What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class? [Archive]

Skrum

2024-04-22, 08:53 PM

I've only ever experienced this narrative here and in certain other 'optimization' circles and it basically boils down to them 'not doing enough damage' or 'not having avenues to increase damage much' a lot of the time. I don't think either of those arguments hold water, much like I don't agree with the hate the Monk class gets in the same circles. There are aspects to both classes that are difficult to represent in 'look at my math!' type arguments and some folks on the internet have expectations of damage completely divorced from what the game expects and instead get caught up in class to class comparisons and 'well a martial is meant to deal damage!'

I mean, 5e did do a good job of making (almost) every option playable. Rogue isn't useless and even I, who thinks rogue is the weakest class, don't think its utterly without value or unplayable or something. But a class has to get the ignoble spot of Worst, and rogue has a lot of problems.

I'll even add this: a game where the entire party was rogues and the DM was catering to rogue strengths, that sounds like a blast. A kind of open world, semi-realism type game, rogue would excel. Unfortunately though that's really not what other classes do, and most games aren't run that way. Between the lack of resources and the heavy skill focus, rogue is literally built like the game isn't played the way it's played.

Between Uncanny Dodge and Evasion their defenses are pretty solid (and with mundane gear they're looking at a low-effort AC 17 top). They won't do it all day but they can fill in for frontline pretty well and can be built to do it even better.

And with how Grapple/Shove works in 5e, Expertise lets them excel at it with really minimal investment.

Rogues can't shove and grapple very well cause they don't have extra attack. Fighters don't get expertise but they are often str focused and they get twice as many tries as rogue - or more likely, can shove and still attack once. Rogues have to commit their entire action.

Evasion is a good ability, no question. But it doesn't come up all the time

Uncanny Dodge is good, if the tactic is to only occasionally get tagged and then run away. So, it works for rogue in a narrow sense: but it means rogues have terrible presence. And if rogue is always running away, well I hope your teammates can take hits. Rogue can't tank or CC and their damage is middling. That's not a great place to be.

J-H

2024-04-22, 09:07 PM

I'm a 5e baby, did Rogues have that stuff previously?
No, and the adoption rate of D&D2024 is questionable. Also, it removes the ability for rogues to get sneak attack damage with reaction attacks (Battlemaster, Dissonant Whispers, OAs, etc.) so there's a net nerf at least for parties that work together to set up extra piles of d6s.

I just.. don't understand?

Between Uncanny Dodge and Evasion their defenses are pretty solid (and with mundane gear they're looking at a low-effort AC 17 top). They won't do it all day but they can fill in for frontline pretty well and can be built to do it even better.
AC 17: A basic skeleton (+4 to hit) requires a 13, meaning they have a 40% hit rate. AC 21 (plate + shield + Defense style): A basic skeleton requires a 17 to hit, or a 20% hit rate. Against enemies appropriate for low level characters, a rogue gets hit twice as often as a heavy-armor/sword and board fighter(/paladin/cleric/etc.).

Against, say, a dragon with +10 to hit, the dragon needs a 7 or higher, meaning it has a 70% hit rate, vs against our same AC 21 comparison, the dragon needs an 11, for a 50% hit rate. The rogue is going to get hit 40% more often than the fighter.

At level 20 with +3 gear for everything and a tome, which is the best a rogue can get, the rogue has Dex 22 and is running Studded Leather +3 for an AC of 21. A fighter(/etc.) with +3 plate and a +3 shield has AC 27 with the Defense fighting style. Again, against an enemy with +15 to hit (str 28, PB +6), the rogue has a 75% chance to get hit while the martial has a 45% chance to get hit... so the rogue gets hit almost twice as much.

The rogue's only native way to mitigate the damage of getting hit a lot more is Uncanny dodge, which works against one attack. Getting shot at by 6 skeletons? It doesn't help much. Getting attacked 3 times by a dragon? It helps some, but not as much as not being hit by an attack would. Using Uncanny Dodge also burns the ability to make a second attack (for more sneak attack damage).

Evasion is pretty good, although it fails to help against Cone of Cold, Synaptic Static, Hold Person, Banishment, etc. etc. It's only one saving throw out of six possible, and the higher level you are, the more often you can expect to face enemies that do more than just Evoke at you.

