their limited resources. The Rogue might not have as many HP, but they're HP efficient and that doesn't even account for how much higher that efficiency climbs when you consider Evasion and their mobility.

You also claim that Rogue don't do anything but run away or attack and I'll dispute that. Yes, casters and their spells have nice little discreet packages of features laid out on a platter for you, but that doesn't preclude replicating those effects or similar through more mundane or creative ways. With their durability (see HP efficiency), mobility and dearth of bonus action options (read: action efficiency), the Rogue is well positioned to take advantage of terrain, cover, put themselves where they need to be to do the thing they need to do. This can include baiting mobs, creating difficult terrain, blocking lines of attack or line of sight, grappling, restraining, shoving and more. The basic Rogue (sneak) attack is something they do when all that's left is to knock down the big ol' HP number, but as we've already established that's not what they're good at. Can other characters do those same mundane things? Sure they can. Are they as good as the Rogue at it or do they have something more suited to their own suite of abilities? Arguably, no and probably respectively. I brought it up as an example before, but who else is as well positioned to grapple a target into an opportune space than a character that has both a massive bonus to Athletics and a bonus to speed to counteract the speed penalty imposed by grappling? Sure, a Barbarian can put someone on the ground and wail on them with an axe, but the Rogue can drag a foe into range of the Barbarian and the Paladin and let them do what they do best instead of wasting their potential on doing what the Rogue can do better. That's a force-multiplier.

As for "running away", I would contend that whilst yes, Dimension Door is a great tool for getting you and a friend out of dodge, better than Cunning Action, it's also a massive waste of a significant resource (yes, a lvl.4 spell slot is always a significant resource) for a simple repositioning or tactical move. Even Misty Step at a lvl.2 resource, isn't something you're going to throw away. Mobility isn't just for kiting or running away; it's a tactical tool and the ability to spam it every single round, whether you're using it for speed (dash) or safety (disengage), is a significant boon.

Corran

2023-08-04, 10:09 AM

We could just add extra attack onto rogue? Most of the complaints in rogue's direction amount to them not having it. And its not like the didn't get additional attacks on top of sneak attack in previous editions.
Few issues (not necessarily unresolvable).

When you are in melee and you miss with your attack, you then have the choice to attack with the off hand or to use cunning action (usually for disengage). Extra attack will play around this choice most of the time.

When you are in range, steady aim gives you a choice between advantage (2 chances at sneak attack) or moving plus cunning action. Extra attack will again play around that choice most of the time.

Even hiding during combat becomes less important if you've already got two chances at sneak attack through extra attack.

Think of aesthetics now. How is that melee rogue without extra attack going for a second bite? By using that dagger that they have up their sleeve/ tucked in their boot, or that shortsword hanging from their belt. The off hand is useful. With extra attack on, that off hand is free to use somehow else. Is the aim to have shield using or grappler rogues be the new fashion?

Besides. It's an overused mechanic. 4 classes and unfortunately too many subclasses already get it.

If it's meant to be a means to an end (eg bump the rogue's dpr), then I'd rather have that be done via a more original way (also, with care too, as I wouldn't want rogues stepping on too many toes, since they are not the only class I enjoy playing). But if it's meant to be an effort of turning the rogue more into something that already exists? Meh. Classes are supposed to be different enough, so not liking every single toy does not really mean anything on its own.

That said, the system includes subclasses. Stuff like extra attack or opening up weapon selection could be used as the basis of some rogue subclass (if it makes sense thematically and can be balanced).

Skrum

2023-08-04, 10:50 AM

strangebloke

2023-08-04, 11:40 AM

This depends pretty significantly on the resources expended for what you get though.

For example monks. they get to spend ki to do stuff, so the are obviously better than resourseless characters because they have resources to spend. Focused Aim means you can spend ki to add to attack bonuses. That is obviously better than the fighter's stuff. until you take into account archery style gets the same bonus for free on every attack. For focused Aim to be on par with archery a monk would need something like 30 ki to match archery style.

Rogue has a similar contour in several places in this comparison, step of the wind (ki) vs cunning action (free) for the same effect, or sneak attack (free) vs flurry of blows (ki).

For resources to make a difference, they need to be superior to what the resourceless classes get.

Rogue vs bard, this is somewhat the case. the rogue will still have superior damage options a majority of the time, while the bard as more options for control and support.

vs something like say barbarian or monk, they only match when rage and ki allows, and flounder badly once those options are expended.
--
We could just add extra attack onto rogue? Most of the complaints in rogue's direction amount to them not having it. And its not like the didn't get additional attacks on top of sneak attack in previous editions.

Oh I mean sure, to further torture the analogy, a steamroller runs on fuel as well, but that doesn't mean it has a further range than a bicycle. The point is that having resources or not having resources is fundamentally irrelevant to whether a build can perform well in a long adventuring day. Champion is resourceless and terrible, and Banneret has a resource that's terrible. What matters is, how efficiently can the character deal with a range of encounters?

Though I disagree really strongly with your examples. You don't need 30 ki to match archery style because you only use focused aim when the +2 turns a hit into a miss, and in combination with ki-fueled attack it actually does more for you than archery style (and you can get archery style from a feat). Monks need ki to bonus action dash, but their base movement (and thus their BA dash) is 50% better than the rogue in tier 2. FoB isn't free, but MA bonus attack is and so is extra attack.

Rogues deal better single target damage than bards by default in a 'resourceless' environment, but that's a pretty trivial metric. Animate Objects is *very* efficient. Bardic inspiration can add tons of damage. Synaptic Static or Raulothim's Lance are pretty nasty as well. Even heat metal can chew through an enemy under the right circumstances.

But really the more relevant point is that not all 'roles' are created equal, and 'single target resourceless consistency' simply isn't a role at all.

Rogues would be better with extra attack, but their bigger issue is just that they don't have impactful abilities in general. They can't burst for a big amount of damage, can't control the enemy, aren't super durable except in the sense they can be hard to target. They're just.... not very impactful.

Corran

2023-08-04, 12:28 PM

Rogues deal better single target damage than bards by default in a 'resourceless' environment, but that's a pretty trivial metric. Animate Objects is *very* efficient.
It is. But that's a problem with most summoning spells. There are supposed to be inherit disadvantages to being able to replace a martial with a spell (eg the actual martial character wont be one concentration check away from disappearing or worse), but they are not enough considering how little space in a caster's arsenal just one spell consumes. But why is martial caster inequality (whether imaginary or real; it's not my intention to open this can of worms) such an important criterion in judging the design flaws and virtues of a single non casting class anyway?

LudicSavant

2023-08-04, 12:37 PM

Anecdotal.

But not opinion-based. It's an outcome.

All real play is anecdotal. If you ask for evidence from real play, that's what you get.

It also should be very straightforward why this outcome occurs: if you make a module easier, it usually doesn't get harder to avoid running out of resources.

Regardless of whether they're completely resourceless or not, the point still stands that not using a resource and still resolving the encounter is better than using a resource to the same end.

The cost to resolve an encounter is not just a function of how much it costs to use your abilities, it's also a function of how much your abilities stop Team Monster (or other obstacles) from doing Bad Stuff to your party.

People don't burn resources just to "showboat," it's because they determime that the cost of not doing it is greater than the cost of doing so.

Example: The challenge is a DC:20 locked door with a trap, DC:20 to spot, DC:20 to disarm (for the sake of argument, let's call it a falling block trap that deals 5d6 damage in a 10ft square in front of the door, Dex Save for half damage). A level 11 Rogue can find and disarm the trap and pick the lock without expending any resource and without fail. Investment: Skill proficiency in Perception, Expertise in Perception and Thieves Tools, Dex:16. Wis:14 (a pretty common, even low-balled Rogue loadout; nothing unusual or niche here). Name one other Class that can bypass this challenge without risk

A Bard. Or a Wizard with a cantrip, for that matter; looks like a trap that can be circumvented by remote trigger, which is a common tactic especially for old school players.

But let's Steelman your argument for a second, and say for the sake of argument that you picked a better example that really is a case where you need Reliable Talent in order to truly reduce the risk of using resources (be they abilities or HP loss from the falling block) to zero.

The question then becomes if the number of these situations, and the degree by which you reduced the risk from them, is greater than the degree of increased risk suffered from situations you would be less suited for than an alternate build (like, say, stopping those mind flayer arcanists from eating the party's brains). And this is not at all a safe assumption.

It takes an awful lot of challenge to burn out a level 11 optimized Bard's resources (WotC's published modules are not enough to do it, the campaign needs to be significantly harder than that). Not only that, but if they were burning hotter than you during that time, then you don't catch up the instant they're tired. That's just when you start playing catchup. You have to then burn hotter than them long enough and hard enough to catch up to their head start, and this must occur before either the adventuring day runs out of challenges (because then the Bard refreshes and starts widening their lead on you again) or the party reaches a fail state (like running into those mind flayer arcanists when nobody has the tools to reliably stop them).

No more, but also no less.

If you want to measure resource efficiency for practical optimization, that's the way to do it. You don't just get to say "well, X is resourceless, therefore it will eventually catch up." That may seem intuitive, but it's not actually mathematically true.

stoutstien

2023-08-04, 01:01 PM

Extremely rough draft of my butchering my WIP rogue to see if it would be possible to "have you cake and eat it too" with rogue as class,troupe, and mechanic.

Hit Dice: 1d8 per rogue level
Points at 1st Level: 8 + your Constitution modifier
Hit Points at Higher Levels: 1d8 (or 5) + your Constitution modifier per rogue level after 1st

Proficiencies
Armor: Light armor
Weapons: one handed melee weapons and ranged weapons without the heavy property.
Tools: Thieves' tools
Saving Throws: Dexterity, Intelligence
Skills: Choose four from Acrobatics, Athletics, Deception, Insight, Intimidation, Investigation, Perception, Performance, Persuasion, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth

Reliable Talent
Beginning at 1st level, you have refined your chosen skills until they approach perfection. Whenever you make an ability check that lets you add your proficiency bonus, you can treat a d20 roll of 5 or lower as a 6.

As you further master your skills this number increases. The value is equal to 5 + half your rogue level rounded up.

Exposed Chinks
Beginning at 1st level, you know how to keep your opponents constantly off guard. Once per round when you hit with an attack you create an opening you or an ally can exploit. The next attack that hits that creature deals an extra 1d6 damage.

The amount of the extra damage increases as you gain levels. This damage is equal to a number of D6 equal to half your rogue level rounded up.

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

Roguish Archetype
At 3rd level, you choose an archetype that you emulate in the exercise of your rogue abilities. Your archetype choice grants you features at 3rd level and then again at 9th, 13th, and 17th level.

Ability Score Improvement
When you reach 4th level, and again at 8th, 10th, 12th, 16th, and 19th level, you can increase one ability score of your choice by 2, or you can increase two ability scores of your choice by 1. As normal, you can't increase an ability score above 20 using this feature.

Masterful recovery
At 5th level, you have a knack for succeeding when you need to. If you attack a target within range, you can forgo rolling and hit regardless of any other stipulations.

Alternatively, if you make an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20.

Once you use this feature, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.

Uncanny Dodge
Starting at 6th level, when an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to halve the attack's damage against you.

Evasion
Beginning at 7th level, you can nimbly dodge out of the way of certain area effects, such as a red dragon's fiery breath or an Ice Storm spell. When you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a Dexterity saving throw to take only half damage, you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, and only half damage if you fail.

Palm and misdirection
Beginning at 11th level, you have an unmatched ability to conceal objects on your person. During a short rest you can select any two tiny objects, including similarly sized weapons, that could comfortably fit in your hand. As a bonus action, you can achieve the following effects with those objects.

Vanish- you cause the object in your hand to disappear and is undetectable by mundane means less invasive than a strip search.

Produce- You cause one object you have vanished to appear in one of your empty hands.

Switch- you cause one of the objects in your hand to become a different object you have selected with this feature.

Elusive
Beginning at 14th level, you are so evasive that attackers rarely gain the upper hand against you. No attack roll has advantage against you while you aren't incapacitated.

Slippery Mind
By 15th level, you have acquired greater mental strength. You gain proficiency in Wisdom saving throws.

Peerless
By 18th level you have honded your skills beyond perfection. Your proficiency bonus is increased by 2 to a maximum of 8.

Orchestrated Schemes
When you reach 20th level, you have become adept at quickly assessing dangers and formulating plans. You can take two turns during the first round of any combat. You take your first turn at your normal initiative and your second turn at your initiative plus 10. You can't use this feature when you are surprised.

Additionally, when you roll initiative and have no uses of masterful recovery, you regain it but it must be used on your first turn.

Arm of Dur Hel (Assassin)

Sneak attack
With a combination of techniques, poisons, and information, you are at your deadliest when you get the drop on your enemies.

Once a round , when you hit a creature with a weapon attack you deal extra damage to that target. That damage equals 5+ your rogue level. The attack must use a one handed weapon, or a ranged weapon.

Additionally, if you have advantage on an attack roll you can apply your exposed chink damage to this attack rather than the following attack.

You don't need advantage on the attack roll if your attack is a critical hit, or there is another enemy of the target that is within range with a natural or melee weapon they are welding and that enemy is not incapacitated.

Bonus Proficiencies
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency with the disguise kit and the poisoner's kit.*add verbage to pick different skills if prof is redundant*

Additionally you can apply poison to a weapon or don/doff a premade disguise as a bonus action.

Insignia Of Tyrants
Starting at 9th level, you have learned to strike so fast and viciously that it sows confusion leaving targets vulnerable. When you target an enemy with your sneak attack, that target cannot use any reactions until the start of your next turn.

Wet Work
Starting at 13th level, your time spent lurking and planning tasks have sharpened your awareness of dangers. You have blind sight out to a range of 10 ft as long as you are not deafened.

Call of Death
Starting at 17th level, your time spent eliminating enemies has made you the master of instant death. When you hit a target with your sneak attack, that attack is automatically considered a critical hit.

Hand of fate(Thief)

Fast hands
Starting at 3rd level, you can use the bonus action granted by your Cunning Action to make a Dexterity (Sleight of Hand) check, use your thieves' tools to disarm a trap or open a lock, take the Use an Object action, or the help action.

Additionally when you use your fast hands to aid an ally, they can add your exposed chink damage to that attack.

Expertise
Choose two skills or one skill and thieves tools. You have advantage on any ability checks on ability checks made with those skills.

Bonus Proficiencies
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in stealth, slight of hand and, Thieves' Cant.

**During your rogue training you learned thieves' cant, a secret mix of dialect, jargon, and code that allows you to hide messages in seemingly normal conversation. During combat you can communicate information to allies in such a way that only other creatures that know thieves' cant could possibly understand such messages if it was not intended for them. It takes four times longer to convey such a message than it does to speak the same idea plainly.

In addition, you understand a set of secret signs and symbols used to convey short, simple messages, such as whether an area is dangerous or the territory of a thieves' guild, whether loot is nearby, or whether the people in an area are easy marks or will provide a safe house for thieves on the run.**

Indiscernible Movement
Starting at 9th level, you can take the hide action in addition to any action you take with fast hands.

Thrill of the Chase
By 13th level, you have become a master of evading capture. You are unaffected by difficult terrain and your movement speed cannot be reduced by any means nor will movement ever cost more than normal.

Steal for Steel
At 17th level when an enemy targets you with an attack and misses, you can use your reaction to interrupt their action and immediately take an additional turn.

Swashbuckler

Fancy footwork
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you learn to strike with speed and precision. When you make melee weapon attacks on your turn, your reach is increased by 5ft.

You also gain a bonus to your initiative rolls equal to your charisma modifier.

Poised strike
When you take the attack action and you have advantage on your attack, you can exchange that advantage to make 2 normal attacks. You can add your exposed chinks damage to each of these attacks but it only does half as much damage.

Bonus Proficiencies
When you choose this archetype at 3rd level, you gain proficiency in shields, and persuasion.

Riposte off the back foot
Starting at 9th level , you have an intuitive ability to deliver attacks even when you are pushed onto the defensive. As part of that same reaction when you use your uncanny dodge ability, you can make a single weapon attack against the creature that is attacking you. If this attack hits you can add half your exposed chink damage.

Elegant maneuvers
At 13th level, when you attack using your posied strike, you can make 3 attacks rather than 2.

Dazzling Display
At 17th level when you land an attack on a target, that creature is dazed until the start of your end of your next turn. They take a -2 to AC, attack rolls, saves, and their movement speed is halved. If they attempt to cast a spell they must roll a D20. On a 11 or higher that spell fizzles and is lost.

Once you use this feature you can't do so again until you finish a short or long rest.

JellyPooga

2023-08-04, 01:48 PM

I mean, I was talking specifically about that one encounter where the party was facing 24 bite attacks per round (we cut off two heads before realizing what trouble we were in). I agree that uncanny dodge is a great ability, one of rogues' lone bright spots, but it was not going to bail anyone out of that situation.

And sure, you could "what if what if what if" until the cows come home, but the point is a caster typically has access to 3, 4, 5, 6 damage types, while a rogue (and other martials) frequently have one. Ironically, one of my other characters that I almost brought to this adventure is a fighter/forge cleric whose AC can reach 30 and can cast fire wall. I bring him, and I quite like our chances.

If you enjoy rogue, go forth. But I think I and others have offered a ton of examples and evidence that rogue is relatively weak, and doesn't do a great job of living up to narrative expectations.I disagree that there's really been any conclusive evidence presented that Rogue is as weak as you or anyone claims. As you say, the one example you've given was an outlying case where the party was facing an extremely high number of attacks with multiple damage types. The other "evidence" presented in direct response to myself was a source material and a claim about a different Class entirely. Hardly compelling. If you've found the Rogue to be weak, I contend that it's not because of the Class, but because of your expectations failing to match the Class abilities themselves. You opined that a Rogue or Fighter will frequently only have one damage type compared to your average spellcaster having 3-6...which only goes to show that you aren't giving the Rogue or Fighter the foresight you're allowing the caster. Simply having one piercing, one slashing and one bludgeoning weapon is three damage types (as similar as they may be). Magical weapons and equipment exist to provide further damage types (typically elemental) and there's mundane methods of generating multiple damage types; poison being one that's already under discussion in this very thread. {{scrubbed}} Do you deny that a spellcaster can also have only one or two damage types compared to a Rogue or Fighter having as many as six or more? Because it's just as possible, depending on the campaign, availability and players involved.

But really the more relevant point is that not all 'roles' are created equal, and 'single target resourceless consistency' simply isn't a role at all.Why not? What really "counts" as a role? What's the role of a Bard or Fighter? "non-damage support caster" or "front-line melee" is about as vague or non-applicable as "single-target resourceless consistency". What is so inapplicable about consistency or (near) lack of resource based features? I mean, the devs literally put the Class in the game (not that it's a particularly valuable laurel, per se; plenty of trash is in the game, I just don't think Rogue is one of those things), so they at least must have thought resourceless consistency is at least a thing, if not a role outright. I've given an example of how that resourceless consistency can be an asset above, saving party resources for later encounters and further, explained and demonstrated how the Rogue contributes efficiency on more than one plane (HP, action economy, mobility). Where's the lack of perceived value, except when not giving the Rogue their due consideration of what is actually being brought to the table compared to what is expected that they bring to the table. It's easy to overlook something understated, but that doesn't mean those things aren't being stated at all. Compare this whole argument to the Bear Totem Barbarian; for the longest time, Bear Totem Barbarian was the only Barbarian worth taking in many people eyes because all they saw was "resistance to all damage", ignoring the fact that all Barbarians are resistant to B/P/S damage which is the majority of the damage that a Barbarian is going to take. Blinded by the light of "all damage", many overlooked the lack of actual value added by the subclass feature. It's the same as Ludics Glamour Inspiration; yeah, it looks great on paper compared to Cunning Action, but what's the actual value added by comparison? It affects the whole party and adds tempHP, sure, but it also costs a limited resource and requires line of sight. A Thief Rogue with a smokebomb can negate the entire ability at the cost of a bonus action and a mundane piece of equipment. Everything boils down to an "if, then" argument when there's so many elements in play, so I fail to see how, without much, if any, solid evidence to the contrary, that the Rogues role as "(near) resourceless consistency" lacks value, unless the style of game you're playing is outside the expected norms of the game. At which point, I may as well claim that all spellcasters are totally useless because Gritty Realism really takes a dump on resources restored on a long rest.

Change the expectation, change the perception.

Rogues would be better with extra attack, but their bigger issue is just that they don't have impactful abilities in general. They can't burst for a big amount of damage, can't control the enemy, aren't super durable except in the sense they can be hard to target. They're just.... not very impactful.
- Rogue "burst damage" at level 1 is up to 5d6+(2xDex) mod. Potentially every round. Without Feats. Or using any limited resource. Ignoring crits (or hit rate). Demonstrate another Class that does more. Consistently.
- At level 2, Rogue is hard to target, yes. At level 5, Rogue has more "effective HP" than a Fighter several levels higher. At level 7, the Rogue can stand in the middle of mobs and tank a Meteor Swarm taking zero damage. Demonstrate another Class that's more durable.
- With Expertise in Athletics, any Rogue can grapple or shove the enemy, putting them where's needed. Do you deny this is a control element? Single-target, granted, but control nonetheless.

Specific builds can improve upon all of these; this is a Rogue without Race, Background, Feats, Subclass or any actual build at all. Thief Rogue has further control methods with equipment and terrain. Assassin has additional burst damage. Scout has additional mobility and therefore durability. Etc. That's just addressing the points you brought up, ignoring in- and out-of-combat utility

Please, tell me what isn't impactful here?

I'll say it again. Much of the perceived faults of the Rogue comes down to looking at what is being expected to be seen. The High Dex, low Str, low Con, sneaky thief with a small weapon and no teamwork. An effectively played combat Rogue has decent Str, decent to high Con, only enough Dex as needed and as good mental stats as possible. He has a selection of weapons and equipment to be adaptable as far as damage types and ranges go. He only hides in/from combat if necessary. He stands on the front-line when he needs to, or slips through if that's what's needed. He can stand toe-to-toe with a (metaphorical) ogre and choose to put him down, hold him there, gut him or drag him in for his friends to deal with. He poses a worthy damage threat both on and off his turn (because who else has as effective an Opportunity Attack? I'll wait for an answer on that one), so cannot be ignored by the enemy, which is an actual aggro feature in a game that lacks them entirely outside of this and, like, two spells.