And with how Grapple/Shove works in 5e, Expertise lets them excel at it with really minimal investment.
Yes, if they give up damage. Grapple/shove sub in for iterative attacks. At level 5, any class with Extra Attack can grapple and shove in the same turn. Rogues can grapple in round 1 and shove in round 2, and then start getting to attack with advantage in round 3. The only way around this is to be a TWF rogue, take the attack action by shoving, and then making an off-hand attack as a BA to try to land the sneak attack damage. Rogues can get a higher skill number, but they don't have the action economy to deploy it effectively without a teammate. If you want to make a grapple/shove rogue and you're not chasing that level 18 quasi-capstone, take 5 levels in Fighter to pick up a fighting style, Extra Attack, and a subclass feature. Giving up 2d6-3d6 (7 or 11 damage) of sneak attack for an entire extra attack (1d6+4 or about 7 damage plus options) is worth it.

Witty Username

2024-04-22, 09:22 PM

No, and the adoption rate of D&D2024 is questionable. Also, it removes the ability for rogues to get sneak attack damage with reaction attacks (Battlemaster, Dissonant Whispers, OAs, etc.) so there's a net nerf at least for parties that work together to set up extra piles of d6s.

As I recall, that particular change was reversed in the playtest material.

--
As far as I know from optimization circles,
First they said Ranger was the weakest class,
Then some said monk was the weakest class,
and some further still said the rogue was the weakest class,

And finally one said barbarian was the weakest class,
And all agreed barbarain was the weakest class

As a reminder of how tight this argument has been, I still think monk is the bottom of the barrel, but it is not a very deep barrel.

Dork_Forge

2024-04-22, 09:32 PM

I mean, 5e did do a good job of making (almost) every option playable. Rogue isn't useless and even I, who thinks rogue is the weakest class, don't think its utterly without value or unplayable or something. But a class has to get the ignoble spot of Worst, and rogue has a lot of problems.

I'll even add this: a game where the entire party was rogues and the DM was catering to rogue strengths, that sounds like a blast. A kind of open world, semi-realism type game, rogue would excel. Unfortunately though that's really not what other classes do, and most games aren't run that way. Between the lack of resources and the heavy skill focus, rogue is literally built like the game isn't played the way it's played.

Yeah I get 'one must be bottom thing' I just don't think it should be Rogue.

As for how Rogues do in games, I've never seen a Rogue do poorly (outside of die rolls) and I've never encountered a player dissatisfied with a work. Small sample size, but it's probably a couple dozen, probably more, at this point either playing with them or DMing them, leaving my experience actually playing them aside.

Rogues can't shove and grapple very well cause they don't have extra attack. Fighters don't get expertise but they are often str focused and they get twice as many tries as rogue - or more likely, can shove and still attack once. Rogues have to commit their entire action.

Extra Attack is nice, but it Grapple/Shove was brought up in context of helping out team mates/contributing outside of hitting and a Rogue is pretty darn good at knocking someone over or locking them down. They can't do it all in one turn, but most likely those that will be dedicating their entire turn to it as well.

Remember, I didn't say they were the best at it, but Expertise and the ability to close large gaps in a single turn and still do it makes them better than most at it. Heck, they're a great dip to take for those looking to be good at it with Extra Attack too.

Evasion is a good ability, no question. But it doesn't come up all the time

Of course

Uncanny Dodge is good, if the tactic is to only occasionally get tagged and then run away. So, it works for rogue in a narrow sense: but it means rogues have terrible presence. And if rogue is always running away, well I hope your teammates can take hits. Rogue can't tank or CC and their damage is middling. That's not a great place to be.

Yes, Uncanny Dodge makes skirmishing whilst risking OAs work well. However, being able to halve attack damage on demand is a fantastic defense and they have a good enough AC and enough hit points that, when combined with Uncanny Dodge, they can step in at the front for a few rounds as an substitute tank pretty handily.

I'm assuming all of this criticism is of the main chassis, because the subclasses most definitely cover some of these complaints, but in no way shape or form is Sneak Attack Rogue damage 'middling' unless a table is consistently running considerably tougher than average or the party is engaging in a competition involving a wall and bodily fluid regarding damage.

Psyren

2024-04-22, 09:42 PM

Also, it removes the ability for rogues to get sneak attack damage with reaction attacks (Battlemaster, Dissonant Whispers, OAs, etc.)

That change was reverted, rogues can SA once per turn again now.

I'm a 5e baby, did Rogues have that stuff previously?

I can't speak for 4e - but in 3.5, all Rogues could UMD, not just a single subclass, and getting your hands on magic items (especially consumables) to use it with was much easier / more readily assumed due to WBL being a baseline expectation. Moreover, their offense had a higher ceiling when optimized since sneak attack triggers on every hit rather than once per turn.

And for the bolded:

I just.. don't understand?

Between Uncanny Dodge and Evasion their defenses are pretty solid (and with mundane gear they're looking at a low-effort AC 17 top). They won't do it all day but they can fill in for frontline pretty well and can be built to do it even better.

What's not to understand? UD works on a single attack per round. By the time you have that 17 AC (8th level at the absolute earliest barring CL) most things you're fighting have multiple attacks. Being in the front also usually means plenty of Con and Str saves, e.g. things trying to poison you. They don't have shield proficiency and have d8 HD.

And with how Grapple/Shove works in 5e, Expertise lets them excel at it with really minimal investment.

It makes them not suck to be sure, but you're overselling Athletics Expertise. Most Rogues have a 10 Str if not 8, so your Expertise in Athletics still puts you behind a Str-based character with simple proficiency at most levels in an actual campaign. They catch up at around level 13, where most campaigns end. And even if you do all that, you're giving up your entire action to use it, compared to a Fighter or Barbarian or Paladin who isn't.

You could instead invest in Str + Athletics Expertise, but then you're making yourself a worse rogue to be better at something that someone else in the party can probably do more easily instead.

Witty Username

2024-04-22, 09:47 PM

On the subject of saves, Rogues have the third best spread of defenses (monk at second barely, and Paladin in front by a full country mile)

When slipery mind comes online they have
Dex, Int and Wis
With Resilient they can take another, in optimized crowds this is usually Con

So they have proficiency against all 3 major saves, and 2 of them will tend to have significant investment (Dex and Con)

Along with evasion which will no sell a bunch of dangerous damage effects, save wise defenses are pretty good, heck they will trend better than monk since they are less reliant on feats for optimized damage lines, and resilient is not a dead pick by high level. Monk only passes a the 14th level point because Strength and Charisma saves will sometimes matter.

Oh and the One D&D stuff is looking to give them Charisma save proficiency as well as Wisdom. Which if that makes it through will make this argument stronger.

Dork_Forge

2024-04-22, 09:52 PM

I can't speak for 4e - but in 3.5, all Rogues could UMD, not just a single subclass, and getting your hands on magic items (especially consumables) to use it with was much easier / more readily assumed due to WBL being a baseline expectation. Moreover, their offense had a higher ceiling when optimized since sneak attack triggers on every hit rather than once per turn.

So a bit higher damage, but with how items are in 5e not a whole lot missing comparatively.

What's not to understand? UD works on a single attack per round. By the time you have that 17 AC (8th level at the absolute earliest barring CL) most things you're fighting have multiple attacks. Being in the front also usually means plenty of Con and Str saves, e.g. things trying to poison you. They don't have shield proficiency and have d8 HD.

As a character occasionally stepping in to fill the roll the tank for somereason can't at that moment, they do just fine.

Yes things often have multiple attacks, more attacks typically also means lower damage hits and less damage from an attack is still less damage from an attack. Again, for occasionally stepping in, they do just fine and better than a lot of nontank classes. As for the AC, in actual play with a full build it's no where near as restrictive, heck there's a lot of races now that bump it up to 13+Dex and getting med+shields is frustratingly easy in 5e, nevermind AT with Shield.

It makes them not suck to be sure, but you're overselling Athletics Expertise. Most Rogues have a 10 Str if not 8, so your Expertise in Athletics still puts you behind a Str-based character with simple proficiency at most levels in an actual campaign. They catch up at around level 13, where most campaigns end. And even if you do all that, you're giving up your entire action to use it, compared to a Fighter or Barbarian or Paladin who isn't.

You could instead invest in Str + Athletics Expertise, but then you're making yourself a worse rogue to be better at something that someone else in the party can probably do more easily instead.