All real play is anecdotal. If you ask for evidence from real play, that's what you get.I didn't, but that aside you initially presented it as opinion, which I called out until you revised it as anecdotal evidence. That's not on me for dismissing it as a weak argument, it's on you for presenting it the way you did. And real play can be more than anecdotal; statistical data (such as you claimed The Gauntlet could provide; still waiting for that) can come from real play and would not be classed as anecdotal.

The cost to resolve an encounter is not just a function of how much it costs to use your abilities, it's also a function of how much your abilities stop Team Monster (or other obstacles) from doing Bad Stuff to your party.And you've still yet to demonstrate that the Rogue cannot stop Team Monster (or other obstacles) from doing Bad Stuff to your party. You keep saying that "it's not just being resourceless" but haven't actually shown that spending resources is the only way to be resource efficient.

A Bard. Or a Wizard with a cantrip, for that matter.And your proof is...? Again, you're stating source without actually backing up your claim. Let's take the Bard. He has Expertise in Perception, but not Thieves Tools (the latter being the sole domain of the Rogue). So he spots the trap, but can't disarm it without fail within the same three rounds. He could risk the trap, but would take HP damage. Which cantrip is the Wizard using to so easily bypass the door? Mage Hand? Nope, locked and no Wizard has Mage Hand Legerdemain to pick it without having Rogue levels. An attack cantrip to destroy the door? Nope, that'll take longer than three rounds. Please, give me evidence. Give me an actual argument instead of presenting sources and letting me make assumptions. You'll get further and might, just might, actually persuade me to your point of view.

But let's Steelman your argument for a second, and say for the sake of argument that you picked a better example that really is a case where you need Reliable Talent in order to truly reduce the risk of using resources (be they abilities or HP loss from the falling block) to zero. At level 11, DC:20 does require Reliable Talent and Expertise to, without fail, in three rounds, open that door without recourse to using any resource (including HP and time). +4 proficiency bonus, +5 (max) Ability Score. With Expertise alone, you risk rolling under 7. With Reliable Talent alone, you require an additional +1 to hit 20. Anyone might spend additional time to, without fail, locate and disarm the trap and pick the lock, but that spends a resource (time). Anyone might roll the dice and be lucky, but that's not the scenario.

The question then becomes if the number of these situations, and the degree by which you reduced the risk from them, is greater than the degree of increased risk suffered from situations you would be less suited for than an alternate build. And this is not at all a safe assumption.

It takes an awful lot of challenge to burn out a level 11 optimized Bard's resources. Not only that, but if they were burning hotter than you during that time, then you don't catch up the instant they run out. You have to then burn hotter than *them* long enough and hard enough to catch up to their head start. No more, but also no less.And how, exactly, are you calculating these factors to be able to so unilaterally claim that the Rogue is failing to meet up to those expectations? At the end of the day, the Rogue is (or should be) using their abilities throughout the day, in every kind of scenario and circumstance (because y'know, versatile). That's a lot of use, potentially. If the Bard or Wizard is using resources to circumvent the scenario/encounter before the Rogue has a chance to shine or save them that resource, then that's on those other characters heads; it's wasteful at best and showboating at worst and of course the Rogue isn't going to look good by comparison because they were never given the chance to demonstrate their strength, in just the same way that a Paladin might look bad if every combat encounter is resolved at range, before they get a chance to engage in melee.

LudicSavant

2023-08-04, 01:50 PM

I didn't

Okay, so we're back to you asking for something to be demonstrated, but saying you don't want a 'white room' logical or mathematical argument, and that you don't want to see cases from real play. So what would you accept as a demonstration?

Edit

but haven't actually shown that spending resources is the only way to be resource efficient.

:smallconfused: I haven't shown that because I don't think that. We've been over this. (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25837901&postcount=115)

Being a so-called "resourceless" character is not an inherent weakness, but it's not the strength you're making it out to be, either.

JNAProductions

2023-08-04, 01:52 PM

- Rogue "burst damage" at level 1 is up to 5d6+(2xDex) mod. Potentially every round. Without Feats. Or using any limited resource. Ignoring crits (or hit rate). Demonstrate another Class that does more. Consistently.
- At level 2, Rogue is hard to target, yes. At level 5, Rogue has more "effective HP" than a Fighter several levels higher. At level 7, the Rogue can stand in the middle of mobs and tank a Meteor Swarm taking zero damage. Demonstrate another Class that's more durable.
- With Expertise in Athletics, any Rogue can grapple or shove the enemy, putting them where's needed. Do you deny this is a control element? Single-target, granted, but control nonetheless.

Preface: I love Rogues.
But...

1-How the hell are you getting those numbers?[1]
2-Hard to target, unless you're the only target, means someone else is taking that attack instead.
3-So can a Barbarian. Or Fighter. Or Bard. And, in Tier Two, Extra Attack classes will be better at Grappling, if they choose to invest, since they have two chances (or can Grapple and Prone on the same turn, or Grapple two targets, etc.).

[1]-Okay, a partner of mine pointed out how those numbers might be achieved. 2d6+Dex (MainHand Attack) plus 1d6 (OffHand Attack) plus 2d6+Dex (Opportunity Attack) which is... Possible, sure, but not reliable. Not controlled by you. I would not consider that burst damage. Burst damage is something like Smite, where you control when the damage gets applied.

JellyPooga

2023-08-04, 02:26 PM

1-How the hell are you getting those numbers?[1]
Two weapon fighting with dual shortswords.
2 attacks on your turn, 1d6+Dex main hand, 1d6 off hand. +1d6 Sneak attack
1 off-turn OA for another 2d6+Dex

2-Hard to target, unless you're the only target, means someone else is taking that attack instead. Someone else taking the hit is irrelevant to the claim that Rogues aren't durable.

3-So can a Barbarian. Or Fighter. Or Bard. And, in Tier Two, Extra Attack classes will be better at Grappling, if they choose to invest, since they have two chances (or can Grapple and Prone on the same turn, or Grapple two targets, etc.).I've already discussed in previous posts how the Rogue is the better candidate for grappling than most, or the Bard (who requires the use of limited resources to exceed the Rogue). Essentially it boils down to being able to grapple and then attack for damage not being as valuable as grappling and then being able to move the target (which is the entire point of grappling) somewhere useful (i.e. utilising Cunning Action to offset the half-speed penalty for grappling).

[1]-Okay, a partner of mine pointed out how those numbers might be achieved. 2d6+Dex (MainHand Attack) plus 1d6 (OffHand Attack) plus 2d6+Dex (Opportunity Attack) which is... Possible, sure, but not reliable. Not controlled by you. I would not consider that burst damage. Burst damage is something like Smite, where you control when the damage gets applied.

Does it have to be? It's very much possible to engineer off-turn Sneak Attacks, particularly at higher levels. Further, at level 1, the Paladin is only doing 4d6+(2xStr) under the same circumstances and even at higher levels, whilst they do close the gap and overtake, the Rogue is still doing decent enough damage. A mid level Rogue able to engineer off-turn sneak attack is looking at somewhere in the region of 12d6 damage in one round, as compared to the Paladin who is looking at something like 8d6, adding up to +8d8 a few times a day. That's not so far off one another and potentially even balances out, taken across several encounters. Where the Paladin wins is in targeted usefulness; the Rogue might be able to more-or-less match the total damage output, but the Paladin can put it all where it really counts.

Okay, so we're back to you asking for something to be demonstrated, but saying you don't want a 'white room' logical or mathematical argument, and that you don't want to see cases from real play. So what would you accept as a demonstration?Answers that aren't "Einstein" to my challenges would be nice. White room is irrelevant because it's a very narrow field that too often exemplifies short term over long term (and as I've mentioned before, long term is what the Rogue must be judged over). You haven't presented any mathematical evidence and very little logic that I recognise. Mostly you've referenced other sources without really explaining why they're relevant and made opinionated claims. I can't say I've done much better on the opinion front, but I've at least explained why I've done so as well as taking the argument outside of the white room and actually presenting some figures for comparison.

Being a so-called "resourceless" character is not an inherent weakness, but it's not the strength you're making it out to be, either.And yet you haven't demonstrated how it's not. You've claimed that abilities with limited resources are better than those without, which I've conceded and agreed with; on the whole limited resource abilities are better than those that aren't. What you haven't substantiated is the claim that utilising (near)resourceless features isn't the efficient use I've claimed (and demonstrated by way of example). You've given no proof or explanation.

LudicSavant

2023-08-04, 04:01 PM

He has Expertise in Perception, but not Thieves Tools (the latter being the sole domain of the Rogue).

Doubling your proficiency bonus with Thieves' Tools is far from the sole domain of the Rogue -- heck, Fighters often have it (it's a side effect of the Fire Rune).

Someone else taking the hit is irrelevant to the claim that Rogues aren't durable.

It is relevant to determining how many challenges a party can take on before hitting a failure state.

Rogue "burst damage" at level 1 is up to 5d6+(2xDex) mod. Potentially every round. Without Feats. Or using any limited resource. Ignoring crits (or hit rate). Demonstrate another Class that does more. Consistently.

Okay so first of all, I feel I have to note that your Rogue isn't doing this consistently -- it's assuming that you're getting an OA, at a level where there is very little cause for an enemy to run away from you (because level 1 Rogues have basically no defensive features), and therefore if they're doing so, it's probably because someone else in your party did something (like cast Dissonant Whispers).

With that in mind, let's consider how much damage others can do in a similar situation. Level 1 high elf Fighter with Booming Blade and Dueling, 17.5 + 2x Dex mod damage. This is the same damage. And unlike you they get a shield and Second Wind to actually survive in melee. And don't need to qualify for SA.

Like... this isn't even an optimized character. The bar is just low.

Edit: I'll also note that 5d6+2x Dex is nearly the same damage as just two hits from a greatsword with the GWF style (e.g. greatsword attack + greatsword OA).

Edit2: For yet another example of how low this bar is, a level 1 Monk with a stick only does slightly less damage at 2d8+1d4+3*Dex.

Amechra

2023-08-04, 05:30 PM

Edit2: For yet another example of how low this bar is, here's a level 1 Monk with a stick (held in two hands) in the same situation: 2d10+1d4+3x Dex. Again, pretty similar.

2d8+1d4+3xDex. Quarterstaffs are Versatile (d8), not Versatile (d10).

LudicSavant

2023-08-04, 05:41 PM

2d8+1d4+3xDex. Quarterstaffs are Versatile (d8), not Versatile (d10).

Ah right. They don't get to use 1d10 (and sometimes 1d12) weapons until level 2.

Edit: Corrected accordingly.

ZRN

2023-08-04, 06:53 PM

Rogues deal better single target damage than bards by default in a 'resourceless' environment, but that's a pretty trivial metric. Animate Objects is *very* efficient. Bardic inspiration can add tons of damage. Synaptic Static or Raulothim's Lance are pretty nasty as well. Even heat metal can chew through an enemy under the right circumstances.

But really the more relevant point is that not all 'roles' are created equal, and 'single target resourceless consistency' simply isn't a role at all.

Rogues would be better with extra attack, but their bigger issue is just that they don't have impactful abilities in general. They can't burst for a big amount of damage, can't control the enemy, aren't super durable except in the sense they can be hard to target. They're just.... not very impactful.

I wonder how much of the caster/martial fracas would be solved if they just fixed the dumb overpowered summoning spells (including familiars).

PhoenixPhyre

2023-08-04, 07:08 PM

I wonder how much of the caster/martial fracas would be solved if they just fixed the dumb overpowered summoning spells (including familiars).

A substantial amount IMO.

Throw in fixing polymorph, simulacrum, and a couple other spells and doing something to make it harder for people to dip trivially for armor and you'd have solved enough of the combat concern that it wouldn't really matter much.

strangebloke

2023-08-04, 07:24 PM

It is. But that's a problem with most summoning spells. There are supposed to be inherit disadvantages to being able to replace a martial with a spell (eg the actual martial character wont be one concentration check away from disappearing or worse), but they are not enough considering how little space in a caster's arsenal just one spell consumes. But why is martial caster inequality (whether imaginary or real; it's not my intention to open this can of worms) such an important criterion in judging the design flaws and virtues of a single non casting class anyway?
So I'm sympathetic to this argument but rogues also don't really have particularly impressive damage compared to other martials either. Even leaving aside feats and spells, they're just not that impressive compared to basic champion fighters with greatswords or similar.

Why not?

Because... When would it matter?

If there's a large group of enemies, you want AOE.
If there's a single powerful but fragile enemy, you want to burst them down on turn one.
If there's a single really tough enemy that is hard to kill (say a shadow dragon) you still don't *really* want 'moderately high single target damage' because you'd rather have some way to lock down the enemy and expose them to big damage.
If its an easy fight and you don't want to burn resources, dealing 2 times cantrip damage just isn't that impressive compared to other martials.

Tempo matters. Damage dealt on round 5 is not very impactful because the combat is over already one way or another. Damage dealt on round 1 is very impactful because you can remove an enemy from the turn order. So burst single target damage is a big deal. Dealing good damage round over round isn't, and rogues don't really deal good damage anyway.

like if your role is functionally replacable by a couple of hired goons with crossbows you're really not adding anything that interesting.

What really "counts" as a role? What's the role of a Bard or Fighter? "non-damage support caster" or "front-line melee" is about as vague or non-applicable as "single-target resourceless consistency". What is so inapplicable about consistency or (near) lack of resource based features? I mean, the devs literally put the Class in the game (not that it's a particularly valuable laurel, per se; plenty of trash is in the game, I just don't think Rogue is one of those things), so they at least must have thought resourceless consistency is at least a thing, if not a role outright. I've given an example of how that resourceless consistency can be an asset above, saving party resources for later encounters and further, explained and demonstrated how the Rogue contributes efficiency on more than one plane (HP, action economy, mobility). Where's the lack of perceived value, except when not giving the Rogue their due consideration of what is actually being brought to the table compared to what is expected that they bring to the table. It's easy to overlook something understated, but that doesn't mean those things aren't being stated at all. Compare this whole argument to the Bear Totem Barbarian; for the longest time, Bear Totem Barbarian was the only Barbarian worth taking in many people eyes because all they saw was "resistance to all damage", ignoring the fact that all Barbarians are resistant to B/P/S damage which is the majority of the damage that a Barbarian is going to take. Blinded by the light of "all damage", many overlooked the lack of actual value added by the subclass feature. It's the same as Ludics Glamour Inspiration; yeah, it looks great on paper compared to Cunning Action, but what's the actual value added by comparison? It affects the whole party and adds tempHP, sure, but it also costs a limited resource and requires line of sight. A Thief Rogue with a smokebomb can negate the entire ability at the cost of a bonus action and a mundane piece of equipment. Everything boils down to an "if, then" argument when there's so many elements in play, so I fail to see how, without much, if any, solid evidence to the contrary, that the Rogues role as "(near) resourceless consistency" lacks value, unless the style of game you're playing is outside the expected norms of the game. At which point, I may as well claim that all spellcasters are totally useless because Gritty Realism really takes a dump on resources restored on a long rest.

Change the expectation, change the perception.
I ran three gritty realism campaigns over the course of six years and I assure you the rogues were not remotely close to being overpowered, except in the sense of one of them being hard to kill due to skulker cheese. I've played at a lot of tables in a lot of contexts. I help run a DND PVE challenge server where people go up against really hard PVE challenges. I'm also a multiple-time PVP champion in another tournament series. If whiteroom criticisms are ever valid... not valid here.

- Rogue "burst damage" at level 1 is up to 5d6+(2xDex) mod. Potentially every round. Without Feats. Or using any limited resource. Ignoring crits (or hit rate). Demonstrate another Class that does more. Consistently.
- At level 2, Rogue is hard to target, yes. At level 5, Rogue has more "effective HP" than a Fighter several levels higher. At level 7, the Rogue can stand in the middle of mobs and tank a Meteor Swarm taking zero damage. Demonstrate another Class that's more durable.
- With Expertise in Athletics, any Rogue can grapple or shove the enemy, putting them where's needed. Do you deny this is a control element? Single-target, granted, but control nonetheless.

Please, tell me what isn't impactful here?
None of it?

Level 1 is not worth considering, and the 5d6 trick isn't 'burst damage'. That's a situation that can occur but it isn't a situation you can normally create by yourself.
Demonstrate a class that's more durable? What? Evasion is good. BA hide is good. Uncanny dodge is good. But you're a d8 hit die wearing leather, you die to goblins with shortbows at literally any level. Even if you MC for armor/shield and have 16 CON you're just not really that resilient. (other classes, it turns out, can also have good CON and armor/shield) Becoming untargetable is nice and all but all it means is that your allies get hit instead so its.... sort of a negative tanking I guess? When it works? Meh.
grappling is a universal mechanic dude. And expertise isn't hard to get. Rogues aren't very good grapplers because they don't have extra attack so no multi-grapple.

Skrum

2023-08-04, 07:26 PM

Ok....

1) A rogue is not a good grappler. They are a mediocre grappler. Them being able to take expertise in a skill they otherwise don't synergize with does not make them a good grappler. Even if they get their Str up to 12 (when Dex and Con are def more valuable, Int is needed for two of their subclasses, and Wis is good for anyone that can spare the points), that'd give them a +5 to athletics from 1-4 and +7 to athletics at 5-8. A melee fighter is going to have that *minimum* just from boosting their Str score, as will a barb. A rune knight and a barb is going to have advantage, which absolutely crushes anything the rogue can offer. Finally, even a non-rune knight fighter is going to have effective advantage compared to the rogue just by virtue of having 2 attacks instead of one - not to mention the chance to grapple and shove in one turn (or the additional tricks a battle master might have). Lastly, the barb *also* has a movement speed buff. Rogues *can* grapple, by spending one of their few expertise they will ever get on a skill they that's pretty niche, so sure, they can do it. But they don't do it naturally, and they don't do it well.

2) Lol @ martials getting three damage types by using different weapons. The most important factor for bypassing damage resistance in 5e is magical weapons. Most characters will get one by 5-6. Besides that, some monsters will need to be damaged by certain non-weapon damage types to stop their regeneration or similar ability. There are zero monsters of this type that need to be hit by piercing, bludgeoning, or slashing damage. Casters often *incidentally* get access to several damage types just by picking good spells. If the wizard grabs Tasha's Caustic Brew and Fireball (good spells that stand up on effect alone), the wizard has also picked up means to stop trolls and hydras, two common regenerating monsters. I'm really at a loss for words on this, and feel you might be intentionally missing the point.

3) A 5th level rune knight using a shield, plate, defensive fighting style, and has 16 Con (this is a solid and straight forward tank build) will have 49 hit points and 21 AC. Let's compare that to a 5th level rogue with 18 Dex, 14 Con, and studded leather armor +1, giving 17 AC and 38 hit points.

According to the DMG, a CR 3 creature has +4 to +6 to hit and does 15-20 damage. For this exercise, let's say it's +5 to hit and they do 15 damage per hit

Against the fighter, the creature has a 25% chance to hit, meaning the fighter will take ~3.75 damage per attack

Against the rogue, the creature has a 50% chance to hit, meaning the rogue will take ~7.5 damage per attack - but thanks to Uncanny Dodge, the first hit will only do 3.75. So....even if each were only attacked at the rogue-optimal once per turn, the rogue will still fall first thanks to having 11 less hit points. If the attacks are increased to 2, the rogue will drop in the 4th while the fighter would statistically be able to last into the 7th. At 3 attacks, the rogue barely makes it to the 3rd, while the fighter can reliably make it to the 5th.

OK but maybe this is a low damage thing. Let's try it again with a real heavy hitter, where Uncanny Dodge will save a lot more.

A CR 7 creature has +7 to hit and does 35 damage.

Against the fighter, the creature has a 35% chance to hit, thus will do ~12.25 damage per swing

Against the rogue, the creature has a 55% chance to hit, thus doing ~19.25 damage per swing. But the first is reduced to 9.6 thanks to Uncanny Dodge. At the ideal 1 attack/round, the rogue will statistically last 3.9 rounds to the fighter's....4. And that's if the fighter uses no resources at all; no second wind, no cloud rune.

Uncanny Dodge is a legitimately good ability. But it not a substitute for the combination of heavy armor and high hit points, or the multitude of ways that casters have to protect themselves (and the party for that matter).

And I can already hear you typing - but the rogue can stay out of range thanks to Cunning Action!! Which is true! And exactly what I said 4 comments ago - a rogue is good at manually running away. But as Ludic said (like 10 times now?), the rogue running away doesn't mean the party isn't taking damage, spending resources, and getting ground down. Which is, again, why the rogue's "all day" abilities don't really mean very much in practice. Sure they can deal X damage to a target dummy all day, every day, while the paladin's no resource attack is .8X. But combat isn't fought like that, and the paladin's ability to spike to 2X or 3X when the situation calls for it means WAY more than the rogue being to still do X damage in the 39th round...that never took place because the paladin already ended the combat.

LudicSavant

2023-08-04, 08:52 PM

At level 5, Rogue has more "effective HP" than a Fighter several levels higher

Let's see how they contend against a level 5 Fighter before we talk about "several levels higher."

Okay, so from 16 Con, base HP, and HD healing, a Rogue has 80.5 HP, and a Fighter has 91.5.

Second Wind and 2 short rests will give us another 31.5, bringing our fighter to 123.

Then we get a Fighting Style. Interception mitigates more per-Reaction than Uncanny Dodge does against many creatures around this level (It does it for your teammates rather than yourself, but that makes me just as happy). Or we could take Blind-Fighting as part of an obscurement party and have enemies be attacking us at Disadvantage much of the time. Or we could just keep it simple and take Defense.

Then we have AC. Since your Rogue appears to be a TWF, then they'll likely have 15-17 base AC at this level. A Fighter will likely have 19-22 base AC at this level -- at least, if they're intended to ever go into melee (archer Fighters sometimes have an AC as low as 17).

Then we get a subclass. None of the "resourceless" Rogue subclasses have especially noteworthy defensive features by level 5, but Fighter subclasses get extremely notable defensive features like Cloud Rune. Cloud Rune alone is often worth a bloody ton, simply because you decide to use it after seeing the enemy's attack. Which means that it often gets used up negating critical hits and other big swings (unlike Uncanny Dodge, the "average attack's damage" isn't really relevant here, only the kinds of attacks you're likely to use up your rune charge on).