Hot take, a Rogue that intends to do any degree of grapple/shoving or just likes the idea of their character not being built like a twig doesn't hard dump Str. Getting a +1 Str is so trivial it isn't really much of an investment, an example array before racials:

12 15 13 10 11 12

Dex is still on pace to max at 8th, with room to take a half feat at 4th (say, Moderately Armored is a Dex half feat that seems relevant to the conversation), with Con primed to be a +2 and a +1 Charisma for face stuff with no hard dumps of 8, because I dislike them. dump Int and that frees up a couple points to throw around.

A +1 Str and Ath Expertise means that the Rogue is going to be on par with Str characters up until 8th level, where they briefly pull ahead by one before it equalised again at 9th.

So not behind at all really besides one level at 8th, with barely any investment. But if they actually want to invest more, or say just have a higher number to put from a roll (since rolled stats are a thing some people do) a simple +2 puts them ahead with increasing gains from there. You don't have to be a StRogue to not have a crappy Str score.

Heck, if it's a Rogue that's actually more than the base class and actually thought 'you know I might want to grapple/shove' or 'it might be fun to be a Rogue that is pretty strong' then they could easily pump further.

A Giff gives permanent advantage, two (?) different races give appendages to grapple with full hands, Soul Knives get Psi-Bolstered Knack, AT's get Silvery Barbs and probably other stuff.

And even if they just go with the +1, yeah being able to score your checks like a Str primary character is still a pretty good bar to be hitting.

I never said they were the best at any of the things being corrected, but they certainly are good enough to do them from time to time.

No, and the adoption rate of D&D2024 is questionable.

Thanks for that, tbh I fell off the 2024 stuff pretty hard so have lost touch with a lot of the changes, and wasn't a fan of what I saw anyway.

AC 17: A basic skeleton (+4 to hit) requires a 13, meaning they have a 40% hit rate. AC 21 (plate + shield + Defense style): A basic skeleton requires a 17 to hit, or a 20% hit rate. Against enemies appropriate for low level characters, a rogue gets hit twice as often as a heavy-armor/sword and board fighter(/paladin/cleric/etc.).

Against, say, a dragon with +10 to hit, the dragon needs a 7 or higher, meaning it has a 70% hit rate, vs against our same AC 21 comparison, the dragon needs an 11, for a 50% hit rate. The rogue is going to get hit 40% more often than the fighter.

At level 20 with +3 gear for everything and a tome, which is the best a rogue can get, the rogue has Dex 22 and is running Studded Leather +3 for an AC of 21. A fighter(/etc.) with +3 plate and a +3 shield has AC 27 with the Defense fighting style. Again, against an enemy with +15 to hit (str 28, PB +6), the rogue has a 75% chance to get hit while the martial has a 45% chance to get hit... so the rogue gets hit almost twice as much.

The rogue's only native way to mitigate the damage of getting hit a lot more is Uncanny dodge, which works against one attack. Getting shot at by 6 skeletons? It doesn't help much. Getting attacked 3 times by a dragon? It helps some, but not as much as not being hit by an attack would. Using Uncanny Dodge also burns the ability to make a second attack (for more sneak attack damage).

I feel the need to again clarify here:

I am not saying the base Rogue is a good tank, I am saying they are hardy enough that in dire times they can step up to the plate and get smacked around for the team. Which they are. I run a higher level game where the (mostly) Bard takes that roll sometimes simply because they have the most HP left at that point by far.

As for the comparison I don't really think it amounts to much tbh, of course a heavy armor Fighter building for AC and getting two +3 items to the Rogues one. If you actually built a Rogue for AC they wouldn't cap out at 21, heck an AT with Shield doesn't cap out at 21 with no other help or build considerations. They aren't the best at AC, again what I said was that their AC is decent enough. And boosting that AC is pretty darn trivial in an actual build.

Evasion is pretty good, although it fails to help against Cone of Cold, Synaptic Static, Hold Person, Banishment, etc. etc. It's only one saving throw out of six possible, and the higher level you are, the more often you can expect to face enemies that do more than just Evoke at you.

Of course there are things outside of Dex saves, that doesn't take away from the fact that Dex is one of the most common saves in the game.

What I said was Evasion is a good defensive feature, because it just is. I never claimed in anyway that it was a be-all-end-all. But combining it with UA, a d8 Hit Die and decent AC means the Rogue isn't a squishy class, classes being tougher than them (and they should be, that's what their design and thematic are) doesn't take away from my point.