Then there's the fact that the Fighter tends to kill and control things better than any of the resourceless Rogue subs, which also leads to less damage being taken.

So the Rogue is basically praying that Uncanny Dodge will somehow make up this difference. But let's get a perspective of how big this difference is. In a 2 SR day it needs to be making up 42.5 damage before we even consider Fighting Style, AC, subclass, or the fact that the Fighter kills things faster. Then it needs to make up another like 50-100 HP to just be worth as much as Cloud Rune often is (and that's not even the only good defensive rune that they have). Then they have to make up however much HP the AC gap is worth (how much it is depends on the monsters, but it's usually a lot -- sometimes enough to overwhelm Uncanny Dodge on its own, depending on situation). And whatever the Fighting Style is worth, if a defensive one was taken.

And it has to do this only mitigating a maximum of 1 attack per round, and eating your reactions (which means no off-turn sneak attack that turn, which really matters for damage output). So say that an average CR 5 monster is hitting for something like 15 average damage (if they hit you on a round), and that combats end in about 3 rounds, and that the Rogue gets hit with an Attack-based offense on like, 50% of rounds.

In that case, Uncanny Dodge is only mitigating ~11.25 damage per encounter. Better hope it's a very. Very. Long. Day.

Still want to talk about several levels higher?

Skrum

2023-08-04, 10:35 PM

- snip -

I ran a similar analysis; the base stats (hp, AC) are enough to convince me that the vast majority of the time, simply having AC that's several points higher is going to swing overall toughness very strongly towards the fighter. To the rogue's credit, Uncanny Dodge will let them jump into a sticky situation and weather a hit *if they really need to,* which honestly fits the theme of the class. But looking at the numbers and the rest of the rogue's abilities, I think it would be mechanically defensible for Uncanny Dodge to entirely negate a hit and it wouldn't be broken. That's how big the gap is between the rogue and a tank - much less casters, who are often effectively far tougher (via CC effects and other tools).

Corran

2023-08-04, 10:36 PM

So I'm sympathetic to this argument but rogues also don't really have particularly impressive damage compared to other martials either. Even leaving aside feats and spells, they're just not that impressive compared to basic champion fighters with greatswords or similar.

Impressive is really the wrong word here. Sneaking on a sleeping dragon, peeing on them and living to tell the tale (if not even a better outcome because the dragon is not one of the stupid ones that might rush to action) is impressive. A few points of dpr are not.

How much do you figure the dpr difference is? 10 points? 15? I find it smaller (practically negligible) but maybe we are using different assumptions. I am willing to go with your estimation. Because, how unlucky do you have to be for something like that to be the difference between winning and losing? With my current character I've been spamming reaction sneak attacks left and right. The campaign is going for about 2.5 years now. That's probably hundreds of reaction attacks. I honestly cannot remember one fight where this dpr boost from reaction attacks was really all that important. And if it was, it was always in conjunction with something else. False. Second to something else.

Not cunning action, observant; I've gained more value out of observant (and expertise; reliable talent is very nice but for the most part I didn't have it) than from all those damage points put together. There are probably 4 things I consider more important than facilitating reaction attacks, but they are not all of them rogue specific so I will digress.

What's so great about champions with greatswords/polearms? They are specialized in melee, they are slow and they are fragile. Best they can do is action surge with blindsight within a fog cloud or similar, and later on maybe have an efficient action economy wise way of keeping a single threat in place (through something like sentinel and lucky OA's). What if playing to these strengths is not a good idea or even possible? Fighters generally tend to have more limited options than the rogue. Having an edge somewhere is necessary (and melee champions specifically, need way more stuff than they get now). Rogues hitting a bit lighter on a consistent basis is not a design flaw, it's what keeps it balanced with other martials.

LudicSavant

2023-08-05, 12:40 AM

And your proof is...? Again, you're stating source without actually backing up your claim. Let's take the Bard. He has Expertise in Perception, but not Thieves Tools (the latter being the sole domain of the Rogue). So he spots the trap, but can't disarm it without fail within the same three rounds. He could risk the trap, but would take HP damage. Which cantrip is the Wizard using to so easily bypass the door? Mage Hand? Nope, locked and no Wizard has Mage Hand Legerdemain to pick it without having Rogue levels. An attack cantrip to destroy the door? Nope, that'll take longer than three rounds.

I assume they'd remotely trigger the trap from a safe distance (only 10 feet), then have the party open fire on the door. Or warp their familiar to open it from the other side. Traps like that aren't really a threat to 11th level parties in my experience.

That said, let's talk about Wizards and doors and traps more generally, shall we? Because there definitely are traps that matter. Symbols are scary, okay?

First thing, good ways to remotely trigger traps include Mage Hand (no, not to unlock the door, just to trigger the trap), Mold Earth, Shape Water, and sometimes Control Flames or Create Bonfire. There's also ye olde classicks, like the 11 foot pole, ball bearings, and so forth.

Second thing, your Familiar. They have a high Perception, special sensory features, and importantly, the ability to be temporarily dismissed and resummoned as an Action to any place within 30 feet of you. Unlike many abilities, it does not require that this be a location you can see. You can resummon them on the other side of doors. Yes, really. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/65485/can-the-find-familiar-spell-resummon-the-familiar-behind-a-barrier)

Third thing, rituals in general. In addition to Find Familiar, you've got stuff like Unseen Servant, Magic Mouth (which is insanely good at detecting things, like traps (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?539861-The-Arcane-Programmer-Guide)), Detect Magic, Phantom Steed, and even various divinations that just let you ask the DM questions. Rituals are amazing. You should be using rituals all the time. Heck, I often put Ritual Caster on my Fighters (as can be seen in my sig :smalltongue:).

Fourth thing, breaking down doors. At level 11, doors are fragile things, able to be bashed down by a party's concerted efforts in little time. Unless they're like, made of adamantine or something. Incidentally, if you ever see an adamantine door, you shrink it, then loot it, then never let the DM live it down, as is traditional. More generally, Enlarge/Reduce is a good way to bypass unusually troublesome doors (and is also a really versatile preparation in general). Cantrips may also be able to foil locking mechanisms. The elemental cantrips like Shape Water (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?481560-Creative-Cantrips-Shape-Water) are often good for this.

Fifth thing, skills. Arcana is probably the best anti-trap skill in the game, because of a line in the DMG that says it can be used to both detect and disarm any magic trap or even trap-like spells (giving Glyph and Symbol as examples), in addition to whatever's in the trap or spell's description. Also, Arcana just like, has a ton of uses. Very underestimated since too-few players read the DMG (which is where most of the skill rules are). And the other best anti-trap skill is probably Investigation and Perception. You're good at Investigation, your familiar is good at Perception.

Sixth, minions. Minions are generally pretty easy for Wizards to come by, and in a pinch, you can have them explore the dangerous area first. This could be an animated corpse, a familiar, tiny servant, whatever. It can even be something from a ritual, like an Unseen Servant or Phantom Steed. Or leftovers from one of your combat summons (who might be able to just tank traps and such without much consequence).

Also notable is that minions often come with their own sets of skills. This is especially noteworthy for long-lasting combat minions who stick around for like an hour. Speaking of which...

Last, but definitely not least, allies. Not everyone has to have a fully self-sufficient power set to open doors and bypass traps, especially when you're dealing with the door/trap in a non-combat context. If anyone has the skill to do X, that's good enough. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons that Guidance and Bardic Inspiration and Emboldening Bond are such useful skill amps -- they don't boost yourself (who may not have invested in the right skill), they boost whoever in the party is the best fit. Heck, sometimes that's even a familiar.

JellyPooga

2023-08-05, 12:58 AM

Ok, so I'm not going to reply to every response I've had or break it down by quote; there's been a few since my last post and I have a day job!

RE: Lvl.1 damage comparisons. What I'm hearing here is that the Rogue is at least vaguely comparable to other Classes. As good? Perhaps not. Not as subject to optimisation? Perhaps not. Did anyone ever claim the Rogue was anything but vaguely keeping up? I believe it's been stated several times that the Rogue isn't as good on many fronts, including and primarily damage, but the point isn't that they don't compare, but that they can keep up. The statement under contention on this front is that the Rogue doesn't have burst damage; if 3-5d6 and some damage (or thereabouts) at lvl.1 isn't decent enough damage, I don't know what is. The Extra Attack crowd really don't exceed the Rogue in damage until Tier 2 and spellcasters really only exceed the Rogue in terms of damage with AoE or sustained damage (e.g. Heat Metal) for a while until they get some higher level spells (at least if they're interested in direct damage). Do any of those numbers anyone brought up really prove that the Rogue isn't contributing in terms of damage or, considering their other capabilities, it's not worth having one in the party? Yes, if you can somehow negate Sneak Attack, they're doing very paltry damage but that's insanely hard to do in my experience.

RE: The lol at damage types. What's so laughable about B/P/S damage? Damage being magical is usually more important than damage type, as you say, but that doesn't mean the difference between Fire and Cold damage really comes up all that much more often than the difference between Bludgeoning and Piercing. I probably shouldn't hesitate to opine that Bludgeoning damage is likely one of the first differences in damage types to actually matter to a party because Skeletons. Further, a spellcaster diversifying their damage types is narrowing their versatility in what they do best; control and support, because they're investing more resource into one aspect (i.e. more spells known/prepared being spent on damage), whilst a Rogue or Fighter diversifying their damage types is limited only by their encumbrance. In short, Caster pays a build cost to diversify damage types, Martial pays only in gold for the same thing.

RE: Specific vs. General and Fair Comparisons. I'm hearing a lot of "Rune Knight this" or "Race X that" when I've repeatedly stated that except where specifically noted, all of my analysis and statements are based on the baseline chassis of the Rogue; no Feats, no subclass, etc. I'll also add in here that comparisons should be made in good faith i.e. with all things being equal. For Example, I believe LudicSavant brought up a High Elf Fighter with Booming Blade to contend my statement regarding damage, neglecting to mention that the Rogue could also be a High Elf with Booming Blade. Skrum brought up a comparison between a non-specific Rogue and Rune Knight Fighter whilst giving them different Con scores. Fair comparison? Claiming the Rogue isn't as good at grappling in part because they'll only have Str 12? Who's stopping the Rogue from having just as high a Str or Con as any Fighter or Barbarian? The point is, if you're going to downplay the Rogue, at least compare them in good faith; if you're allowing for race or subclass then allow for the Rogue to have one too. If you're comparing directly, have all things be equal. You can't say Rogues aren't that good at grappling and then "prove it" by giving them lower Str than a Fighter; that's not how the maths work.

Let's see how they contend against a level 5 Fighter before we talk about "several levels higher."
[snip]
let's get a perspective of how big this difference is. In a 2 SR day it needs to be making up 42.5 damage before we even consider Fighting Style, AC, subclass, or the fact that the Fighter kills things faster.
[snip]
In that case, Uncanny Dodge is only mitigating ~11.25 damage per encounter. Better hope it's a very. Very. Long. Day.I had to quote this one, because for all the bluster here and setting aside specific build choices and the talk about Rune Knight whilst off-hand dismissing any Rogue subclasses, the salient point you appear to make is that Uncanny Dodge has to account for about 40-odd points of damage and that Uncanny Dodge negates about 11 damage per encounter, under a relatively unfavourable analysis (granted, not the worst, as you point out; specific builds for defence/durability can indeed outstrip this one feature). So, 4 combat encounters in a day (not unusual), going off at 11 damage per encounter...that looks a bit like 40-odd damage resisted by UD in a day. Long day indeed. So yeah, let's talk about several levels higher; your own maths prove that Uncanny Dodge is giving the Rogue effective HP at least roughly equal to the Fighter, more if the combat is heavy. Talking about specific builds that focus on defence says nothing about the general aspects of the Class. An AT Rogue with Mirror Image and the Moderately Armoured Feat has better defence than a baseline Rogue, but that really isn't proving anything except that a fully fleshed out character build will be better than just the baseline Class.

JNAProductions

2023-08-05, 01:06 AM

It's not the numbers that were an issue with your burst damage example-it's the fact that you don't have control over it. Burst damage is (at least to me) when you can say "Oh gak, this enemy needs to die RIGHT NOW," and do bonus damage to them.
Battlemaster Maneuvers, Smites (from any class), Reckless Attack with GWM... All work as burst damage. Sneak Attack doesn't, and OAs don't either (unless you have some reliable way of triggering OAs).

JellyPooga

2023-08-05, 01:54 AM

I assume they'd remotely trigger the trap from a safe distance (only 10 feet), then have the party open fire on the door. Or warp their familiar to open it from the other side. Traps like that aren't really a threat to 11th level parties in my experience.No, they're not, but as you've demonstrated yourself, the Wizard is spending more resources than the Rogue, whether it be a spell, time or HP. Remember, the Rogue is bypassing this obstacle without fail in three rounds. The Wizard can't even guarantee they'll spot the trap in order to disarm or trigger it, likely resulting in HP loss. At the very least, the Wizard is spending additional time on a ritual (don't forget that we're evaluating total time here, so whether you've cast the ritual ahead of time or in the moment, any ritual is still 10 minutes+ of "resource" spent), if not spell slots or other resources spent on garnering an ally/companion. Is it possible for the Wizard or Bard or anyone else to bypass this easily? Of course it is and I stated that up-front, but that wasn't the challenge. The challenge was can they do it as efficiently as the Rogue? Does the Rogue being able to do it as well as they do save the party resources? If yes, my point stands. If not, then you've still to demonstrate why not, because amidst all of your last post none of it bypassed the door using as few or fewer resources than the Rogue.

LudicSavant

2023-08-05, 01:54 AM

No, they're not, but as you've demonstrated yourself, the Wizard is spending more resources than the Rogue, whether it be a spell, time or HP. Remember, the Rogue is bypassing this obstacle without fail in three rounds.

The solution that you just quoted bypasses the obstacle within 3 rounds, using no spell slots or HP. :smallsigh:

The Wizard can't even guarantee they'll spot the trap Yes, actually, they can, for reasons that were explained already, in the post you just replied to!

the salient point you appear to make is that Uncanny Dodge has to account for about 40-odd points of damage and that Uncanny Dodge negates about 11 damage per encounter,

Jellypooga, this is not even remotely what was said to you.

40 HP was one of the variables in effective HP, and it was one of the smaller variables.

the talk about Rune Knight whilst off-hand dismissing any Rogue subclasses

Tired sigh. I didn't dismiss the Rogue subclasses "off hand," I calculated effective HP for every single resourceless Rogue subclass (you objected when I suggested using the resource-burning ones like Arcane Trickster), then informed you that the resourceless ones do not add big (or often even any) defensive features by level 5.

This is true whether it's Swashbuckler, Assassin, Mastermind, Inquisitive... the closest things to a defensive feature are Thief and Scout. Scout's is pretty situational and competes for reaction with Uncanny Dodge. Thief's is light CC that competes for bonus action with Cunning Action.

By stark contrast, basically every Fighter subclass that optimizers actually use (e.g. not Champion) adds some meaningful defensive feature at level 3.

By leaving subclass out, you're ignoring an important part of the equation. Which seems to be a common theme for your arguments, frankly.

JellyPooga

2023-08-05, 02:05 AM

Jellypooga, this is not even remotely what was said to you. It's...literally what was said (I quoted it:smallconfused:) and further, it was the about the only variable that wasn't a specific mention toward a build choice (e.g. cloud rune or defence FS). Yes, you made mention of the impact of AC, etc. but did not quantify it; your end conclusion, as I read it, was precisely what I stated it to be; 40ish HP difference vs. 11hp reduced per turn. If you want your numbers to make a point, include all the numbers relevant to that point. I can't assume what you don't write and I won't include things that don't apply (in this case, to include any specifics vs. general).

Tired sigh. I didn't dismiss the Rogue subclasses "off hand," I calculated effective HP for every single resourceless Rogue subclass, then informed you that the resourceless ones do not add big (or often even any) defensive features by level 5.

This is true whether it's Swashbuckler, Assassin, Mastermind, Inquisitive... the closest things to a defensive feature are Thief and Scout. Scout's is pretty situational and competes for reaction with Uncanny Dodge. Thief's is light CC that competes for bonus action with Cunning Action.

Which you summed up in a single sentence without explanation. If you're not showing your work, or at least referencing it, that's as good as dismissing it off-hand to your listener.

LudicSavant

2023-08-05, 02:07 AM

It's...literally what was said (I quoted it:smallconfused:)

That is not what the quote says. Here's what it actually says:

"it needs to be making up 42.5 damage before we even consider" followed by a list of additional variables, which I had described the value of throughout the rest of the post.

I didn't give you a single number, because my post covered a range of build possibilities for the Fighter (rather than just one). But every single one of those possibilities comes up with a figure far in excess of "40 hp."

It's seriously like you just leave out 90% of what I give you, then complain that you're being given nothing.

Which you summed up in a single sentence

Which should be sufficient to the purpose.

Witty Username

2023-08-05, 02:11 AM

Though I disagree really strongly with your examples. You don't need 30 ki to match archery style because you only use focused aim when the +2 turns a hit into a miss, and in combination with ki-fueled attack it actually does more for you than archery style (and you can get archery style from a feat). Monks need ki to bonus action dash, but their base movement (and thus their BA dash) is 50% better than the rogue in tier 2. FoB isn't free, but MA bonus attack is and so is extra attack.

Ki fueled attack also fits with this though, after all, an 11th level fighter makes 3 attacks naturally, and archery applies to all three attacks, not just 1. A monk would need to spend 3 ki to match this, and costs a bonus action, and is 2 feats behind the fighter if they take archery.

On the rogue end, TWF is a thing, as is XBE. Or simply having a bonus action free for utility, Given that sneak attack will gradually out scale monk damage even with martial arts (or focused aim for that matter except for the optimization ceiling monks).

There is, I think, a larger concern that rogue does also have resources to draw from with particular subclasses though. Soul knife gets similar value as bardic inspiration, with more uses when it is first aquired and stays competitive at high levels for example. And phantom or AT have in build means to dramatically increase damage with resource costs. Does this put it beyond bard, probably not, but what martial is beyond any full caster? But other martials like monk and barbarian, that is a much easier sell.
--
The defensive agrument seems odd as the best defense is not being targetable, and rogue has the capacity to hide in combat, which prevents targeting.

LudicSavant

2023-08-05, 03:39 AM

- Rogue "burst damage" at level 1 is up to 5d6+(2xDex) mod. Potentially every round. Without Feats. Or using any limited resource. Ignoring crits (or hit rate). Demonstrate another Class that does more. Consistently.

For Example, I believe LudicSavant brought up a High Elf Fighter with Booming Blade to contend my statement regarding damage, neglecting to mention that the Rogue could also be a High Elf with Booming Blade.

You neglect to mention that I also gave you a Fighter with no race or feat at all, that was just "dude with greatsword and fighting style." And that they did similar damage.

But sure, let's say you have a High Elf Rogue that qualifies for sneak attack, and off-turn sneak attack, and hits everything. Great, you do 3d8+2d6 (20.5) + 2*Dex damage.

Now, let's take a look at a VHuman Hexblade with Warcaster that also gets an OA -- exact same situation as your Rogue. They also (inadvisably) throw away their shield to have as low an AC as the Rogue (though they're still not quite as squish, since unlike your level 1 high elf Rogue they have actual defensive resources). They get 2d10+2d8 (20) + 2*Cha damage.

That's about the same damage as the high elf Rogue. But wait! The Hexblade has resources, and lots of them! In a 2 short rest day, they have up to 3 hours of Hex (and Advantage on saves to help keep it), and 3 encounters worth of Hexblade's Curse. There is a genuinely good chance they will be using resources every combat of the adventuring day.

And their peak damage with those things is... let's see... 2d10+2d8+2d6+8 (35) + 2*Cha damage. And a doubled crit range. And inflicting a no-save debuff to ability checks. At level 1.

Yeaaaah. This, this right here? This is why people say that Hexblades have a strong level 1.

The other thing is that, unlike the Rogue, they can just very, very slightly lower that damage in exchange for the considerable defensive boost that is a shield. Not to mention that Hex is a control boost too (since it makes enemies fail at grappling, or escaping a Druid's Entangle, or the like). They also heal from Hexblade's Curse.

By contrast, this Rogue of yours is a character with no shield or defensive features, who seems to expect to be 'consistently' lining up sneak and OA sneak attack, in melee range of the enemy, over the 'long term.'

all of my analysis and statements are based on the baseline chassis of the Rogue; no Feats, no subclass, etc.

The problem with this is that real characters have those things. We can't actually have a meaningful discussion of comparative class effectiveness without accounting for them.

For instance, you can't really meaningfully talk about Fighter durability without talking about their subclasses -- pretty much all of the optimization-relevant Fighter subclasses (e.g. not Champion) have significant defensive features at level 3, from their subclass. The same isn't really true for resourceless Rogues.

Rune Knights have their big fat chonky Runes, Battle Masters have their defensive buffs and enemy offense debuffs, Echo Knights have remote OAs and have all the bonus action teleports they want, PsiWars have Protective Field, Eldritch Knights have Shield / Absorb Elements, even the Samurai has a temp HP pool.

There is, I think, a larger concern that rogue does also have resources to draw from with particular subclasses though.

I think the Rogue comparisons would definitely do better if they were using the non-resourceless Rogues. When I tried to bring that up before, Jelly objected:

For instance, one should not assume that a Mastermind Rogue is more resource efficient than a Soulknife or Arcane Trickster just because the Mastermind lacks limited-use features. The question isn't how much resources their features consume, but how much cost to the party there is in order to resolve a given scenario. And sometimes having a Mastermind instead of an Arcane Trickster or Soulknife in your party will make that cost larger. Sometimes having a Rogue in your party instead of a Bard will make that cost larger.
Again, you're looking at the shorter term value and misrepresenting the long term. Yes, those limited use features are better in the short term because that's the span across which they function. When the circumstance is such that the short term becomes the long term, those limited uses become a hindrance or non-effective because the party has to decide whether to reserve those resources for a later, more critical time.

But the thing is, Mastermind Rogues are unlikely to catch up, short term or long. Generally either the day will end first, or the party will hit a failure state first.

But as Ludic said (like 10 times now?), the rogue running away doesn't mean the party isn't taking damage, spending resources, and getting ground down. Which is, again, why the rogue's "all day" abilities don't really mean very much in practice.

Exactly!

Corran

2023-08-05, 11:35 AM

The defensive agrument seems odd as the best defense is not being targetable, and rogue has the capacity to hide in combat, which prevents targeting.
The counterargument here is that personal defense does not mean much by itself. Which is true, whether we are talking about a slippery rogue or about a 30 AC tank. You have to combine these things with something else to get something good out of them, which is true for quite a lot of features in the game albeit to a different degree. Examining how the rogue fairs when they act as an attack magnet is useful though, cause that's one of the things you might as well be doing when it can pay off.

DomesticHausCat

2023-08-05, 12:27 PM

Psyren

2023-08-05, 01:00 PM

I mean, the ancestor of the rogue I'd argue is Bilbo Baggins. He wasn't very fast either. His whole thing was sneaking around and stealing stuff. It was never about speed or anything like that. I think it's too late for them to rewrite the class into something different.

The Monk is already the speedy attacker at this point, and you don't want to tread on his turf. Monks are already not so great.

1) Rogues are speedy, they can all Dash as a bonus action. There's more ways to represent being speedy than simple base speed.

2) Bilbo's slowness was represented in D&D historically as a racial penalty, rather than being a rogue(/thief/burglar/etc) thing.

Skrum

2023-08-05, 04:27 PM

I used rune knight just to demonstrate that the build is an actual build, not a special tank that I built just for that exercise. You'll notice the fighter used none of their powers - just AC and HP. It could've been any fighter variant, or even no subclass at all.

And why didn't I give the rogue 16 Con? Cause I thought that was entirely unreasonable! I was already giving the rogue 18 Dex and +1 armor.

You're clearly slipping into Schrodinger's Rogue - they have 18 Str, 18 Dex, 16 Con...a rogue flat out can't do that with point buy (while a fighter can easily get 18 str, 16 Con and have 9 points to put wherever they want under standard point buy).

But sure, run the same analysis with 16 Con. The rogue has +5 HP and still loses every comparison. And that's before the fighter starts using things like cloud rune and fire rune, improving their toughness quite a bit.

animorte

2023-08-05, 04:52 PM

Schwann145

2023-08-05, 06:09 PM

I mean, the ancestor of the rogue I'd argue is Bilbo Baggins. He wasn't very fast either. His whole thing was sneaking around and stealing stuff. It was never about speed or anything like that. I think it's too late for them to rewrite the class into something different.

Bilbo Baggins
Regis of The Companions of the Hall
Garrett of the Thief series of video games
Indiana Jones
Aladdin
Vizzini of Princess Bride
Petyr Baelish and Varys of A Song of Ice and Fire

When I think "Rogue" it's a list full of people I wouldn't pick for a fight.
And when I think of "Rogues" who I would pick for a fight (Robin Hood, Black Widow, James Bond, Batman, etc) I wouldn't build them, primarily, with the Rogue class.

Skrum

2023-08-05, 06:32 PM

But if any Fighter subclass is mentioned, it's only fair to use what the Rogue subclasses have, whether it tips the scales very much or not.

Oh that's a good point. Tell yah what - let's give the rogue every single subclass they have, simultaneously.

Calculating....and nothing changes. At all. The only defensive ability that any of the rogue subclasses gets that would help in a "I'm being attacked" situation is arcane trickster, if they take shield or silvery barbs. But that of course is a LR ability, so the fighter would then get to use their cloud rune, BM maneuver, whatever the case may be.

Witty Username

2023-08-05, 07:40 PM

The counterargument here is that personal defense does not mean much by itself. Which is true, whether we are talking about a slippery rogue or about a 30 AC tank. You have to combine these things with something else to get something good out of them, which is true for quite a lot of features in the game albeit to a different degree. Examining how the rogue fairs when they act as an attack magnet is useful though, cause that's one of the things you might as well be doing when it can pay off.

True,
Active presence is a factor, part of why I think melee combatants are undervalued in optimization discussions is because of it.

This is why say monk, either as skirmisher or ranged, tends to be weaker than other martials, as they lack presence.

I do think that is an issue for rogues, and monks. Less for defense values and more that they don't provide alot of support. Rogue does have strong off turn attacks which does provide some effect, if they have a means of using sneak attack. But that costs a significant amount of position for how rogue works and all they really get as a base class.

Rogue does come with alot more out of combat utility than the other martials, sans Ranger, due to the interactions with the skill system. And also rogue damage is prone to unusual spikes in the same ways paladin and warlock (with smite) have due to how crits interact with sneak attack.

strangebloke

2023-08-05, 08:19 PM

Impressive is really the wrong word here. Sneaking on a sleeping dragon, peeing on them and living to tell the tale (if not even a better outcome because the dragon is not one of the stupid ones that might rush to action) is impressive. A few points of dpr are not.

How much do you figure the dpr difference is? 10 points? 15? I find it smaller (practically negligible) but maybe we are using different assumptions. I am willing to go with your estimation. Because, how unlucky do you have to be for something like that to be the difference between winning and losing? With my current character I've been spamming reaction sneak attacks left and right. The campaign is going for about 2.5 years now. That's probably hundreds of reaction attacks. I honestly cannot remember one fight where this dpr boost from reaction attacks was really all that important. And if it was, it was always in conjunction with something else. False. Second to something else.

Not cunning action, observant; I've gained more value out of observant (and expertise; reliable talent is very nice but for the most part I didn't have it) than from all those damage points put together. There are probably 4 things I consider more important than facilitating reaction attacks, but they are not all of them rogue specific so I will digress.

What's so great about champions with greatswords/polearms? They are specialized in melee, they are slow and they are fragile. Best they can do is action surge with blindsight within a fog cloud or similar, and later on maybe have an efficient action economy wise way of keeping a single threat in place (through something like sentinel and lucky OA's). What if playing to these strengths is not a good idea or even possible? Fighters generally tend to have more limited options than the rogue. Having an edge somewhere is necessary (and melee champions specifically, need way more stuff than they get now). Rogues hitting a bit lighter on a consistent basis is not a design flaw, it's what keeps it balanced with other martials.
I mean this is not what we were talking about. I was told that rogues are good at damage - I contested this claim. I do think rogues are good-ish at stealth, though other classes are better thanks to bardic inspiration, PWT, invisibility, greater invisibility, etc., and until Reliable Talent comes online rogues aren't significantly better than rangers/bards/fighters with ambush.

I do think a melee rogue can deal good damage, but this plays directly into their other flaw, which is that they're not very durable against normal attacks. Sure you can put 16 CON and Moderately Armored or an MC on a rogue but, uh. That's something anyone can do. Bards can do that.

As to the rest... I'm very confused by the statement that rogues "get more options." Sure, a rogue might have more options at level 6 in terms of what to do with their action economy, but. Fighters get more attacks, which is more action economy (more grapples, shoves, dragonborn breath uses) and get way more build options. They can pick fighting style, they can pick an extra ASI at level 6 (and are not dependent on STR or DEX for AC past level 1, and so are more free to pick what they want) More fighter subclasses have lots of options (Eldritch Knight, Rune Knight, Battlemaster, Psi Warrior - Rogue classes are generally way more lean in terms of options)

More generally though, I think that in the end the only thing that rogues have that really stand out are cunning action and sneak attack. Reliable talent at high levels I suppose. I think this is a pretty weak class identity.

Ki fueled attack also fits with this though, after all, an 11th level fighter makes 3 attacks naturally, and archery applies to all three attacks, not just 1. A monk would need to spend 3 ki to match this, and costs a bonus action, and is 2 feats behind the fighter if they take archery.
But you choose to use focused aim after the roll, so you can just not use it if you roll really well or poorly. It doesn't take that much ki. It's very efficient. Yes Archery style is better to have, but like. It's not that big of a gap, actually. You're not blowing huge amounts of ki on flurry/stun if you're at range anyway.

Its certainly true that a resourceless ability can be stronger than one gated behind a resource, I just think that in general people and WotC massively overvalue resourceless abilities. You look at something like Bardic Inspiration, sure its limited.... to like 15 uses a day. And you can save it for when its sure to have an impact. How many skill checks/saves are you making? Sure Focused Aim takes ki. A level 8 monk has what, 24 ki a day generally?

This is especially notable when the resource can get used in multiple ways. The flexibility will get treated like a downside (oh no, monks are ki dependent) when the ability to make lots of choices with that resource makes it really flexible and good. Need to use Stunning Strike? Well, dump your ki on that. Need to run real fast? Well, you probably weren't really using stunning strike there, so go ahead. Similar logic applies to spells.

There is, I think, a larger concern that rogue does also have resources to draw from with particular subclasses though. Soul knife gets similar value as bardic inspiration, with more uses when it is first aquired and stays competitive at high levels for example. And phantom or AT have in build means to dramatically increase damage with resource costs. Does this put it beyond bard, probably not, but what martial is beyond any full caster? But other martials like monk and barbarian, that is a much easier sell.
Yeah I mean. At optimization ceiling rogues are way better than barbarians, but. Barbarian is the worst class in the game.

The defensive agrument seems odd as the best defense is not being targetable, and rogue has the capacity to hide in combat, which prevents targeting.
You're not getting reaction attacks and being untargettable.

But even if you are being untargettable.... you're just running away? Anyone can do that. My mule-mounted warlock with eldritch spear will dominate the world.

Ok, so I'm not going to reply to every response I've had or break it down by quote; there's been a few since my last post and I have a day job!

I had to quote this one, because for all the bluster here and setting aside specific build choices and the talk about Rune Knight whilst off-hand dismissing any Rogue subclasses, the salient point you appear to make is that Uncanny Dodge has to account for about 40-odd points of damage and that Uncanny Dodge negates about 11 damage per encounter, under a relatively unfavourable analysis (granted, not the worst, as you point out; specific builds for defence/durability can indeed outstrip this one feature). So, 4 combat encounters in a day (not unusual), going off at 11 damage per encounter...that looks a bit like 40-odd damage resisted by UD in a day. Long day indeed. So yeah, let's talk about several levels higher; your own maths prove that Uncanny Dodge is giving the Rogue effective HP at least roughly equal to the Fighter, more if the combat is heavy. Talking about specific builds that focus on defence says nothing about the general aspects of the Class. An AT Rogue with Mirror Image and the Moderately Armoured Feat has better defence than a baseline Rogue, but that really isn't proving anything except that a fully fleshed out character build will be better than just the baseline Class.[/QUOTE]
But rogues actually have way fewer build options than say fighters. So I don't think building a full character helps here.

In fact, you've been tacitly doing a 'quantum wizard' thing where rogues are both durable (because they can run away and BA hide!) and also high damage (because reaction attacks!) in spite of those things being mostly mutually exclusive. (barring haste, commander's strike, etc.)

But if any Fighter subclass is mentioned, it's only fair to use what the Rogue subclasses have, whether it tips the scales very much or not.

I think at the high end there are some really good rogue subclasses in Tashas, and besides that you have the AT.... and then thief, depending on level and what items you have..... and then there's a lot of trash. Inquisitive, Mastermind, Scout, Assassin.... Bleh. Swashbuckler is sorta fun but I wouldn't really consider it all that good, except by comparison to similar truly resourceless character concepts.

This is pretty standard for martials though. Monk has a similar problem where the gap between the Shadow/Mercy monks and the 4e/drunken monks is.... considerable.

Witty Username

2023-08-05, 10:42 PM

Yeah I mean. At optimization ceiling rogues are way better than barbarians, but. Barbarian is the worst class in the game.

Not to some in this conversation, or at least, some have sympathetic arguments in that direction.

My primary concern on that is scope of the problem, are rogue's better or worse than bards or wizards, and why, is part of the discussion. But so is how they relate to fighter, ranger, monk and barbarian.

For example, are rogue's problems the caster-martial divide, but more apparent because of how sneak attack works and the direct comparison with bard. or is it a rot that brings it below the martial classes in general sense and needs more drastic measures. These require substantially different modes of thinking and solutions.

Some folks are in the camp that casters are too powerful, and use PheonixPyre's RED statistic as what is expected by the game. Through that opinion, rogues are unlikely needing much change at all in relation to the other non-casters. And a flavor of that is in line with my opinions, rogues are fine but martials less so, mostly because high level abilities are lacking generally across the board.

Alternatively, there are those that posit, that rogue is in fact the worst class in the game, in ways that inhibit function, this wouldn't be helped by nerfs of the higher end or adjustments to high level play. this would require things like adding raw damage/mobility/utility to the rogue's kit.

Like say is this a, rogue's feel lackluster after 9th level ish, kinda problem, or a rogue needs a lift across the board kinda problem?

This is why I threw out early stuff like should rogues get extra attack and a fighting style, in addition to what they already do, whether one thinks that would be too much, not enough, or about right, and how they come to that conclusion is the heart of the disagreement here.

Why I harp on this point is I believe that rogue is a better class then barbarian, than monk, maybe about the same as fighter or ranger. If you believe that rogue is below par, then I ask why is barbarian not, why is monk not, is fighter in a similar position? Are all of these classes outshone by bard (I personally say hard yes, but bard is one of my favorites, along with wizards, and, self servingly in this argument, rogues).

Skrum

2023-08-06, 12:16 AM

Why I harp on this point is I believe that rogue is a better class then barbarian, than monk, maybe about the same as fighter or ranger. If you believe that rogue is below par, then I ask why is barbarian not, why is monk not, is fighter in a similar position? Are all of these classes outshone by bard (I personally say hard yes, but bard is one of my favorites, along with wizards, and, self servingly in this argument, rogues).

I'll speak up as someone who thinks rogue is in contention for worst class in the game (it's rogues or barbs).

I think rogues have a very low ceiling, and not just in that they are a underpowered class but in the sense that that even in the hands of a good player, rogues simply don't have enough resources. They literally don't have abilities to use. I think it becomes very apparent in higher difficulty games where monsters are extremely dangerous and the rogue is reduced to a skirmishing nuisance that offers no real support or help to the party. If the party is winning, the rogue can safely stay at distance and do mediocre to decent damage. If the party is losing, well, the rogue can grapple an ally and move them? They can't heal, CC, boost defenses, mitigate enemy offense, or make allies more effective in any notable way. And that's really rough. They aren't unplayable, but if I'm setting up a team of 4, I'd pick rogue last. They just have nothing to offer that enhances the team's performance that actually puts them ahead of any other option.

The barb on the other - yes they're bad. Yes they're limited. They're bad because they're limited. But they can do a few things: be tough, hit hard, and be a presence on the field. Whoever said that above is exactly right. The role of the frontline combatant is more important than it seems like it would be on paper. A character to close the distance, stay in an enemy's face, and soak some hits makes the entire rest of the team that much more effective. A rogue not only can't do that, they are more reliant than maybe every other class on having someone that CAN do that. A rogue that is forced onto the back foot suffers badly; if they're disengaging, they're not dashing, TWF, or steady aiming. It really stinks.

Rogue vs monk? Monk has a higher ceiling. A good player can make a monk work quite well. Rogues simply don't have enough to work with, and I suspect many players will get bored of rogue's lack of options over time. Monk at least gets to DO stuff, and has a sense of scaling and getting better (a monk at 5 will run out of Ki constantly; a monk at 10 will be able to spam Ki pretty hard). Rogue just doesn't.

Corran

2023-08-06, 12:28 AM

True,
Active presence is a factor, part of why I think melee combatants are undervalued in optimization discussions is because of it.
I see this the other way around.
You build a dungeon. You place monsters behind locked doors. And at the end of the dungeon you place a reward. Breaking down locked doors and pushing through the monsters is my first instinct, and that's melee's primary saving grace (the other is time sensitivity because it is the most common reason for forcing you to engage in unfavorable terms). Because you need someone to break down the doors and charge in head on first, and that's what a melee character could be decently equipped to do. Remove that mentality, and melee is not left with much. It has uses, because sometimes you might really need a smite or a stunning strike, or you need to knock something off the air, or grapple something out of the water, or because you need a bait, or because there is always the chance to get trapped and zerg'd or ambushed. But it becomes more of a secondary function that it wouldn't be wise to neglect. As a specialization though? I have to dig up the options that will give me a good combination of tankiness (aggro included), damage and mobility (and I better be great at all these stuff, cause that's all I can do). And usually you end up with a gish of one form or another, while something like that (but really good) should be the basic package (that you get, say, out of a barbarian, or a spell-less fighter). Having melee allies act as a liability because they dont trade favorably (enough) is just a constraint to a discussion that is otherwise about optimization (and let's be honest, we'd probably not be talking about rogues if the optimization discussion had no constraints at all). But it goes to say something about your average melee combatant.

This is why say monk, either as skirmisher or ranged, tends to be weaker than other martials, as they lack presence.
This is true for the few monks I've seen in play. Not sure if it was because they were badly built or that badly played, but some nova would certainly help out a mobile combatant as the monk. Then again, having everyone be able to nova or be an excellent dpr wouldn't be great. Some will have to bite the bullet.

I do think that is an issue for rogues, and monks. Less for defense values and more that they don't provide a lot of support.
They have a surprising (by which I mean, I was surprised) number of good synergies. But more than the interaction of features, support is also offered by the synergy of roles. To connect this with the melee combatants we were discussing earlier, if you've got some melee tank with high AC values that you want to throw at your enemies, then in such a scenario a rogue would be more useful than another melee oriented character (because offering squishier targets defeats the purpose of counting on the AC tank and because other martial classes dont have built in the ease with which a rogue can be effective both from melee and from range or the mobility). Conversely, if you want to flood the plain with melee combatants (eg to better distribute damage to hold a choke point), the rogue will fill that better than other ranged martials because they dont have as strong a base for getting both in and (if needed) out of melee combat. Having the option to change your role (martial duties) as needed can be a very big deal, but this requires trying to play optimally. When every character does the thing they are best at without it necessarily being a good idea, then the outcome of any one encounter is random. When the outcome of an encounter is random, the only certainty is the need to outgun your opponent. That's when high numeric values take over and the importance of versatility is reduced.

Let me use a silly example (cause I love silly examples):
DM: You reached the edge of Fangorn forrest, from where you can now clearly see Saruman's fortress. You have a good view to all the movement inside the courtyard, but you dont know how many more enemies are beneath the earth or inside the tower. The white wizard who hired you told you that it was of the outmost importance that you neutralize Saruman and secure the palandiri by the first light of the 5th day. You've been travelling for 4 days, so if you want to stick to your employer's schedule, you have a little less than a day to go through with this. What do you want to do?
Barbarian: I see that the enemies guarding the dam are fewer than the ones at the courtyard. Why dont we attack them and then destroy the dam? The water will sweep most enemies at the courtyard down the schisms and into those underground caverns. Amidst the confusion and chaos we will enter the tower uncontested by the main minion force and we will take on the wizard. (melee combat)
Ranger: No, let's have my friends the trees, who hate Saruman, help us. We'll use them as meatshields and transport at the same time. From their shoulders we'll shoot at our enemies down below until they deliver us to the tower's entrance, where they'll hold it for us until we take out the wizard. The we'll use the balcony to hop back onto the trees and make our escape. (ranged combat)
Paladin: I know the captain of the worg squad here. His name is Bob. We used to play dice together, and not too long before we took this mission he had told me that many orcs had begun becoming unhappy with the wizard due to the worsened working conditions and to his favoritism towards the Uruk hais. Let's find a way to get inside without catching the attention of the wizard, so I can speak to Bob and see if we can help us in any way. Maybe he can sneak us into the tower, or gather a force to help us take out the wizard or those still loyal to him. (skills, to be followed by combat)

Regardless of the specifics, one of these ideas will be objectively better than the others. The rogue's main value is that they will serve every idea well. You want stealth? You want talky talky? You want to kill stuff from range? You want to kill stuff in melee? Rogues sign up for every one of these things. But versatility is only useful when you actually make use of it via player decisions.

Rogue does have strong off turn attacks which does provide some effect, if they have a means of using sneak attack. But that costs a significant amount of position for how rogue works and all they really get as a base class.
That's the unfortunate side effect of sentinel, which at the same time puts a very big target on your back. When it procs from an ally (eg fear), it's easier to time it if that's truly needed via a ready action. If buffed by haste the positioning restriction (usually for line of sight) usually matters less because of distance and potential cover (which can mitigate the downsides if by attacking it meant you went out of hiding). In heavily obscured areas or if invisible it also matters less if enough enemies go before you reveal yourself through the OA. In the end, if it aint worth the risk dont do it. I've let OA's go unused because it wasn't worth revealing myself as relying on skills and dragging out the fight was better than being attacked.

And also rogue damage is prone to unusual spikes in the same ways paladin and warlock (with smite) have due to how crits interact with sneak attack.
Yes, but unless you are lucky with the dice, the smite spikes will have a stronger impact and you will feel that. Cause you choose exactly when and against whom you'll use them. The effect of sneak critting is too small to make something too meaningful out of it. Use it as part of the dpr average and that's about where its usefulness stops.

LudicSavant

2023-08-06, 12:41 AM

My primary concern on that is scope of the problem, are rogue's better or worse than bards or wizards, and why, is part of the discussion. But so is how they relate to fighter, ranger, monk and barbarian.

Now that is a more interesting question. Bards might blow Rogues out of the water, but what about the other classes?

First, let's talk about how the various martial classes stand up in utility.

Rogue does come with alot more out of combat utility than the other martials, sans Ranger, due to the interactions with the skill system.

Rogues are pretty good at utility for a martial, for sure. But that's sadly just not an especially high bar in this system.

Here are some of my thoughts on the utility of each martial class (including Rogues)

Barbarians
What utility? :smallfrown:

Many of the martials get a lot of help with utility from their best subclasses (like Rune Knight or Shadow Monk).

The Barbarian, on the other hand, gets almost zero utility in their core class (just a couple skill profs from Primal Knowledge), and little help from their subclass. Zealot, Ancestral, Beast, and the like offer precious little in the way of non-combat features.

What's more, Barbarian is more Strength-reliant than the other classes, and Strength is often the least useful non-combat stat. Most things that can be solved by Strength checks can be solved comparably well or better by alternate means.

Fighters
First is that they have an extra ASI over the Rogue, which I'd say they can safely use for utility and still out-fight the Rogue (and indeed, I often do use it for utility, as builds in my sig show). Ritual Caster is a good one -- see some of the ritual uses I mentioned for Wizards in previous post.

Aside from that, there's not much until we look at their subclasses.

Rune Knight learns nearly all runes (5 out of 6 of them) by the time they hit level 15. So while they won't get 100% of the stuff I mention, they get most of it.