Yes, if they give up damage. Grapple/shove sub in for iterative attacks. At level 5, any class with Extra Attack can grapple and shove in the same turn. Rogues can grapple in round 1 and shove in round 2, and then start getting to attack with advantage in round 3. The only way around this is to be a TWF rogue, take the attack action by shoving, and then making an off-hand attack as a BA to try to land the sneak attack damage. Rogues can get a higher skill number, but they don't have the action economy to deploy it effectively without a teammate. If you want to make a grapple/shove rogue and you're not chasing that level 18 quasi-capstone, take 5 levels in Fighter to pick up a fighting style, Extra Attack, and a subclass feature. Giving up 2d6-3d6 (7 or 11 damage) of sneak attack for an entire extra attack (1d6+4 or about 7 damage plus options) is worth it.

You don't need to Grapple and Shove every time and it was brought up in a teamwork capacity. Yes Extra Attack is a big part of making a character that wants to focus on that kind of thing work well.

That doesn't detract from the fact that a Rogue can be above average at the roll should they want to with minimal investment and that it is an option they can utilize if they want/the situation dictates.

Heck, one situation that comes to mind is a oneshot where a fiend tried to run away to alert the others. As a Monk in that game I ran him down and stopped him easily, but thinking on it a CA:Dash Rogue with Athletics Expertise would have worked just as well with how it went down. Niche? Sure, but a real example that came to mind that I had as a player.

Skrum

2024-04-22, 09:56 PM

Yeah I get 'one must be bottom thing' I just don't think it should be Rogue.

Who would you put?

As for how Rogues do in games, I've never seen a Rogue do poorly (outside of die rolls) and I've never encountered a player dissatisfied with a work. Small sample size, but it's probably a couple dozen, probably more, at this point either playing with them or DMing them, leaving my experience actually playing them aside.

They function but they don't impress. At least that's me. They're just kinda there, plunking away. They have an extremely replacement-level feel; like any class could be subbed in and not a single thing the rogue was doing would be missed.

Heck, they're a great dip to take for those looking to be good at it with Extra Attack too.

Rogue is a fun dip, no argument there.

I'm assuming all of this criticism is of the main chassis, because the subclasses most definitely cover some of these complaints, but in no way shape or form is Sneak Attack Rogue damage 'middling' unless a table is consistently running considerably tougher than average or the party is engaging in a competition involving a wall and bodily fluid regarding damage.

A level 8 rogue with 20 dex and a +1 shortbow that deals an additional 2d6 on the first hit each attack action (this is literally an affix my table has added to make up for rogue getting kinda screwed by +d6 per hit weapons) deals 30.14 DPR

A level 8 barb with 18 str, GWM*, and a +1 greatsword that adds d6 damage to each hit deals 37.25

These items are quite representative of the table I play at...but let's see how rogue fairs with just +1 weaponry (everything else the same)

rogue: 23.09
barb: 32.09

Not so good! Yes rogue can pinch-hit for certain martially stuff, like taking a hit or landing a shove. But they largely just run away and deal damage. And...it's not that much damage. Barbs are also not a good class, but they at least 1) deal a chunk of damage, and 2) are a presence on the battlefield.

*my first scenario I gave rogue sharpshooter and 18 dex...it made their damage go down

Psyren

2024-04-22, 09:59 PM

I am saying they are hardy enough that in dire times they can step up to the plate and get smacked around for the team.

Dire indeed.

Who would you put?

Not directed at me but I think 2014 Monk is worse off. Ranger though gets a far worse rap than it should, even using the crappy 2014 features their spells and the rest of their chassis make up for it imo, and they like rogues get way more to do in the other two pillars. (Well, one of the others at least.)

Witty Username

2024-04-22, 10:04 PM

What is the AC you are using for those numbers? From the barbarian that looks like a 73% accuracy by my quick crunch?

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-22, 10:05 PM

I will echo what JH has said as far as having the right environments for rogues to excel in. Often times when people repeat sweeping generalizations about a class, the assumptions don't really line up with actual play (hence white room optimization).