They get... let's see...
A bonus tool proficiency and languages.
Floating Expertise in tool checks (including Thieves Tools)
Surprise immunity,
120 foot Darkvision,
Advantage on Arcana,
Advantage on Insight,
Advantage on Deception,
Advantage on Sleight of Hand,
Advantage on Animal Handling,
Advantage on Intimidation,
Buff for Advantage on Strength checks,
+2 buff on ability checks for Strength
+2 buff on ability checks for Constitution,
Poison Resistance
Ability to give people Advantage or Disadvantage on any ability check
Can get big.
Later on, can get real big.

Echo Knight has at-will non-sight-based teleportation and remote manipulation and a flexible long range and relatively safe scout capability.

Battle Master has a level 7 feature that's very dysfunctionally written and altogether too stingy with the amount of information it gives.

Tasha's, however, gives them the ability to take some actual utility features that give a larger-than-Expertise bonus to a skill check at the cost of a Superiority Die. It's alright, I guess. Wish they had more maneuver slots though, so that it was easier to take these abilities in a build.

Monks
When I think of optimized Monks, I usually think of Mercy or Shadow. And both of these offer some pretty good utility.

Mercy's subclass utility mostly comes from their genuinely powerful healing mechanic. By level 11 they can basically outstrip a Celestial Warlock's Healing Light on full blast as a bonus action, and simultaneously append what is basically a buffed twinned quickened Lesser Restoration on too. For just 1 ki.

They also can cure the Stunned condition as part of this. This is important, because stuns are a severe status effect, and very difficult to cure. You know what spell cures Stunned? Power Word: Heal. Yes, the 9th level spell. There's a reason people are scared of Mind Flayers.

At high levels, they even get a pretty efficient resurrection ability, always prepared.

They also get 2 extra Wis-based skill proficiencies and 1 extra good tool proficiency from their subclass. This makes it easy for Mercy Monks to cover a broad range of Dex and Wis based skills in their build. One of the better ribbons.

Overall, the Mercy Monk is actually good enough at healing for you to plausibly replace a traditional healer with one. That's good utility in my book.

Shadow has some pretty fat utility. They can teleport at-will, turn invisible at-will, can give the entire party Darkvision for the whole adventure as a "1 hour ritual," can cheaply and quickly do all the Silence utility tricks (like going up to a wall you don't like, casting Silence, and breaking out the sledgehammers for silent entry), can act as a Darkness battery for the party, and perhaps the biggest one of all, can act as a Pass Without Trace battery for the party (it's frankly difficult for non-PWT characters to compete for the stealth niche with PWT characters).

An Arcane Trickster can also be built to cast PWT, but for them it's an expensive treat, while for Shadow Monks you can spam it like there's no tomorrow.

The thing about Shadow Monks is that having one in your party doesn't give you a scout, it transforms your party into a ninja infiltration team.

This comes on top of the base Monk chassis utility.
- They invest in good skill stats (Dex and Wis).
- When haste is required, they tend to navigate environments faster than Rogues (there are of course exceptions).
- They constantly water walk and wall run.
- They get what is basically always-on Tongues, and, very late, the ability to Astral Project.
- Their defenses may be backloaded, but once they come online they actually brush off a lot of hazards, to a point that I have occasionally seen Monks handle "corridor of traps" style scenarios just by... walking through them like they're not there. I've also seen a Monk charge through Prismatic Walls to punch a dude on the other side.

Pit traps and other falling hazards are harmless. Poison bounces off. Dex saves bounce off. Ranged weapon attacks bounce off. Most Wis saves don't bother them. And saves in general once they get Diamond Mind. Ground hazards don't matter since they live on the ceiling. And since they're Shadow they're also invisible and teleporting like 24/7.

Rogues
You get 4x Expertise and Reliable Talent, and a subclass.

4x Expertise is plenty useful, but it's worth calibrating one's expectations here -- it's worth +2-6 to a check based on level, to 2-4 specific checks, and 1x Expertise is available as a half-feat these days.

Guidance is worth 2.5 average, Advantage is worth like 2-5 (it's worth 5 to passive checks), Inspiration is 3.5-6.5 average, Hex is worth about the same as Advantage to opposed checks. Many spells or even cantrips or rituals can automatically solve problems skills solve, or do things that skills can't do period.

Reliable Talent is... how do I put this... yes, being able to do modest tasks without fail is definitely nice, but I think this feature has a larger psychological effect than its actual effect.

First, it does nothing whatsoever on Passive checks.
Second, it does nothing whatsoever on checks that you need a roll of 11+ for.
Third, on rolls that it actually applies to...

On 55% of those rolls, it does nothing. 5% of the time, it's worth a +1 bonus, 5% of the time it's worth a +2 bonus, etc all the way up to +9 if you rolled a 1.

With Advantage, that changes to doing nothing 80% of the time, and the rest of the time the bonus is likely to be small.

It will, however, considerably improve disadvantaged skill checks.

Then we've got the subclasses. Each of them provide some kind of utility benefit, but they can be surprisingly modest about it, especially for the "resourceless" Rogues.

Thief for instance gives Advantage on stealth, but only if you move slow -- and you already had to go at a Slow travel pace to stealth at all, which means this ability slows down the entire party. The extra climbing is there too.

If you really wanted to make a wall-climbing stealthy infiltrator, I might suggest the Shadow Monk over this.

Honorable mention goes to the Thief's synergy with the Healer feat.

Scout just gets 2 more Expertise. And that's... about... it? Seriously, the rest is combat stuff, and it's not even very good combat stuff.

Assassin gets some disguise skills, and they're... not... that... good? Like, they seem to have forgotten that they live in a world where magic exists and need magical countermeasures to make these deep infiltration plans really play out against anyone of means.

I really, really wish they had something like a better version of the Mastermind's level 17 ability, except at low level instead of level 17. And that their combat features were less a case of "win harder when you've already won."

Mastermind makes me severely depressed. They got something similar to the dysfunctional Battle Master level 7 feature, and it's worse than just "being good at Insight checks." Their level 17 feature is... a counter to Detect Thoughts... at level 17... a little late, my guy.

Inquisitive gets a diet Reliable Talent for Insight at level 3, but frustratingly it only applies to detecting lies instead of the full range of uses of Insight, and the ability goes completely obsolete at level 10, turning into a non-feature.

They can get Advantage on Perception and Investigation, which is good because those are both high tier skills in my book, but like the Thief it requires them to move at an Extra Slow traveling pace that can slow down the whole party. However, there are more cases where travel speed doesn't matter to Perception and Investigation than there are for Stealth.

Unerring Eye is frustratingly limited in the information it gives you, like many non-caster divinations. You basically won't use it at all unless you already suspect you might be getting tricked (since you get few uses of it), and it won't tell you anything other than that you are being tricked, somehow (no details about how).

So I mostly sum these guys up as "Advantage on Perception and Investigation."

Swashbuckler has two utility features worth mentioning.

First, advantage on Athletics or Acrobatics at level 13. I find that this is very situational since you already have Reliable Talent at this point, and it takes your bonus action so it means you have to know the check is coming ahead of time. Or, in combat, that you don't need your Bonus Action for something else. Which I usually do.

Second is Panache at level 7. At first glance, this seems very attractive. It's a charm that makes someone who was already non-hostile regard you as a friendly acquaintance for 1 minute, and doesn't have a line about them knowing they were charmed.

But here's the rub: It requires you to win a Charisma (Persuasion) skill check. You know what you could have done by winning a Charisma (Persuasion) skill check? Improved a non-hostile NPC's attitude! :smallsigh:

Okay... so maybe most of the Resourceless Rogues don't have especially good non-combat utility features. But how about the resource-using ones? Well, here things start looking a little brighter.

Soulknife
Okay, maybe a lot brighter.

Psi-Bolstered Knack is a far better skill amp than anything I've discussed thus far, since it stacks with basically everything, has a good size, and only expends a resource if it actually creates a success. Good on you, Soulknife.

The one thing I'll nitpick about is that it only triggers if you "fail" a skill check, which means that you can't use it on any non-binary checks where there are 'degrees of success.' But really that's a nitpick, this is a good utility feature.

So is Psychic Whispers. It gives you full party telepathy for hours. This is like Rary's Telepathic Bond spam, but you get it at level 3. Delicious.

It's almost like... it's almost like the resource-using Rogues are better than the resourceless ones! Like we've been saying the whole time.

The level 7 and 13 abilities strike me as a weaker version of Shadow Monk's teleport and invisibility, because they compete for the use of your psionic energy die. Also, the teleport requires you to be able to throw a blade to the location to work (so won't get you out of a Wall of Force etc). But still, these are good utility features. And the level 3 ones are great utility features.

Phantom

You get a floating skill proficiency, which is alright I guess, especially since it also enables Reliable Talent to be used with that skill.

You can ask a question of an enemy you killed, but they're under no obligation to tell the truth, so it's not as good as being able to interrogate a live prisoner. It just might be more convenient for a murderhobo than taking them alive.

At level 13 you get Ghost Walk. This lets you move slowly through walls. Moving through walls is good.

It's usable 1/day, but can be refreshed by breaking a soul trinket, and you can get one of those any time a creature dies near you, so you can potentially use this quite a bit. Nice!

Arcane Trickster
Spellcasting is good. But also, I'd take some of the stuff this class can do at-will over some of the resourceless Rogue subclasses. Cantrips are good. Mage Hand Ledgerdemain is good. Widely considered the best pre-Tasha's Rogue.

Corran

2023-08-06, 12:51 AM

I mean this is not what we were talking about. I was told that rogues are good at damage - I contested this claim. I do think rogues are good-ish at stealth, though other classes are better thanks to bardic inspiration, PWT, invisibility, greater invisibility, etc., and until Reliable Talent comes online rogues aren't significantly better than rangers/bards/fighters with ambush.

I do think a melee rogue can deal good damage, but this plays directly into their other flaw, which is that they're not very durable against normal attacks. Sure you can put 16 CON and Moderately Armored or an MC on a rogue but, uh. That's something anyone can do. Bards can do that.

As to the rest... I'm very confused by the statement that rogues "get more options." Sure, a rogue might have more options at level 6 in terms of what to do with their action economy, but. Fighters get more attacks, which is more action economy (more grapples, shoves, dragonborn breath uses) and get way more build options. They can pick fighting style, they can pick an extra ASI at level 6 (and are not dependent on STR or DEX for AC past level 1, and so are more free to pick what they want) More fighter subclasses have lots of options (Eldritch Knight, Rune Knight, Battlemaster, Psi Warrior - Rogue classes are generally way more lean in terms of options)

More generally though, I think that in the end the only thing that rogues have that really stand out are cunning action and sneak attack. Reliable talent at high levels I suppose. I think this is a pretty weak class identity.
Class identity is not a collection of features on a piece of paper. It's also not the experience/enjoyment of creating a character. It's how the character plays. That's what I meant with options.

Corran

2023-08-06, 01:21 AM

Reliable Talent is... how do I put this... yes, being able to do modest tasks without fail is definitely nice, but I think this feature has a larger psychological effect than its actual effect.

First, it does nothing whatsoever on Passive checks.
Second, it does nothing whatsoever on checks that you need a roll of 11+ for.
Third, on rolls that it actually applies to...

On 55% of those rolls, it does nothing. 5% of the time, it's worth a +1 bonus, 5% of the time it's worth a +2 bonus, etc all the way up to +9 if you rolled a 1.

With Advantage, that changes to doing nothing 80% of the time, and the rest of the time the bonus is likely to be small.

It will, however, considerably improve disadvantaged skill checks.

Ehhh... You overstated every potential negative and didn't mention contested checks. Also, where expertise applies it wont be a modest task. Plus, it can be used along with all the amazing utility options that have been mentioned in this thread to raise the bar even higher.

I think it's importance is directly related to how important ability checks are in a game, which of course differs from table to table. If checks are important, then having it is not a conditional increase of some success chance. It's protection against catastrophic failure (catastrophic not because rolling 1 would be worse than failing otherwise, but because failing will be catastrophic).

LudicSavant

2023-08-06, 01:26 AM

Ehhh... You overstated every potential negative

Which part is overstated? I just gave the actual mathematical figures. That stuff's just objectively correct.

I think it's importance is directly related to how important ability checks are in a game

Agreed. This goes for all skill amps.

Corran

2023-08-06, 01:31 AM

Which part is overstated? I just gave the actual mathematical figures. That stuff's just objectively correct.
Just the general feeling I got from reading that part. I guess it's where you are talking about what it doesn't do.

Witty Username

2023-08-06, 01:32 AM

So a couple bits that stick out weird:

Ground hazards don't matter since they live on the ceiling.
- They constantly water walk and wall run.

This may just be a table thing, But as I understood it those are both limited to, while moving, and so if the monk stops moving, like at the end of a turn for example, they drop. so they can use it for short term moves like free running, but not spidermaning. Am I misunderstanding, or do we see these abilities differently?
--
on the fighter too,
I would note that rogue tends to have less stringent ASI requirements than other classes, do to needing less generally, and not needing as much feat gains (good but alot less, thing plus GWM/SS + other feat to complete the rotation). I think to the rogue build on Treentmonk's channel that grabbed Elven accuracy, Ritual caster, +2 Dex, and Resilient (Con) as I recall. - I was thinking of seeing how the build could do in the Gauntlet but as I understand it Ritual Caster is psuedo banned because of the magic item restrictions (since it means spell scrolls are out, which means you only get the starting 2 first level ones.). and the build is a lot less interesting without phantom steed.
While fighter is also pretty freeform as well, but I feel like this gets more to matching on the ASI front than being ahead. since 1 additional extra, but 1 higher feat tax on the optimized builds.

and there is a slight addendum, rogue does also get two additional skill proficiencies (one over ranger (outside Tasha's) and bard), which isn't much but it does come up.

LudicSavant

2023-08-06, 01:40 AM

This may just be a table thing, But as I understood it those are both limited to, while moving, and so if the monk stops moving, like at the end of a turn for example, they drop. Correct. If there is nothing that they could possibly hold onto where they stop, they drop (and take no damage because of Slow Fall, and then go right back up the next turn).

However, it is worth mentioning that in 5th edition, you usually don't need a check to climb -- or to stay holding on at wherever you stop a climb. It's only required for exceptional circumstances.

Thus, I find that I'm often staying up on the ceiling by grabbing light fixtures, rafters, really anything up there. So, while not literally Spider Man, I spend a lot of time on walls and ceilings.

Skrum

2023-08-06, 01:43 AM

Fighters

Rune Knights are so good. The crazy part is they're like...the BARE MINIMUM of where martials should be. They still aren't very flexible, and their abilities become A LOT less exciting if they're not getting frequent short rests. But in terms of representing the best martials have to offer, it's rune knights and paladins (who cheat by getting spells).

IMO, if monk and fighter were changed so that all of their SR powers were recharged after 1 minute, they'd be in a better place. Well, at least shadow, mercy, and rune knights. Argument for battle masters as well, but they'd still suffer for lack of scaling.

Rogues

Damn man, I've been saying for pages that rogues aren't good and even I feel bad for them now. Why yah gotta do it like that? Lol.

But seriously, laid out like that, and yikes, rogues. I just....can't wrap my head around some of the design choices that were made. That can be said about any/all of the martials, but since we're talking about rogue. Like did no one ever, not even once, take a glance at what wizards and clerics were getting at level 13, 15, 17, etc., and stop for a second and think "hey wait, maybe the rogue getting adv on ath or acro at the cost of a bonus action isn't going to cut it."

Witty Username

2023-08-06, 01:59 AM

(and take no damage because of Slow Fall, and then go right back up the next turn).
That bit, I am aware of, I have been knocked out of the sky by a dragon as a monk before, slow fall was neat. should have saved a point of ki to get the fly spell back though.

--
Also, a thing I note, since rogues get dash as a bonus action, they effectively have double movement out of combat, if haste is required. Monk can do a similar thing but it costs ki, so it limits there combat potential later to do so.

However, it is worth mentioning that in 5th edition, you usually don't need a check to climb -- or to stay holding on at wherever you stop a climb. It's only required for exceptional circumstances. If thats the case, couldn't you do the same thing as a rogue as you could a monk, things I think about because I like expertise in athletics in concept for other reasons, but I didn't think that was Kosher?

LudicSavant

2023-08-06, 02:19 AM

If thats the case, couldn't you do the same thing as a rogue as you could a monk

You can climb the walls and stay there as a Rogue too, yes. You just move at half speed unless you're a thief, and (assuming your DM is cool enough to let a Rogue make such checks at all) might need to make some Prince of Persia checks if you want to get on the ceilings.

The main benefit is that Monk only needs to end their movement somewhere there's a plausible handhold. And that they don't take the 'half movement while climbing' penalty (neither does Thief). Oh, and that there's less penalty if they mess it up (because Slow Fall).

Edit: Oh another fun note, out of combat a Monk can use pitons even if there's no handholds at all. In combat this is a problem, because using a piton is an Action -- except for a Thief Rogue! Rogues do have to worry a tad more about how they actually get to that spot with no handholds, though.

However, if your goal is to make a stealthy, climby infiltrator, I would still recommend Shadow Monk for that, because Shadow Monk makes infiltration a team activity.

On the other hand, Thief will be better at other skills than Shadow Monk, might find stuff worth UMDing, and can do the whole Thief Healer thing. They also get a great level 17 feature.

strangebloke

2023-08-06, 07:11 AM

Yeah overall great post. I think the point about expertise is particularly relevant. Expertise is good of course, but if you actually think about the scale of the bonus that you get, its +2 to +3 at most levels. Nice to have, but in real terms that's influencing 1/10 or 1/7 rolls or so. There's so many other ways to manipulate skill checks - bardic inspiration in particular is so much better as a skill boost that its just not even funny.

And sneak attack is similar. Yes, its a unique feature, but functionally it just adds damage, something a lot of other features and feats do. So it ends up in a rat race with sharpshooter and smite and extra attack and action surge and such.

which leaves.... cunning action for unique features before reliable talent? This isn't going to carry an entire concept by itself. Free dashes are also possible via mount games, and the nuttiest thing you can do with BA hide is skulker shenanigans.

Witty Username

2023-08-06, 10:36 AM

So I have to bring some things up here,
Expertise sure a bonus doesn't garuntee value. But how often do we see praise for features like jack of all trades which is half this value. Even if you take into accout the bonus to things like initiative and such, it is still only +1 to +3.

Sneak attack is only a damage feature but it is a good damage feature, how often do we hear praise of smite from paladin, and that is tend to be less damage as the game progresses due to smite scaling with spell slots instead of straight increases, and much more resource intensive.
Outside of SS/GWM stuff, sneak attack is superior to extra attack in terms of expected damage, that is on its own interesting given how regularly shown how powerful extra attack is.
(Like say archer monk, not gun but an optimized build we have heard a bunch of
At 5th level, they get 1d8+dex for the second attack vs 3d6 from sneak attack (avg 10.5) the attack does match average at 22 dex (4.5 +6), but as we know, that is not possible in the rules at this time, gun can get us there d12 + 4, at this level, by 7th we add another d6 on top of this)

And cunning action, how often do we hear monks being praised for step of the wind. When rogue gets it, and gets more from it as they do not need to sacrifice their capacity to use other features like focus aim to do it, not because of tactical choice, hide vs disengage but because step of the wind and focused aim draw from the same ki pool.
--
Now, things I would do in rogue's case, high level has problems as they lack high level abilities:
-replace blindsense with blindsight and extend it to 30ft.
-add back something hide in plain sight(the 3.5 version) I guess that would just be making skulker a main feature, I would slot it a 6th level.
-I would make elusive impose disadvantage on attack rolls against you, rather than negate advantage.
-add a thing I keep forgetting isn't already, 2 more expertise choices at 10th level.
- and a 5th level adjustment, Uncanny dodge applying to damage, not just weapon attacks.
Also, in terms of game health I am coming around to the idea that rogue should get extra attack and a Fighting Style. And then adjusting other classes up if they get left behind.

And quality of life, remove weapon restrictions for sneak attack, if this discussion hasn't sunk in that those have no mechanical value to the game, I don't know what will. A climb speed built in like ranger gets. And maybe a 10 foot movement speed increase at 5th.

LudicSavant

2023-08-06, 05:00 PM

Outside of SS/GWM stuff, sneak attack is superior to extra attack in terms of expected damage, that is on its own interesting given how regularly shown how powerful extra attack is.

Extra Attack is not powerful in a vacuum. Its value comes primarily from augmenting other features. Like that SS/GWM stuff (and quite a bit more besides).

This is why, for instance, I don't think especially kindly of Valor Bard (Swords is a different story).

Extra Attack on its own is cantrip tier, you need other features to amp it. Valor Bard has a feature that can significantly amp attacks (spellcasting buffs), but those very slots can be used just as well doing things other than attack buffs (or can just put those attack buffs on like... other people).

I should perhaps note that even then, that criticism of Valor Bard is relative to other Bards. A Valor Bard that's using slots buffing their attacks (or even just using their attack as an alternate cantrip) can still outperform a lot of characters.

Expertise sure a bonus doesn't garuntee value. But how often do we see praise for features like jack of all trades which is half this value. Even if you take into accout the bonus to things like initiative and such, it is still only +1 to +3.

That it is.

It's also bolted onto a character that is already a full caster with 4x Expertise and obese check amps.

Also, a lot of the praise it gets is because it boosts things like dispel checks, initiative, telekinesis, 'check saves,' etc. Boosting nonproficient skills is pretty situational, since you usually want to find whoever in the party is actually proficient, then amp their check.

And cunning action, how often do we hear monks being praised for step of the wind

I don't really see those things as the same.

A Monk at, say, level 10 using Step of the Wind to dash is moving 100 feet, with what is effectively a climb speed. Up from 50 feet.

The Monk must worry about ki costs, and the fact that Step of the Wind means not using a Martial Arts / KFA / whatever that turn.

A Rogue using Cunning Action to dash is moving 60 feet. Up from 30 feet. The Monk's speed is nearly double.

The Rogue must worry that a bonus action used to dash is one not used to generate Advantage or a BA attack, and that the usefulness of their kiting and positioning is effectively capped if they are putting allies in melee and/or skipping Sharpshooter as is occasionally suggested (because that makes cover matter much more, and also makes the range at which Disadvantage applies to ranged attacks much shorter).

In my personal experience, I find that Monks are often better positioned than Rogues even when they aren't using Step of the Wind, because of this.

___

Okay, how about other uses of Cunning Action? Well there's generation of Advantage, but both of these come with significant downsides. Trying to hide can fail (or even be outright impossible in some encounters). Using Steady Aim CCs yourself.

There's also attacking then Hiding to render yourself untargetable, but if you're relying on an ally to be in melee they're still targetable. Moreover, stealth isn't actually going to stop a lot of monsters from getting at you if your allies are not stopping them. A dragon that isn't intercepted by an ally will have no trouble beelining right for you, crippling your movement, and ripping through Uncanny Dodge like it's barely there.

Cunning Action is a very good level 2 feature, don't get me wrong. But we also live in a world of goblin casters and such.

strangebloke

2023-08-06, 10:17 PM

So, to take a step back. I do actually think that sneak attack and reliable talent and cunning action and expertise are ALL useful. Very useful, even. I have posted extensively about rogue MC builds that can utilize these things.

I just don't think its compelling enough to make an entire character built around.

Because what rogues TRULY lack, in a manner similar to barbarians, is OPTIONS. Every rogue is fundamentally going to have the same options every single turn. You've seen one, you've seen them all. Sure you can personalize things with feats or picking different expertise or a weird race, or going armored, or.... well, that's more or less it, then, isn't it? Their subclasses, even their stronger ones, continue this trend. Soulknife is easily the strongest rogue sub. But does it really have options? You just get to add numbers to a lot of things and dual wield psi knives.

What I think is really telling is that people immediately retreat to generic options like moderately armored and mage armor and grappling and other such things. These are generic tools! Everyone has them! But rogue has fewer options, so they're less suited to exploiting these generic systems.

moderately armored is great, but rogue doesn't get a bonus ASI until late. So rogues aren't better at using moderately armored than warlocks or bards (who also have the same hit dice.) expertise in athletics does make you a more reliable grappler, but athletics expertise isn't unique to rogue, and rogues uniquely lack extra attack, something you also want to be a grappler. Rogues have a BA dash, but they have no way of boosting their base movement speed natively, so they can't even approach the top speed of druids or monks, and they need to BA dash to even beat the base speed of barbarians and monks and druids.

The only real sauce that rogues have is that they're unusually good off-turn attackers.

Corran

2023-08-06, 11:08 PM

So, to take a step back. I do actually think that sneak attack and reliable talent and cunning action and expertise are ALL useful. Very useful, even. I have posted extensively about rogue MC builds that can utilize these things.

I just don't think its compelling enough to make an entire character built around.
Why? All these features facilitate playing optimally.

Because what rogues TRULY lack, in a manner similar to barbarians, is OPTIONS. Every rogue is fundamentally going to have the same options every single turn. You've seen one, you've seen them all.
This is the part I really dont get, considering this is not a brand new game. The rogue has the same options every single turn, and they can choose from them mid combat even. How is a rogue who can change role mid combat from melee to range to skirmishing more restricting than other martials whose kit encourages them to commit to just one thing? What kind of options are you after?

What I think is really telling is that people immediately retreat to generic options like moderately armored and mage armor and grappling and other such things. These are generic tools! Everyone has them! But rogue has fewer options, so they're less suited to exploiting these generic systems.
(Emphasis added)
Correct (bold part). And I'll expand it to more than just the mentioning of features. Whatever generic course of action a rogue may go after, any other martial can too. The price of specialization though is that the other martial wont have the same opportunities of boosting themselves as much as the rogue can so that they'll be better at a wider range of scenarios. Look, to say it simple and not disguise it as a pseudo theorem or something. I can play optimally with, say, a fighter. It's just that when I do, the times I would be wishing I was a rogue instead, will be more than the times the opposite would happen.

The only real sauce that rogues have is that they're unusually good off-turn attackers.
It's a fun aspect to optimize but I think you make it sound better than it is (at least for anything other than a discussion about character optimization).

LudicSavant

2023-08-06, 11:28 PM

This is the part I really dont get

How is a rogue who can change role mid combat from melee to range to skirmishing more restricting than other martials

A question: Which classes do you think can't flex from melee to range?

Fighter can do it, Paladin can do it, Ranger can do it, heck, it'd be weird for a Monk not to do it. And even the poor Barbarian can apply the Ancestral or Zealot riders on thrown attacks. Keepaway Ancestral is a thing.

other martials whose kit encourages them to commit to just one thing?

Which of the following does "just one thing" in combat, when optimized?

A) A Rune Knight Fighter
B) A Mercy Monk
C) A Gloomstalker Ranger
D) A Watchers Paladin
E) None of the above

Corran

2023-08-06, 11:39 PM

A question: Which martial class do you think can't flex from melee to range, other than Barbarian?

Fighter can do it, Paladin can do it, Ranger can do it, heck, it'd be weird for a Monk not to do it. And even the poor Barbarian can apply the Ancestral or Zealot riders on thrown attacks. Keepaway Ancestral is a thing.
They can. They just wont be as effective as in their main role. For that you may (assuming there is the opportunity and the opportunity cost is worth it for the bang you are getting) have to look at certain options. The rogue starts with that. And I am surprised, not because no one is looking at it as a strength, but because it is presented as a weakness.

Edit: Sneak attack draws a lot of attention due to the one per turn clause, which is fine, there are synergies to be found there. But a better attribute is that it's a very simply way of boosting both your melee and range dpr at the same time. That's neglected somehow and I think it's worth pointing.

LudicSavant

2023-08-06, 11:45 PM

Sneak attack draws a lot of attention due to the one per turn clause, which is fine, there are synergies to be found there. But a better attribute is that it's a very simply way of boosting both your melee and range dpr at the same time. That's neglected somehow and I think it's worth pointing.

Why do you think that other martials don't do this?

Corran

2023-08-06, 11:59 PM

Why do you think that other martials don't do this?
Because feats are big blobs instead of more customizable pieces that you can access at a faster rate.

LudicSavant

2023-08-07, 12:00 AM

Because feats are big blobs instead of more customizable pieces that you can access at a faster rate.

And this means that other martials can't do that because...? :smallconfused:

Corran

2023-08-07, 12:08 AM

And this means that other martials can't do that because...? :smallconfused:
Because the price of something like picking up SS, CE, GWM, PAM, sentinel is steeper than going for hand picked options like a paladin with a warlock dip or a well rounded EK (magic is great!). At which point we are not discussing class design, but specific builds.

Psyren

2023-08-07, 12:09 AM

I think you can definitely build around SA - getting it 2x per round as often as possible is a straightforward optimization goal, but one with a decent amount of depth, especially if the party gets involved. You can also build around Cunning Action.

As for Expertise and Reliable Talent - I think limiting the usefulness of such features to purely their numerical effect on the dice is the reason why they might feel underwhelming.

LudicSavant

2023-08-07, 01:06 AM

Because the price of something like picking up SS, CE, GWM, PAM, sentinel is steeper than going for hand picked options like a paladin with a warlock dip or a well rounded EK (magic is great!). At which point we are not discussing class design, but specific builds.

Edit:
I'm sorry but I don't follow, I genuinely am not sure how this is meant to answer the question.

Well, whatever. I'll say that I think many classes can perform well from a variety of ranges, not just the Rogue.

I'll also note that I wouldn't really consider ranged single-target DPR and melee single-target DPR to be separate roles, I'd just consider them the same role: single target DPR. Being able to perform that role from multiple positions is better than not, but I already do that with most of my martial builds, regardless of class (seriously, even most of the Barbarian builds I post do it).

And when it comes to that role, Rogue is...

Vulnerable to counterplay, in large part because of the multitude of ways to interrupt sneak attack (and even more to interrupt off-turn sneak attack).
Not especially bursty, which is actually a big deal when your combat job is to make the Big Scary Guy die before he can do the Big Scary Thing.
Aside from that they've got grappling, which they're solid at but not unusually excellent (Rune Knights would be an example of an unusually excellent grappler). And if they're an Arcane Trickster they've got some spells, but not like, big spells.
Rogue's flexible range also gives them some tanking utility -- they can basically absorb some damage, then run away and let someone else rotate in to the front. So does the fact that they have above-average OAs.
While their range is flexible, it's not necessarily as flexible as some of the competition, mostly because the more kiting the party's doing, the easier it is do the counterplay mentioned in bullet point 1.

Corran

2023-08-07, 02:06 AM

Edit:
I'm sorry but I don't follow, I genuinely am not sure how this is meant to answer the question.
*Raises arms
I dont even know why you asked them, so even though I answered them dont expect any wisdom from me here.

Strangeblock made a point, that rogues lack options (I took that to mean combat options compared to other martial classes). I think I know where he is coming from (I could be wrong), so I was not really interesting in debating it (well, maybe challenging it a little). But I am curious as to what he would like to add.

Well, whatever. I'll say that I think many classes can perform well from a variety of ranges, not just the Rogue.
I am afraid that if I ask how I'll get a wall of text with mutually exclusive characters builds. But I'll risk it. How?

I'll also note that I wouldn't really consider ranged single-target DPR and melee single-target DPR to be separate roles, I'd just consider them the same role: single target DPR.
That's on you then. Why dont you throw in damage AoE's then and call it all damage?

Being able to perform that role from multiple positions is better than not, but I already do that with most of my martial builds, regardless of class (seriously, even most of the Barbarian builds I post do it).
That's great (I am not being sarcastic here). But some classes lend to that better than others. I think you rely here on an implication that I am not sharing. That you can cover for some flaws that are inherited to certain class designs by carefully picking your options. While I do think that the rogue is a strong base on top of which I can further expand on what I consider important for an optimized pc to be good at, I am just talking about the basic class.

And when it comes to that role, Rogue is...

Vulnerable to counterplay, in large part because of the multitude of ways to interrupt sneak attack (and even more to interrupt off-turn sneak attack).
More vulnerable than a specialized melee or a specialized ranged build? (I'd say not and I guess you'd say yes, but asking for good measure)

Not especially bursty, which is actually a big deal when your combat job is to make the Big Scary Guy die before he can do the Big Scary Thing.
Yeah, agreed here that lack of nova is a weakness. That's not the only combat job of a rogue though.

Aside from that they've got grappling, which they're solid at but not unusually excellent (Rune Knights would be an example of an unusually excellent grappler). And if they're an Arcane Trickster they've got some spells, but not like, big spells.
While Jelly's point about cunning action is valid (moving grappled enemies further), and while with enough buffing a rogue's one attempt could enjoy greater odds than multiple attempts from another martial, I prefer the multiple attempts for reasons that have been mentioned.

I think though, that a big "mistake" (and I am not talking about you or anyone specifically) is that too much is judged by direct comparisons made in isolation. The bigger deal about a grappling rogue is not that you combine it with rogue features that can/will boost it, but that you are adding enough grappling potential on an already versatile base. So it doesn't matter if they are the best. They shouldn't be the best. That's supposed to be the price of versatility.

Rogue's flexible range also gives them some tanking utility -- they can basically absorb some damage, then run away and let someone else rotate in to the front. So does the fact that they have above-average OAs.
Yep. This can become more important when you are not playing optimally (eg attrition based games where no one thought to grab strong healing options) or when you are unlucky (eg the encounter will be decided by what side will lose their last remaining hp, or if your healer died in that aforementioned attrition scenario, lol).

While their range is flexible, it's not necessarily as flexible as some of the competition, mostly because the more kiting the party's doing, the easier it is do the counterplay mentioned in bullet point 1.

I think that their max range is small, so that's a weakness (relatively easily mended by grabbing proficiencies from somewhere, but still a weakness). Other than making it more difficult/ impossible to utilize cunning action for advantage, do you see any other problems generating advantage/ being denied SA while kiting (honestly curious) ?

LudicSavant

2023-08-07, 03:33 AM

How?

Many ranged characters are more or less equally good up close. This isn't even rare -- many ranged features suffer no penalty for being in melee at all (such as spells), and those that do often get this penalty removed somewhere during the character build (such as by Gunner or CBE). Others can simply swap weapons with little to no loss in efficiency, so long as those weapons use the same attribute modifier.

If you want more specific examples, most of the builds in my sig have a flexible engagement range.

They shouldn't be the best. That's supposed to be the price of versatility.

That's assuming that they're actually winning on versatility -- a notion which is very much in contention.

Because what rogues TRULY lack, in a manner similar to barbarians, is OPTIONS.

Rogues simply don't have enough to work with, and I suspect many players will get bored of rogue's lack of options over time.

strangebloke

2023-08-07, 07:51 AM

This is the part I really dont get, considering this is not a brand new game. The rogue has the same options every single turn, and they can choose from them mid combat even. How is a rogue who can change role mid combat from melee to range to skirmishing more restricting than other martials whose kit encourages them to commit to just one thing? What kind of options are you after?
Just. More. BA hide/dash/disengage are all good but they're all very simplistic and only useful in basically one situation (you want to run away/hide). Outside of that you're either using Aim for advantage (which restricts your movement) or you're using TWF. That's pretty much everything. I built a shielded melee rogue a while ago, and I literally couldn't use any of these.

For contrast, if you're playing a fighter, you can tailor your character to be more flexible. You can pick fighting style, bonus feat, maneuvers/runes/etc. and they're not pigeon holed to using finesse weapons or light armor. (Yes rogues can use medium... at a steep cost) Fighters just get more options at build time meaning nothing is wasted. In play, extra attack gets them a lot more options in combat, as do the various resources they tend to get via subclass. Monks post tasha's you have enough random abilities that something is going to be good.

Correct (bold part). And I'll expand it to more than just the mentioning of features. Whatever generic course of action a rogue may go after, any other martial can too. The price of specialization though is that the other martial wont have the same opportunities of boosting themselves as much as the rogue can so that they'll be better at a wider range of scenarios. Look, to say it simple and not disguise it as a pseudo theorem or something. I can play optimally with, say, a fighter. It's just that when I do, the times I would be wishing I was a rogue instead, will be more than the times the opposite would happen.

Switching from melee to ranged is.... not that impressive. Anyone using either CBE or Gunner can do this (that's a lot of builds) and most spellcasters can also do this. Sure, there's a certain kind of stupid barbarian build that smash things in melee and nothing else, and that build is real sad but "better than the other really really bad build" doesn't mean "good."

Fighters that are built even sorta well have lots of options. The braindead EA/SS Samurai isn't the only way to play.

KorvinStarmast

2023-08-07, 08:03 AM

Bilbo Baggins
Regis of The Companions of the Hall
Garrett of the Thief series of video games
Indiana Jones
Aladdin
Vizzini of Princess Bride
Petyr Baelish and Varys of A Song of Ice and Fire

When I think "Rogue" it's a list full of people I wouldn't pick for a fight.
And when I think of "Rogues" who I would pick for a fight (Robin Hood, Black Widow, James Bond, Batman, etc) I wouldn't build them, primarily, with the Rogue class.
You left out
the Grey Mouser,
Cugel the Clever,
Hanse Shadowspawn (Thieves World),
the original Pink Panther and some others. :smallcool:

Psyren

2023-08-07, 01:29 PM

So I brought this up in the Baldur's Gate 3 thread over in Other Gaming, but I think it bears repeating here: if peanut-butter one-size-fits-all proficiency is all you're using to define what martials can do, of course you're going to have an underwhelming experience. And I think BG3 being the first officially licensed 5e game is going to really help shift some DM thinking on this topic.

Part of the reason skills likely feel underwhelming on martial classes in tabletop 5e, is that too much emphasis is being placed on proficiency and numerical bonuses, and not enough on other factors like Background, Race and above all Class. Yes, rogues are good at roguish things by having additional proficiencies and expertise/reliable talent, but as mentioned the impact of those proficiencies from a pure numbers perspective is small due to bounded accuracy; A great way to make them feel more special than other skill-based classes is to give them advantage or even automatic success on certain things due to their special training.

For example, early on in BG3 you run into a child con artist in a settlement who is attempting to pull a fast one on your group. You have a typical array of skill checks to detect what the kid is doing, but Rogues and folks with the Criminal Background get to bypass some of these checks entirely as well as roll other checks with advantage to either shoot the kid down or even turn the tables by conning them in return. This isn't due to some glowing button in the Rogue class table that says "you can outwit con artists," rather its simply a function of the rogues' expected skills and training. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html) Similarly, I think Rogues should be capable of using their skills in ways that other classes can't easily match, even with magic (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0965.html) (low-/mid-level magic anyway).

TL;DR - DMs have a lot of inputs and levers when deciding both whether they need to call for a check as well as what the results of that check should be. d20+proficiency and d20+2*proficiency are far from the only avenues at the DM's disposal, and believing that those are the only options is a self-fulfilling prophecy of overly-weak martials.

LudicSavant

2023-08-07, 02:06 PM

SPart of the reason skills likely feel underwhelming on martial classes in tabletop 5e, is that too much emphasis is being placed on proficiency and numerical bonuses, and not enough on other factors like Background, Race and above all Class.

But... non-martials have those things too?

For example, early on in BG3 you run into a child con artist in a settlement who is attempting to pull a fast one on your group. You have a typical array of skill checks to detect what the kid is doing, but Rogues and folks with the Criminal Background get to bypass some of these checks entirely as well as roll other checks with advantage to either shoot the kid down or even turn the tables by conning them in return. This isn't due to some glowing button in the Rogue class table that says "you can outwit con artists," rather its simply a function of the rogues' expected skills and training. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0673.html) Similarly, I think Rogues should be capable of using their skills in ways that other classes can't easily match, even with magic (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0965.html) (low-/mid-level magic anyway).[/spoiler]

I've seen almost this exact same scenario in real play, except the person automatically outwitting petty con artists was a Bard. Specifically this one (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?618967-Art-of-my-Saturday-Campaign-s-Party&highlight=art).

Guy was always up to something wonderful. :smallsmile:

Similarly, I think Rogues should be capable of using their skills in ways that other classes can't easily match, even with magic (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0965.html) (low-/mid-level magic anyway)

I agree, they should.

Sorinth

2023-08-07, 02:27 PM

But... non-martials have those things too?

Since D&D is heavily influenced by medieval society and those societies generally held martial prowess in a very high regard it's not crazy to think that martials would "benefit" more from factoring that stuff in then non-martials (Or at least the stereotypical looking non-martials). Is the local sheriff who needs help dealing with a band of brigands going to be impressed by the stereotypical geeky wizard in a robe armed with a twig who clearly spent his youth in a library reading books or the rugged Barbarian who looks like he could wrestle a bear and win?

Psyren

2023-08-07, 02:31 PM

But... non-martials have those things too?

My point is that every class should, martial and caster alike. My goal is "every class should have its own opportunities to feel special/shine," not "every class should be equal in power." The latter is simply not possible unless spells are overhauled completely, and I would argue not desirable for the majority of D&D's playerbase either.

I've seen almost this exact same scenario play out in real play, except the person automatically outwitting petty con artists was a Bard. Specifically this one (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?618967-Art-of-my-Saturday-Campaign-s-Party&highlight=art).

Guy was always up to something wonderful. :smallsmile:

Right, and if you're a bard in that scenario, you have the opportunity to use your normal proficiencies/performance/spells to achieve a similarly beneficial result in that situation. But they don't get to bypass rolling entirely the way a rogue does, and depending on their build, they may even need to expend a resource.

I agree, they should.

What Haley did is very easy to replicate in 5e by the DM modulating whether she needs to roll and/or what the results of success/failure might be for her specifically. In 3e, the approach would be set a very high mathematical DC, which the casters would then more easily reach, leaving the problem in place.

Since D&D is heavily influenced by medieval society and those societies generally held martial prowess in a very high regard it's not crazy to think that martials would "benefit" more from factoring that stuff in then non-martials (Or at least the stereotypical looking non-martials). Is the local sheriff who needs help dealing with a band of brigands going to be impressed by the stereotypical geeky wizard in a robe armed with a twig who clearly spent his youth in a library reading books or the rugged Barbarian who looks like he could wrestle a bear and win?

Right - and while the wizard can likely achieve similarly effective results by transforming themself, or using illusions, or ensorcelling the sheriff's mind, etc... - the barbarian just doesn't have to do any of those things.

LudicSavant

2023-08-07, 02:42 PM

My point is that every class should, martial and caster alike.

If that's the case, then it won't make them catch up.

Right, and if you're a bard in that scenario, you have the opportunity to use your normal proficiencies/performance/spells to achieve a similarly beneficial result in that situation. But they don't get to bypass rolling entirely the way a rogue does

Why do they get to use their con man background, but Kesrick doesn't get to use his con man background?

Did you just decide that Kesrick has to conform to some other stereotype? If so, what makes that other stereotype less useful?

Is the local sheriff who needs help dealing with a band of brigands going to be impressed by the stereotypical geeky wizard in a robe armed with a twig who clearly spent his youth in a library reading books or the rugged Barbarian who looks like he could wrestle a bear and win?

In this particular example? I'd say both.

The fact that he's impressed by bear wrestling means he's low level, and people were terrified of witches even when they weren't real, and when their suspected capabilities were a tiny fraction of what wizards do in D&D on a regular basis. Commoners in fantasy fiction often have a very healthy respect for spellcasters, because upsetting a wizard being a good way to completely ruin your life is a major trope (in fantasy, and mythology, and even in D&D setting lore). And it's not like casters lack for features to make themselves appear impressive (at least 'beat a bear' levels of impressive) at-will.

But let's say for the sake of argument that that's not true, and we live in a world where nobody's afraid of being turned into a newt if they piss off the wizard's guild, and for some reason forgot that they live in a world where magical power is real, actual power. Clearly we're not in Eberron anymore.

In that case, the stereotypical wizard will still have things that their background makes them good at, like recognizing all sorts of thing related to magic, being admitted into scholarly circles, and so forth. Are those things actually less useful than convincing a sheriff to send you at some bandits?

Sorinth

2023-08-07, 03:15 PM

Both.

People were absolutely terrified of witches even when they weren't real, and when their suspected capabilities were a tiny fraction of what wizards do in D&D on a regular basis. Commoners in fantasy fiction often have a very healthy respect for spellcasters, because upsetting a wizard being a good way to completely ruin your life is a major trope (in fantasy, and mythology, and even in D&D setting lore). And it's not like casters lack for features to make themselves appear impressive (at least 'beat a bear' levels of impressive) at-will.