For me, whenever it comes time to make a character and select a class... I can't really ever get over the fact that their second subclass feature comes online at level nine. Other classes are 1 level away from their THIRD feature, as opposed to just getting their second feature. It's just way too late in the lifespan of a campaign (generally).

That said, a dedicated skill monkey with Expertise, subclass skill features, bonus action mobility, and eventually Reliable Talent would be great in a party. In our current party, it's a crap shoot who will attempt what skill check, because we all have poor modifiers to most of them.

Skrum

2024-04-22, 10:07 PM

Not directed at me but I think 2014 Monk is worse off. Ranger though gets a far worse rap than it should, even using the crappy 2014 features their spells and the rest of their chassis make up for it imo, and they like rogues get way more to do in the other two pillars. (Well, one of the others at least.)

Monk is probably my runner-up, but I put it ahead of rogue because 1) mercy and shadow are legit subclasses, and 2) monks actually scale, oddly enough. It takes them awhile but somewhere around level 7 or 8 monks actually get enough ki they can start to function. Rogue only gets worse as the levels advance.

Skrum

2024-04-22, 10:12 PM

What is the AC you are using for those numbers? From the barbarian that looks like a 73% accuracy by my quick crunch?

16. Probably on the high side, but personally I care a lot less how a class handles mooks. That's what fireball is for. I wanna know how it fares against the boss or other tough threat.

Witty Username

2024-04-22, 10:21 PM

16. Probably on the high side, but personally I care a lot less how a class handles mooks. That's what fireball is for. I wanna know how it fares against the boss or other tough threat.

Hm, I only get a ~18 dpr by that math on Barbarian Vs the ~ 14 for the rogue.

Are you assuming both Reckless Attack and Rage up?

That is assuming 20 stat each, and I left out the +1 weapon stuff

Skrum

2024-04-22, 10:26 PM

Hm, I only get a ~18 dpr by that math on Barbarian Vs the ~ 14 for the rogue.

Are you assuming both Reckless Attack and Rage up?

That is assuming 20 stat each, and I left out the +1 weapon stuff

I'm assuming adv attack for each; reckless and rage for the barb and steady aim for the rogue. Basically, ideal conditions for both classes.

I'm using this (https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/tools/dpr-calculator/) to calculate it. My fav tool :)

Dork_Forge

2024-04-22, 10:40 PM

Who would you put?

In terms of design? Wizard.

In terms of effectiveness? It'd be joint between several probably, if I had to pick one maybe PHB Ranger without the later subclasses or spells. With the heavy caveat that anyone can do fine playing anything.

They function but they don't impress. At least that's me. They're just kinda there, plunking away. They have an extremely replacement-level feel; like any class could be subbed in and not a single thing the rogue was doing would be missed.

Eh, the reactions from tables when a Rogue destroys a check are always amusing and the excitement over their crits is second only to a Paladin with slots to burn. For impressing then things get a lot more niche or you have to actually talk about specific Rogues. Like I've played a Tabaxi Soul Knife that has certainly left party mates impressed with what he could do.

As for subbing in just anyone... not really. At bare minimum that sub needs to be a skill monkey or that party needs to be covering skills well. Realistically, they'd be missed for scouting potential without specific replacements (I don't subscribe to the familiars are the best scouts nonsense).

A level 8 rogue with 20 dex and a +1 shortbow that deals an additional 2d6 on the first hit each attack action (this is literally an affix my table has added to make up for rogue getting kinda screwed by +d6 per hit weapons) deals 30.14 DPR

A level 8 barb with 18 str, GWM*, and a +1 greatsword that adds d6 damage to each hit deals 37.25

These items are quite representative of the table I play at...but let's see how rogue fairs with just +1 weaponry (everything else the same)

rogue: 23.09
barb: 32.09

Not so good! Yes rogue can pinch-hit for certain martially stuff, like taking a hit or landing a shove. But they largely just run away and deal damage. And...it's not that much damage. Barbs are also not a good class, but they at least 1) deal a chunk of damage, and 2) are a presence on the battlefield.

*my first scenario I gave rogue sharpshooter and 18 dex...it made their damage go down

I thought I already mentioned this somewhere in the thread but yeah, this confirms it. Problems with Rogue damage often come up when people start comparing PC damage options.

How much damage a Barbarian does with GWM (an outlier feat) doesn't mean that a Rogue is bad or middling at damage by the expectations or even by the average of what PCs are actually doing.