I mean they would arrest/murder suspected witches so they weren't actually all that terrified so long as they weren't alone but yes it will vary greatly from one world to the next and as players level up, the gear they have, etc...

But I'd also point out it doesn't really matter since the goal of bringing things like background and class into prominence is to give everyone a chance to engage in that pillar of the game. So continuing my earlier example, the Sheriff is unimpressed with the "face" and turns to the Barbarian and says "I can't in good conscious send people after those brigands if I think you'll all just end up dead, tell me honestly can you and your friends handle this?" and now the Barbarian is the one who has to make the Persuasion check. So even without any unique/special mechanics the Barb is engaging in the social pillar and it's not only the "face" who handles all things social pillar. You don't even have to put players on the spot, if in session 0 the DM has said that things like background/class will impact social checks then part of the challenge could be for the players to figure out who should be the one to do the talking.

LudicSavant

2023-08-07, 03:28 PM

But I'd also point out it doesn't really matter since the goal of bringing things like background and class into prominence is to give everyone a chance to engage in that pillar of the game. So continuing my earlier example, the Sheriff is unimpressed with the "face" and turns to the Barbarian and says "I can't in good conscious send people after those brigands if I think you'll all just end up dead, tell me honestly can you and your friends handle this?" and now the Barbarian is the one who has to make the Persuasion check. So even without any unique/special mechanics the Barb is engaging in the social pillar and it's not only the "face" who handles all things social pillar. You don't even have to put players on the spot, if in session 0 the DM has said that things like background/class will impact social checks then part of the challenge could be for the players to figure out who should be the one to do the talking.

I'm in full support of bringing character backgrounds into things to help martial characters solve problems and engage in more aspects of the game, and do it myself in my own games.

I just question the notion that this on its own actually makes them catch up to people who also have character backgrounds.

Sorinth

2023-08-07, 03:45 PM

I'm in full support of bringing character backgrounds into things to help martial characters solve problems and engage in more aspects of the game, and do it myself in my own games.

I just question the notion that this on its own actually makes them catch up to people who also have character backgrounds.

Well the argument would be that any amount would help them "catch up" because they were previously at or near 0%. Like if previously 99% of the time the Bard would handle all persuasion checks and now because class/background are factored in and it's now 15% of the time it's the Barbarian, 15% it's the cleric, 15% it's the Wizard and so the Bard is down to 55% then yes the others are catching up even though everyone gets a background that has an impact.

LudicSavant

2023-08-07, 03:52 PM

Well the argument would be that any amount would help them "catch up" because they were previously at or near 0%. Like if previously 99% of the time the Bard would handle all persuasion checks and now because class/background are factored in and it's now 15% of the time it's the Barbarian, 15% it's the cleric, 15% it's the Wizard and so the Bard is down to 55% then yes the others are catching up even though everyone gets a background that has an impact.

Ah, I getcha. That makes sense. It doesn't actually make you remove the gap, but it at least makes it less of one.

Dork_Forge

2023-08-07, 03:54 PM

Psyren

2023-08-07, 04:05 PM

If that's the case, then it won't make them catch up.

At the risk of repeating myself - "catching up" is your goal, not mine.

Why do they get to use their con man background, but Kesrick doesn't get to use his con man background?

Did you just decide that Kesrick has to conform to some other stereotype? If so, what makes that other stereotype less useful?

The way I think BG3 does it: a Bard with Criminal can recognize conman techniques. A Rogue with any background can also recognize those techniques. And Bards without that background might fail to recognize those techniques, but have a chance of picking up on the con some other way, via rolling - which can be augmented using their magic.

Corran

2023-08-07, 09:13 PM

Just. More. BA hide/dash/disengage are all good but they're all very simplistic and only useful in basically one situation (you want to run away/hide). Outside of that you're either using Aim for advantage (which restricts your movement) or you're using TWF. That's pretty much everything. I built a shielded melee rogue a while ago, and I literally couldn't use any of these.

For contrast, if you're playing a fighter, you can tailor your character to be more flexible. You can pick fighting style, bonus feat, maneuvers/runes/etc. and they're not pigeon holed to using finesse weapons or light armor. (Yes rogues can use medium... at a steep cost) Fighters just get more options at build time meaning nothing is wasted. In play, extra attack gets them a lot more options in combat, as do the various resources they tend to get via subclass. Monks post tasha's you have enough random abilities that something is going to be good.
I am having a bit of difficulty responding to this. So please, bear with me. I think we dont place the same importance on features. Or rather, that we dont rate them with the same standards. When I want to play an optimized martial, I dont look at the features of the classes so that they will inform me what's the best way to go about it. Because I already know what strengths/ options I want to have on my character so that I can increase the chances when playing optimally. To visualize it, let's pretend these sought after strengths are bright colored boxes. The features are candies with different colored patterns on them. I want to fill the bright colored boxes with cadies of the same color (the red candy goes to the red box, etc). At the end of the bright colored boxes, I have one more box, let's say a black box, that has a sign which says potentially useful stuff. When I check the rogue features, I see that I end up with more candies into the bright colored boxes and with less in the black box than I would if I had chosen another martial class (questionmark for monks cause I dont remember off the top of my head what they do). I think you are doing the equivalent of placing every candy in the balck box and then looking for good synergies between features, which leads to a produced outcome of random value. In other words, I think you jump to character optimization (towards whatever direction the available features are pushing you) without first examining what would be great if the character would be good at doing.

Let me use an example. I assume we can both agree that precision (the BM maneuver) is great on a rogue because of how sneak attack works. If I were talking about it in the context of some thread that asked for optimization tips on a rogue/BM3 multiclass, you'd see me talk very excitedly about the synergy (because there is good synergy there). In the context of what I was talking in the above paragraph, precision is just a candy sitting in the black box which I am going to pick up (and be glad of the found synergy) because it's something between equipment proficiencies (fighter 1) and extra attack (fighter 5), both of which I want to place on my bright colored boxes (because equipment proficiencies help both increase my mx range and act as a strong base on top of which I can build a strong effective AC, and because extra attack will help me both significantly reduce damage variance if something does not allow me to count on advantage and expand my strong base for grappling potential). I think you'd just judge precision based on its synergy with sneak attack, without qualifying the benefit in term of options (as in, effective courses of action that the character can support).

Switching from melee to ranged is.... not that impressive. Anyone using either CBE or Gunner can do this (that's a lot of builds) and most spellcasters can also do this. Sure, there's a certain kind of stupid barbarian build that smash things in melee and nothing else, and that build is real sad but "better than the other really really bad build" doesn't mean "good."

Fighters that are built even sorta well have lots of options. The braindead EA/SS Samurai isn't the only way to play.
I dont see the CE as all that useful. It wont allow you to threaten space, it wont work with grappling, and it doesn't do anything to help with defenses (AC, HP, mobility). It just allows you to count on the same specialization when you are attacking from melee range without giving you any other benefits that a melee combatant could do with. And it has some situational value when knocking enemies prone is a good way to get advantage. But I dont see it as an answer to what I said. Considering the cost of spending a feat and of significantly reducing your range, I dont consider it a very good feat either, but regardless of that, I dont see how that alone is supposed to be an answer.

strangebloke

2023-08-07, 11:36 PM

I am having a bit of difficulty responding to this. So please, bear with me. I think we dont place the same importance on features. Or rather, that we dont rate them with the same standards. When I want to play an optimized martial, I dont look at the features of the classes so that they will inform me what's the best way to go about it. Because I already know what strengths/ options I want to have on my character so that I can increase the chances when playing optimally. To visualize it, let's pretend these sought after strengths are bright colored boxes. The features are candies with different colored patterns on them. I want to fill the bright colored boxes with cadies of the same color (the red candy goes to the red box, etc). At the end of the bright colored boxes, I have one more box, let's say a black box, that has a sign which says potentially useful stuff. When I check the rogue features, I see that I end up with more candies into the bright colored boxes and with less in the black box than I would if I had chosen another martial class (questionmark for monks cause I dont remember off the top of my head what they do). I think you are doing the equivalent of placing every candy in the balck box and then looking for good synergies between features, which leads to a produced outcome of random value. In other words, I think you jump to character optimization (towards whatever direction the available features are pushing you) without first examining what would be great if the character would be good at doing.

Let me use an example. I assume we can both agree that precision (the BM maneuver) is great on a rogue because of how sneak attack works. If I were talking about it in the context of some thread that asked for optimization tips on a rogue/BM3 multiclass, you'd see me talk very excitedly about the synergy (because there is good synergy there). In the context of what I was talking in the above paragraph, precision is just a candy sitting in the black box which I am going to pick up (and be glad of the found synergy) because it's something between equipment proficiencies (fighter 1) and extra attack (fighter 5), both of which I want to place on my bright colored boxes (because equipment proficiencies help both increase my mx range and act as a strong base on top of which I can build a strong effective AC, and because extra attack will help me both significantly reduce damage variance if something does not allow me to count on advantage and expand my strong base for grappling potential). I think you'd just judge precision based on its synergy with sneak attack, without qualifying the benefit in term of options (as in, effective courses of action that the character can support).

huh? what?

These things aren't in opposition. Options at build time enable stupid meme builds. Options enable interesting flavorful combinations of abilities that fit a particular character. Options at build time enable really overpowered combos. Both are good.

Rogues are, after barbarians, the most prescripted class in the game. You attack (once) every turn, try to get sneak attack, and then you do something with your bonus action (usualyl, run away/hide) and your turn is over. And that's every rogue in every combat. How many billions of times due you think sneak attack damage has been rolled in this edition?

So you mention precision. Okay, precision is a theme of rogues, sure. But what about improvised combat, like what jack sparrow or puss in boots does? Well... thieves sorta have that with fast hands, though the list of objects you can use is pretty short and you'll probably just use whatever you brought with you. What about a rogue that's a skilled duelist? Well, rogues really aren't good at that compared to any other martial. Extra attack is really important for grappling and disarming. What about a rogue that can get in their enemy's head and manipulate them? Well.... no real way to do that. What about a rogue who is skilled at being 'the guy with a plan' and setting up a whole heist - completely down to RP. They have skills, sure, but so does everyone.

A fighter is like a house you build yourself - mostly, it functions how you want it to function.
A rogue is like a cookie cutter development. Your cool rogue is the same as everyone else's, and its mostly just good at... being whatever a 5e rogue is.

Corran

2023-08-08, 01:17 AM

huh? what?

These things aren't in opposition. Options at build time enable stupid meme builds. Options enable interesting flavorful combinations of abilities that fit a particular character. Options at build time enable really overpowered combos. Both are good.
Character building is to playing the character analogous to what distributing your standard array is to applying these abilities in whatever conceivable way during actual game. But I didn't say they were in opposition. I said you seem to hung too much on it and that I wouldn't count it as the most important criterion when talking about optimization (in this case, class strengths and weaknesses).

Rogues are, after barbarians, the most prescripted class in the game.
For 5e standards I find them pretty customizable. You've got less incentive to invest in ASIs or feats like GWM, SS, CE, PAM, mobile, sentinel and skill expert, so you are more likely to find more empty space there to tailor your character as you want. And then you've got skill options to think about, which offer sme extra customization ground as well (I'd like more here, but oh well). That's a strength of the class, but it also applies to customization more generally, since the discussion is slowly moving more towards preferences.

You attack (once) every turn, try to get sneak attack, and then you do something with your bonus action (usualyl, run away/hide) and your turn is over. And that's every rogue in every combat. How many billions of times due you think sneak attack damage has been rolled in this edition?
How many times sneak attack has been rolled? I guess the same number of times that rogues took the attack action and hit. Since we are talking about martials I dont believe your problem is with the attack action, but with the fact that they attack once, as you noted. So I guess I dont see how rolling the d20 potentially more times makes up for being able to do it well from melee or ranged, along with another option that can boost your mobility or defense in terms of versatility. I dont think it's more enjoyable either, but that's just personal taste.

So you mention precision.
...
I didn't mean precision as part of a theme or anything like that. I was talking about something else.

A fighter is like a house you build yourself - mostly, it functions how you want it to function.
No, it doesn't. It leaves much to be desired and I have to compensate by overcommitting on choices (subclass, feats) I would prefer to leave open so I can pick with character theme in mind without necessarily sabotaging efficiency growth too much.

A rogue is like a cookie cutter development. Your cool rogue is the same as everyone else's, and its mostly just good at... being whatever a 5e rogue is.
What do you think it's missing? What would you add to make it enjoyable for you?

Witty Username

2023-08-08, 01:48 AM

A fighter is like a house you build yourself - mostly, it functions how you want it to function.
A rogue is like a cookie cutter development. Your cool rogue is the same as everyone else's, and its mostly just good at... being whatever a 5e rogue is.

Fighter is more perscripted than rogues not less. Rogue has trade-offs for mobility, aiming for advantage and using the environment. Fighter has Attack, deal damage, maybe pop a heal.

But grappling?

They have skills, sure, but so does everyone.

I believe that answers that.

LudicSavant

2023-08-08, 02:05 AM

But grappling?

I believe that answers that.

Despite Rogues getting Expertise, Reliable Talent, Cunning Action, and occasional grappling amps from their subclasses (Scout and Soulknife are notable), Fighters are generally better grapplers because of Extra Attack (multiple times) and access to better build tools for building grapplers -- bonus ASI, Action Surge, and better grappling amps from subclasses than Rogues can get from their subclasses (even Soulknife).

Like, this isn't discounting that Rogues have grappling stuff. For example, here's some sauce for a Scout:
You can drag someone into a hazard, then you trigger your reaction for an foe ending their turn next to you, then you drag them out of the hazard and put them right back in to trigger it again off-turn. That's a grapplin' amp.

But I'm not going to say that's better than the Rune Knight over there just grabbed one adult dragon in each hand, suplexed them out of the sky, slammed them into a spike growth, then accelerated to hyperspeed and turned them into a fine red mist.

Witty Username

2023-08-08, 02:32 AM

Fighters are generally better grapplers because of Extra Attack and access to better build tools for building grapplers -- a bonus ASI, Action Surge, and better grappling amps from subclasses than Rogues can get from their subclasses (even Soulknife).

But those tools aren't really unique to fighter, extra attack is on many classes, many clases have amps to athletics checks.

If using the skill system doesn't count for anything, then the fighter offers nothing tactically beyond has attack in comparison to other classes. Rogue at least has features involving mobility and position advantage, and taking a turn off to rob an action of an opponent is a decision casters take all the time, a simple knock prone can pretty easily do that and with expertise a rogue can accomplish that pretty easily.

But for grappling amps,
Looking at Rune knight, they get
-Advantage on strength checks,
-and thats it

For soul knife
-expertise in athletics
-reliable talent to negate rolls below 10
- an up to plus d12 to a grapple check

ASI for skill expert, now rogue is not behind on feats, add PAM and GWM, now rogue is ahead on feats and is possibly still out damaging.

LudicSavant

2023-08-08, 02:36 AM

But for grappling amps,
Looking at Rune knight, they get
-Advantage on strength checks,
-and thats it

:smallconfused:

You forgot the ability to get big and use runes.

Edit: To elaborate...

For soul knife
-expertise in athletics
-reliable talent to negate rolls below 10
- an up to plus d12 to a grapple check

Which, all combined, is still less than the impact of being able to get big and roll 3 or more boosted Athletics checks.

By the time that Soulknife has a d12 to their grapple check, they're level 17. At that point, here's what the Rune Knight has for grapple amps:

Runes that can boost grappling (one even gives a direct +2 bonus to grapples, others provide subtler but important bennies to grapplers)
Actually liking the Strength stat
3 grapple/shove checks at will.
Enough action surges to use one every combat in a 2 short rest, 6 encounter day (or in a 0 rest, 2 encounter day, a 1 rest, 4 encounter day, etc).
Advantage on grapple checks when they get big -- essentially doubling the number of grapple roll attempts they get.
The ability to grapple big creatures, which are very common at this level
A bonus ASI
And next level they'll start single-handedly suplexing Tarrasques.

Like a Soulknife, a Rune Knight can near-guarantee a grapple succeeds too, but they get way more options in what they can grapple, and what they can do once they've got their hands on their victims -- even if those victims are giant, or teleporters, or whatever. They can grab multiple victims at a time, knock people prone, use runes, combo hard, and more easily shrug off attempts by their grappled victim to hit back.

The main thing the Rogue has that the Rune Knight doesn't here is a bonus action dash, but mobility boosts like that are a lot easier to come by.

add PAM
You already have good bonus actions and reactions, I'd suggest taking a different ASI.

Schwann145

2023-08-08, 05:36 AM

I'm curious to know the mathematical difference between Advantage and Reliable Talent.

LudicSavant

2023-08-08, 05:58 AM

I'm curious to know the mathematical difference between Advantage and Reliable Talent.

Advantage is worth...

+5 to passive checks.
On active checks, it's worth +1-5. It's worth the most (+5) if the number you need to rolll on the d20 is right in the middle of the RNG (11). The average of all possible DCs is +3.3

Reliable Talent is worth...

+0 to passive checks.
On a normal (non advantage/disadvantage) roll, it's worth +0 55% of the time, and +1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 5% of the time each. This averages out to a bonus of +2.25.
On an Advantage roll, it's worth far less -- it's worth +0 ~80% of the time, and it's worth +1 more often than +2, which it is in turn worth more often than +3, etc. This averages out to a bonus of ~+0.7
By the same note, it's worth considerably more on Disadvantage rolls -- an average of ~+3.2

strangebloke

2023-08-08, 07:36 AM

Character building is to playing the character analogous to what distributing your standard array is to applying these abilities in whatever conceivable way during actual game. But I didn't say they were in opposition. I said you seem to hung too much on it and that I wouldn't count it as the most important criterion when talking about optimization (in this case, class strengths and weaknesses).
Choices at play/build time is the only thing that makes any character worth playing?

That's.... that whole point of building a character, or talking about class mechanics.

For 5e standards I find them pretty customizable. You've got less incentive to invest in ASIs or feats like GWM, SS, CE, PAM, mobile, sentinel and skill expert, so you are more likely to find more empty space there to tailor your character as you want. And then you've got skill options to think about, which offer sme extra customization ground as well (I'd like more here, but oh well). That's a strength of the class, but it also applies to customization more generally, since the discussion is slowly moving more towards preferences.
Having fewer good playstyles isn't more customization. It's the opposite of that. You know. Less. Fewer. Fighters can choose to be massive damage sticks that completely blow rogues out of the water with SS. They can also be... still better damage dealers than rogues without ever touching those feats.

I made a fighter who used unarmed fighting style whose entire thing was grappling people and tripping them. Real weak character, pretty objectively. Dealt way more damage than the party rogue.

(Also your picks are weird? CE and sentinel are some of the best feats for rogue???)

How many times sneak attack has been rolled? I guess the same number of times that rogues took the attack action and hit. Since we are talking about martials I dont believe your problem is with the attack action, but with the fact that they attack once, as you noted. So I guess I dont see how rolling the d20 potentially more times makes up for being able to do it well from melee or ranged, along with another option that can boost your mobility or defense in terms of versatility. I dont think it's more enjoyable either, but that's just personal taste.

Yeah I mean doing two (or three!!!) things is more options than doing one thing. Fighters can actually do 6 things in a turn sometimes!!! Wow!

controversial take, apparently.

No, it doesn't. It leaves much to be desired and I have to compensate by overcommitting on choices (subclass, feats) I would prefer to leave open so I can pick with character theme in mind without necessarily sabotaging efficiency growth too much.
No, you don't need to commit to being an EA/SS Samurai to play a fighter. A fighter is simply much stronger in combat by default than a rogue (aside from low mobility, which fortunately is easy to fix). You CAN be a turbo damage beatstick. You can also be a psi warrior luchador. The luchador will still outdamage the rogue and be tougher.

What do you think it's missing? What would you add to make it enjoyable for you?
literally just have class features that I get to choose and action economy that isn't "run away"

Actually DNDone did some good changes here.

Fighter is more perscripted than rogues not less. Rogue has trade-offs for mobility, aiming for advantage and using the environment. Fighter has Attack, deal damage, maybe pop a heal.
Rogues have to use finnesse/ranged weapons, fighters can use any weapon
Rogues only get one attack and so can't mix shoves and grapples with attacks, or grapple multiple times, or benefit from magic weapons very much
Rogues are locked into light armor/no shield without multiclassing or a feat.
Rogues are the most fragile class in the game to conventional attacks, so they either have to run away or invest heavily to shore up defenses.

but yeah I guess they can BA dash so they're totally super flexible and not at all prescripted. :smallwink:

It's pretty telling that the thing that makes rogues "super cool actually" is literally just self-casting expeditious retreat.

But grappling?

I believe that answers that.

Corran

2023-08-08, 09:25 AM

literally just have class features that I get to choose and action economy that isn't "run away"

Actually DNDone did some good changes here.

Like what? Rage, which would give me the option to shout out a battle cry when I am entering combat? Smites, which would give me the option to shout h'YA mid combat? Or extra attack, which gives me the option to roll multiple dice which I can further choose to roll all together or one by one? We can change the names and tweak them slightly so that they'll at least give off the impression of playing differently. If the end result is that you can tag more than one label to the same thing we'll call it a success.

Actually DNDone did some good changes here.
Status effects? I actually like the idea of that, and it sounds like a good thing to add to every martial in ways that make sense and are not too same-y. My only concern is if such changes end up slowing combat too much, but the "too much" is hard for me to define right now.

LudicSavant

2023-08-08, 05:05 PM

You (...) didn't mention contested checks.

The post you quoted literally already included the math for contested checks. :smallsigh:

Reliable Talent gives +2.25 average for normal rolls, +0.7 average for advantage rolls, +3.2 average for disadvantage rolls. This is true whether the rolls are contested or not.

Here's the average for some other skill bonuses:
- Advantage is +3.3. Advantage + Reliable Talent is +4.
- Jack of all Trades is worth +2 or +3 at levels that Reliable Talent exists.
- Guidance is worth +2.5. With Peace Cleric's Bond, it's worth +5.
- Sorcerer's Magical Guidance is worth +3.3 to a normal roll.
- Sorcerer's Trance of Order is worth +2.25 for normal rolls, +0.7 for advantage rolls, +3.2 for disadvantage rolls.
- Bardic Inspiration is worth +5.5 or +6.5 at levels that Reliable Talent exists. Same goes for the Psionic Energy Die and Tasha's skill-boosting Maneuvers.
- Proficiency (or Expertise, or Canny, or Fire Rune, or whatever) is worth +4-6 at levels that Reliable Talent exists.
- Pass Without Trace is worth +10 to multiple characters.
- The difference between maxxed primary stat and low priority stat is usually somewhere around +4-6. Difference between maxxed primary stat and secondary stat is usually somewhere around +2-3.
- Each use of Portent is worth more the farther away from an average d20 roll it is.
- Chronal Shift is worth +3.3 to a normal roll.
- Convergent Feature is an auto-success, even if you needed to roll a 20 to succeed.
- A Familiar has 18 or 19 passive perception at level 1. This is about as high as having Expertise + Proficiency + Wisdom as a non-priority stat at level 11.
- Pact of the Talisman's ability check boost is worth +2.5
- Dark One's Own Luck is worth +5.5
- Natural Explorer is worth +4-6 if an Int or Wis check is "related to your favored terrains."
- Otherworldly Glamour is worth +3 with a 16 Wis.
- Frost Rune is worth +2
- Getting an extra attempt on a skill (such as Extra Attack on a grappler) is worth at least as much as Advantage on a normal roll (it's often worth more).

Of course, there are some differences between these abilities that goes beyond their averages. For instance, while it's true that Guidance has larger average benefit than Reliable Talent, Reliable Talent will be better at low DC checks, and Guidance will be a better at high DC checks.

I dont see the CE as all that useful.

Could you give us an example of a specific build that you find especially useful?

Witty Username

2023-08-10, 09:52 AM

Advantage is worth...

+5 to passive checks.
On active checks, it's worth +1-5. It's worth the most (+5) if the number you need to rolll on the d20 is right in the middle of the RNG (11). The average of all possible DCs is +3.3

Reliable Talent is worth...

+0 to passive checks.
On a normal (non advantage/disadvantage) roll, it's worth +0 55% of the time, and +1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9 5% of the time each. This averages out to a bonus of +2.25.
On an Advantage roll, it's worth far less -- it's worth +0 ~80% of the time, and it's worth +1 more often than +2, which it is in turn worth more often than +3, etc. This averages out to a bonus of ~+0.7
By the same note, it's worth considerably more on Disadvantage rolls -- an average of ~+3.2

Their is a note that advantage is highly dependent on the bonus you have, a rune knight with a +0 insight check (or any other rune skill) will still have issues with alot of insight checks even with advantage. How effective advantage is is very dependent on the inherent bonus to the roll.

Reliable talent is as well, since it requires success on a 10 to be helpful. But as base rogue has 6 skill proficiencies to everyone elses 4, and several rogue subclasses provide additional skill and tool proficiencies, this is less of an issue.

Even something like Athletics, which rogue doesn’t really have the build freedom to invest in strength heavily can have something like a +4 or 5, or +8ish with expertise. This means DC 15 skill checks will be an auto success. (Assuming you care about climbing, or need to knock someone prone once)
With advantage, you will still have something like a 50% chance of failure at +0, something like 25% at +4 or 5.
Advantage is better trying to reach DCs like 20+, since that is beyond reliable talent's scope. But what does this actually get us?
At +0, we go to an about ~10% success rate, from 5%. Even at +4 or 5, failure is still pretty likely.

Advantage needs to be paired with either good ability bonuses, or proficiency to provide significant benefits. Futher due to the help action, alot of checks can already be made with advantage, making on board class options less interesting.

Corran

2023-08-10, 07:30 PM

The post you quoted literally already included the math for contested checks. :smallsigh:

Reliable Talent gives +2.25 average for normal rolls, +0.7 average for advantage rolls, +3.2 average for disadvantage rolls. This is true whether the rolls are contested or not.

Here's the average for some other skill bonuses:
- Advantage is +3.3. Advantage + Reliable Talent is +4.
- Jack of all Trades is worth +2 or +3 at levels that Reliable Talent exists.
- Guidance is worth +2.5. With Peace Cleric's Bond, it's worth +5.
- Sorcerer's Magical Guidance is worth +3.3 to a normal roll.
- Sorcerer's Trance of Order is worth +2.25 for normal rolls, +0.7 for advantage rolls, +3.2 for disadvantage rolls.
- Bardic Inspiration is worth +5.5 or +6.5 at levels that Reliable Talent exists. Same goes for the Psionic Energy Die and Tasha's skill-boosting Maneuvers.
- Proficiency (or Expertise, or Canny, or Fire Rune, or whatever) is worth +4-6 at levels that Reliable Talent exists.
- Pass Without Trace is worth +10 to multiple characters.
- The difference between maxxed primary stat and low priority stat is usually somewhere around +4-6. Difference between maxxed primary stat and secondary stat is usually somewhere around +2-3.
- Each use of Portent is worth more the farther away from an average d20 roll it is.
- Chronal Shift is worth +3.3 to a normal roll.
- Convergent Feature is an auto-success, even if you needed to roll a 20 to succeed.
- A Familiar has 18 or 19 passive perception at level 1. This is about as high as having Expertise + Proficiency + Wisdom as a non-priority stat at level 11.
- Pact of the Talisman's ability check boost is worth +2.5
- Dark One's Own Luck is worth +5.5
- Natural Explorer is worth +4-6 if an Int or Wis check is "related to your favored terrains."
- Otherworldly Glamour is worth +3 with a 16 Wis.
- Frost Rune is worth +2
- Getting an extra attempt on a skill (such as Extra Attack on a grappler) is worth at least as much as Advantage on a normal roll (it's often worth more).

Of course, there are some differences between these abilities that goes beyond their averages. For instance, while it's true that Guidance has larger average benefit than Reliable Talent, Reliable Talent will be better at low DC checks, and Guidance will be a better at high DC checks.

Could you give us an example of a specific build that you find especially useful?

Their is a note that advantage is highly dependent on the bonus you have, a rune knight with a +0 insight check (or any other rune skill) will still have issues with alot of insight checks even with advantage. How effective advantage is is very dependent on the inherent bonus to the roll.

Reliable talent is as well, since it requires success on a 10 to be helpful. But as base rogue has 6 skill proficiencies to everyone elses 4, and several rogue subclasses provide additional skill and tool proficiencies, this is less of an issue.

Even something like Athletics, which rogue doesn’t really have the build freedom to invest in strength heavily can have something like a +4 or 5, or +8ish with expertise. This means DC 15 skill checks will be an auto success. (Assuming you care about climbing, or need to knock someone prone once)
With advantage, you will still have something like a 50% chance of failure at +0, something like 25% at +4 or 5.
Advantage is better trying to reach DCs like 20+, since that is beyond reliable talent's scope. But what does this actually get us?
At +0, we go to an about ~10% success rate, from 5%. Even at +4 or 5, failure is still pretty likely.

Advantage needs to be paired with either good ability bonuses, or proficiency to provide significant benefits. Futher due to the help action, alot of checks can already be made with advantage, making on board class options less interesting.
Some of this relies on the assumption that success is equally likely for every result on the d20 roll, which may seem intuitive because it can be mistaken for the equal possibility of rolling anything on a d20 die but they are not the same thing. This can make features like proficiency or expertise look like that when in combination with reliable talent they will linearly expand your success chance under some average case scenario, which is not an accurate conclusion because there is no real basis to think that the need to increase the upper bound of you success subset from X to X+1 for check A is equal to the need of increasing it from Y to Y+1 even if it is for the same check A again and not for some other check B.

Reliable talent is as well, since it requires success on a 10 to be helpful. But as base rogue has 6 skill proficiencies to everyone elses 4, and several rogue subclasses provide additional skill and tool proficiencies, this is less of an issue.
The argument can also be made in reverse. That because the rogue is more likely to enjoy a higher bonus, reliable talent will have more diminishing returns. Both of these arguments are half truths that dont really inform me of much without additional context. What if I told you that using expertise on persuasion for a swashbuckler is a trap, because once you get reliable talent it will mostly be a wasted use of expertise so you'd be better off not falling for that trap but instead you should use your expertise for something else? Very much a half truth. Too much is undefined to make any such statements useful. Just because it can be hard, or in some cases entirely pointless, to mathematically define uncertainty to a satisfying degree, that doesn't mean that it's helpful to handwave it. You can only do that when you define and understand the restrictions under which you are operating when you throw away factors of uncertainty. Sometimes looking at the conclusions can be helpful to realize if your assumptions are off from what you intended them to be (assuming of course that you defined them in the first place).

LudicSavant

2023-08-10, 08:47 PM

I'll note that I covered uncertainty and variable frequency of DCs in my prior posts.

Witty Username

2023-08-11, 01:27 AM

Some of this relies on the assumption that success is equally likely for every result on the d20 roll, which may seem intuitive because it can be mistaken for the equal possibility of rolling anything on a d20 die but they are not the same thing. This can make features like proficiency or expertise look like that when in combination with reliable talent they will linearly expand your success chance under some average case scenario, which is not an accurate conclusion

DCs will be inconsistent, sure, but we can still make some assumptions. DCs 10-20 will be more common then DCs of 30-40 for example, even if it is simply because we are more likely to use DMG guidelines than not.

As for why I used DC 15 and 20, DC 25 is mildy rare and given my comparison overly self serving since that is about the cap on DCs at the numbers discussed (if more than 20 is needed, the chance of success is 0, no matter how many dice you get to roll) and DC 11 while being my personal favorite when DMing is too low for significant differences in this discussion (as proficiency before other factors gets very high success rates).

The big thing I would stress is advantage and reliable talent provide a +0 bonus and shouldn't be thought of as such. They affect chances of success, but don't make success possible on their own.
Reliable Talent sets a minimum DC that cannot fail, usually arround 15, sometimes as high as 25.
Advantage is essentially a retry, more or less effective based on how likely success was initially.

Corran

2023-08-11, 05:19 AM

DCs will be inconsistent, sure, but we can still make some assumptions. DCs 10-20 will be more common then DCs of 30-40 for example, even if it is simply because we are more likely to use DMG guidelines than not.
One problem I see here, is that a common assumption does not hold equally true between different checks. Or at least it doesn't have to. This will change significantly the value of reliable talent across skills.

To give an example, I'll have to become a little table specific, so dont mind too much if the details are a bit different to how you play at your table, just view this as an example which could translate similarly to different check comparisons at your table - unless the DM has a very neutral(?) style of play.

In the campaign I am currently playing, ever since I dialed down my grappling hook assisted climbing and rope-swinging stunts (cause for some time I just had to play Spiderman till I got it out of my system), athletics come mostly in the form of contested checks. On the other hand, persuasion checks come in the form of some DC. Under the assumption of a DC range of 10-20 being representative enough and under the assumption that more important checks will tend towards the higher DCs (of that range), I could make a good case that reliable talent changes the balance in a way where it would be better to use expertise on persuasion rather than on athletics (because difficult and either dangerous or profitable athletics contests can be avoided to some extent or handled by someone else respectively). Here is how this conclusion comes crumbling down for my character in the campaign I am currently playing. I view failing an athletics check as a very bad thing due to how I often like playing the character (ie go annoy something and run back to the real adventurers), because it has a very real potential to get my character killed. And when it comes to persuasion, the DC of by far the most important such roll I've so far made with this character was "dont roll a 1" (it was pre reliable talent and a 1 would have my char killed; granted, I do have expertise in persuasion and a big part of my char's identity is that they are good at talking, especially when it's talking their way out of a bad situation, so you could say that the leniency of the DC was partly paid already). My point is, small differences between playstyle or table habits, but equally important because it is natural that different ability checks come with different degree of risk and/or profit, using a common assumption or a common conclusion for reliable talent wont help me understand how each assumption wont hold true for different checks or how the conclusion will stray from what I might have expected.

As for why I used DC 15 and 20, DC 25 is mildy rare and given my comparison overly self serving since that is about the cap on DCs at the numbers discussed (if more than 20 is needed, the chance of success is 0, no matter how many dice you get to roll) and DC 11 while being my personal favorite when DMing is too low for significant differences in this discussion (as proficiency before other factors gets very high success rates).
(Emphasis)
Not contradicting anything here, just shifting what you are saying about DCs in a different direction. DC 11 is only low if you assume proficiency. Actually, let me phrase it differently. A DC of 11 is not necessarily easy when it's used to challenge multiple PCs (cause with multiple PC's you can more easily end up with more pc's lacking proficiency). A nice idea I have picked up from this forum (I think it was Tanari's), and I think I picked it up from a thread that talked about how you can make skill proficiencies matter more (cause the randomness of the d20 goes against this), was to often use checks with low DCs (eg 5). I liked this idea and I proposed it to the DM. We only got to use it once, it was basically an acrobatics check of DC 5 on a round basis to avoid the effects of difficult terrain. Faillure meant you ended up prone and your movement ended (at least I think so), but you could choose not to roll the check and move normally at half speed IIRC. One player could not come to terms with the idea that the terrain can be anything else apart from difficult or not difficult, so after a first not entirely successful application we never really used it again (which is a shame, cause that had been but one example).

Edit: Also, you can have checks with various degrees of success, where 11 or something like that is the boundary between different outcomes. One area where we've used such checks has been during downtime, when your character is doing something and how well you roll determines how much you succeed (eg the beginnings of the concept currently in mind for my next char is a very enthusiastic street preacher, the kind who disappears when the party reaches a new town or something and booking at the inn so that he can go spread the Word; my downtime activity will be recruiting and I am currently thinking of eloquent bard dips on cleric just for that). But various degrees of success can be used in many other ways, such as regular persuasion and insight* checks or perhaps more commonly with any knowledge checks cause there the logic is in print.

* I like using multiple degrees of success for passive insight, where succeeding less delays piecing together what at the moment might seem like unrelated or irrelevant.

The big thing I would stress is advantage and reliable talent provide a +0 bonus and shouldn't be thought of as such. They affect chances of success, but don't make success possible on their own.
Reliable Talent sets a minimum DC that cannot fail, usually arround 15, sometimes as high as 25.
Advantage is essentially a retry, more or less effective based on how likely success was initially.
Yep. Essentially reliable talent is best used when covering weaknesses or minimizing risks, and advantage is best when used to reach a high target. Not on their own of course as you said. The interesting bit is their interaction when advantage has a resource cost associated to it. Last level up I struggled between choosing lucky or not as a feat, because despite the diminishing returns I did want something to further push the ceiling of certain checks. The factor that eventually dissuaded me (in favor of eldritch adept/eldritch sight because the alarm spell is a real fun buster) was that reliable talent made using lucky a little too tricky for comfort.

Tanarii

2023-08-11, 11:01 AM

I am a fan and proponent of using low DCs, defaulting to DC 5 for something that's Easy but still has a chance of failure (and significant impact of course).

The way I view Reliable Talent is so you can pull off more stuff automatically. At level 10 it's going to be DC 14 minimum for anything you're likely to have proficiency in and probably more. For expertise it's DC 18+ they can swing. But I should be very clear, I haven't seen it much in play, my campaign was almost all Tier 1 and Tier 2.

IMO the Rogue is the guy who, even with a DM that generally goes for lower DCs because the DMG math is broken, declare they want to do crazy stuff and do it without a check, and declare they want to do really crazy stuff in expertise skills and still have a chance.

As a DM that tends to go for DC 5-10 for most checks, DC 15 for crazy stuff, and DC 20 for really crazy stuff, and DC 25 for when I'd tend to think it's no possible ... Rogues still have a niche as an "expert" IMO. And they do even better when it's something where they can pick the difficulty by controlling the craziness of their declared actions.

LudicSavant

2023-08-11, 08:44 PM

* I like using multiple degrees of success

I do too, which is why the proliferation of "you can only use this ability if you fail a check" skill amps in One D&D is ruffling my feathers a bit.

Corran

2023-08-11, 09:27 PM

LudicSavant

2023-08-11, 09:45 PM

Oh yeah, that doesn't sound good. And it's not like the concept is unknown to them since they've used it. Do they use it a lot in One from what you've seen?

They use it bloody constantly.

stoutstien

2023-08-12, 04:46 AM

I do too, which is why the proliferation of "you can only use this ability if you fail a check" skill amps in One D&D is ruffling my feathers a bit.

Oh yeah, that doesn't sound good. And it's not like the concept is unknown to them since they've used it. Do they use it a lot in One from what you've seen?

They use it bloody constantly.

I understand why they are doing it even if I don't agree. It's basically a way to have stacking advantage without actually adding in rules for it.

I also like to have the option for degrees of success or delayed rolls so features that prevent it bug me.

Witty Username

2023-08-13, 10:30 PM

To talk about DC stuff specifically (I personally find that more interesting than class balance anyway)

I think DC 5 is too low to use as a general case, this may be because my table uses rolled stats but is is very easy to get a 100% success rate or close too it.
I find DC 11 works better, as proficiency and a good ability score will get it to the no fail point, but a character with a +0 will have a decent chance of success, and bonuses will always be valuable.

Now, that tends to be when I am improvising, specifically for failure as low consequences. I might be more inclined for DC 5 to avoid dire consequences, if that comes up (like say balancing on a mountain side, DC 11 makes sense to me to avoid falling prone, but I might be inclined that passing a DC 5 will keep you out of going down the mountain).

So, DC 11 - pretty usable as a general case
DC 5 - I might kill you for failing, and I am disinclined towards it being an auto success

And then higher DCs, I rarely use them when I am improvising, but I will occasionally put them in via planning. Usually for things I am comfortable with either the party being unable to do, or only one member of the party being unable to do.

Like say getting past the castle gate to interupt the prince's wedding. DC 15 to lift the gate with an athletics check. I expect them to find some other way to get it when the gate falls, but if Andre the Giant tries, that is fine by me. And I probably have a few ideas in mind for how the party could get in, so them not getting though the front gate doesn't worry me much.

Tanarii

2023-08-13, 11:45 PM

I think DC 5 is too low to use as a general case, this may be because my table uses rolled stats but is is very easy to get a 100% success rate or close to it.
Characters using standard array will have 3 ability scores with a -1 to +1 bonus, and are likely to be missing proficiency for a number of those checks (edit: and DCs should be picked without regard to proficiency anyway). Unless you're always setting them up as One Roll To Rule Them all checks where the party gets to talk about it and pick who rolls for the entire party every time, DC 5 is perfectly appropriate for an easy check that still has consequences for failure worth making a roll for, when they don't have ten times as long to do it and succeed automatically.

If the party is going to be able to pick who makes the check, then yeah it's usually appropriate to forgo a check for what might otherwise be an easy DC 5 check.

LudicSavant

2023-08-14, 05:39 AM

In tier 1 and 2, Expertise is just the size of Guidance, but to only 2-4 skills, and for only you (as opposed to boosting whoever has the right attributes for the job). It's also extremely common for (good) characters to get at least 14 Dexterity, it's not like Intelligence or Charisma where maxing it means you might be ahead by +5 or 6 over everyone else in Int or Cha checks.

As such, I wish Rogues got better non-combat features from their subclass. Aside from Arcane Trickster and Soulknife it's pretty sparse.

Scout is 2 bonus proficiencies in Wis-based skills and uh, that's basically it.

Mastermind gets some tool proficiencies (meh), a similarly-bad version of the Battle Master's highly dysfunctional level 7 feature, and a level 17 feature that might have been relevant if they got it 10 levels earlier. It's embarrassing, especially considering that their combat features are lame ducks too.

Assassin gets 2 tool proficiencies, and the ability to lovingly craft a fake persona over extended downtime. However, you have very little to actually protect this persona from, say, basic divination magic, so good luck actually doing that deep infiltration you're supposed to be doing. Wish they got something kinda like the Mastermind's level 17 ability at level 9. As with most of these subclasses, a Soulknife or Arcane Trickster mostly does their out of combat tricks better, even the ones these subclasses are meant to specialize in.

Inquisitive has one good non-combat feature; Advantage on Perception and Investigation when moving slow (which is annoying but still isn't as troublesome for those skills as it is for Stealth). Since a lot of those checks are passive, that's a +5. Cool.

Sadly, its other non-combat features are not cool. Ear for Deceit is meh when you get it, and is a fully dead feature once you get Reliable Talent. Unerring Eye's limited uses mean you'll only use it when you're expecting that you're getting tricked, and even then, it'll only tell you that 'something is amiss,' it won't tell you what. There are low level rituals better than this.

Swashbuckler gets Advantage on a single Athletics or Acrobatics check that competes for their bonus action, and comes after they got Reliable Talent (Advantage + Reliable Talent is barely worth more than Reliable Talent alone). They also get Panache, but you can turn a non-hostile NPC friendly with a charisma check without having this feature, sooo...

Thief's Second Story Work doesn't actually make you more likely to succeed at climbing things, it just makes you faster at it, which is more relevant in combat than out. So it mostly boils down to getting Advantage on stealth checks, but only if they move very slowly (especially given that you have to go at a Slow travel pace to stealth at all). Remember, characters that are actually really good at filling the stealth role well are not just making stealth checks, they're also doing things like Pass Without Trace, countering divinations or special senses, concealing themselves in plain sight, etc. Advantage for moving slow ain't gonna cut it. Heck, it's not even going to surpass Soulknife or Arcane Trickster at this job.

Phantom gets +1 skill proficiency, the ability to ask a question to someone you killed, once (they have no obligation to tell the truth or anything), and eventually the ability to slowly walk through walls. This is above average for a Rogue subclass's utility, mostly because of the walking through walls part. Still no Soulknife or Arcane Trickster though.

Soulknife gets real non-combat features. A skill amp that's almost the same size as a baseline Bardic Inspiration (albeit self-only) and a 3rd level long-lasting multi-target Telepathic Bond are the highlights. This also means that you can get most of the benefit of the class (Cunning Action, 2x Expertise, skill amp scaling on proficiency, 2d6 SA, and the bond) from 3 level then multiclass out.

It also has a relatively weak teleport (you need to be able to throw something to the destination), but it's still a teleport and those are always handy. And you can basically cast Invisibility on yourself, which will let you stealth in plain sight.

Altogether, this is way better than most of the Rogue subclasses on noncombat features. Thief Rogue might get Advantage on stealth, but you can get a bigger bonus, move faster while using it, hide while observed, and telepathically coordinate a team in complete silence, from any scouting distance.

Arcane Trickster gets wizard cantrips and spells, and those things are genuinely good for utility even at a 1/3rd caster progression. They also get Mage Hand Ledgerdemain, which is also good. Like Soulknife, easily blows most of the Rogue subclasses out of the water on non-combat utility.