Your comparison leaves out that the Rogue has traded damage for the safety of ranged and doesn't clarify (that I saw) if the Rogue was grabbing advantage from either Cunning Shot or Hiding. (Yes Barbs have Reckless, and Barbs get smacked in the face more for it).

I don't like the whole accuracy adjusted DPR thing for multiple reasons, so I'm just going to deal with average damage because I think that's more valuable.

Soulknife Rogue with +5 Dex and Thrown Weapon style (8th level):

5d6+1d4+14 = 34 avg. consistently with the safety of ranged and a massively higher accuracy than the GWM Barbarian, with safer to attain advantage sources.

An AT Rogue can use a Shadowblade and mix in (temporarily probably) help from a familiar.

Doing less damage than a Barbarian with GWM is not bad damage. Heck, it's not even reasonable to call that 'middling' damage, the only natural conclusion to that is that anyone doing less damage than a SA Rogue is doing 'bad' damage, which is just completely out of whack with the game.

It's literally just people comparing PC options, most of the time ones known to be unbalanced outliers, and often missing the reality for the math. I had a table with a GWM Battlemaster on it, the frustration he felt missing GWM shots on easy AC targets was palpable and not infrequent.

I never thought I'd have to defend Rogues, but I guess it's a change of pace from defending Monks? *shrug*

Skrum

2024-04-22, 10:54 PM

5d6+1d4+14 = 34 avg. consistently with the safety of ranged and a massively higher accuracy than the GWM Barbarian, with safer to attain advantage sources.

The problem is you're not factoring in that barbs (and fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, artificers...) all get 2 attacks. That's like. The point lol.

Also, you're saying "from safety" like it's a merit to the rogue. One of my complaints about rogue is exactly that - they do their little sneak attack business, and then scram. Well the rest of the party is just sitting there, getting attacked. Those attacks don't just disappear cause the rogue isn't in range - they get directed at someone else. Barb deals better damage AND can take a beating. That's two things. The rogue does one.

I'm not setting out to convince you of anything, so if you enjoy rogues, by all means, continue to do just that. I just, yah know. Won't agree lol.

JNAProductions

2024-04-22, 10:54 PM

Psyren

2024-04-22, 10:54 PM

Monk is probably my runner-up, but I put it ahead of rogue because 1) mercy and shadow are legit subclasses, and 2) monks actually scale, oddly enough. It takes them awhile but somewhere around level 7 or 8 monks actually get enough ki they can start to function. Rogue only gets worse as the levels advance.

Rogues scale better than Monks imo, particularly 11+ where monks usually plateau. And if we're comparing specific subclasses, well, I'll take an Arcane Trickster or Soulknife over a Shadow or Mercy any day - though I suppose your DM's willingness to let PWT be an on-demand Surprise Button can change the power math on that.

For me, whenever it comes time to make a character and select a class... I can't really ever get over the fact that their second subclass feature comes online at level nine. Other classes are 1 level away from their THIRD feature, as opposed to just getting their second feature. It's just way too late in the lifespan of a campaign (generally).

I definitely hate this too, and it's the thing I'm saddest about from standardadized subclass progression not making it through the playtest. (Well, that, and the fact that now we can't have universal subclasses as a result.

But if there was any consolation prize that would make me feel better about what happened - WM, CS, and level 1 feat would do the trick.

JNAProductions

2024-04-22, 11:00 PM

Note: The SA Dice and Stat Bonuses might look off in the Spreadsheet.

That's because the Rogue does +2d6 on a hit (from magic item) and has +1 hit and damage (same).
The Barbarian has an extra 1d6 damage built into every attack, and the Strength boost reflects the +1 to-hit and -damage.

Skrum

2024-04-22, 11:07 PM

Rogues scale better than Monks imo, particularly 11+ where monks usually plateau. And if we're comparing specific subclasses, well, I'll take an Arcane Trickster or Soulknife over a Shadow or Mercy any day - though I suppose your DM's willingness to let PWT be an on-demand Surprise Button can change the power math on that.

I sorta see the arcane trickster being strong; they get spells, which are the easiest way to tell if a class is a good or not. Personally I think their glacial spell progression is both wildly unnecessary and too little to make up for general rogue shortcomings. But still - good subclass.

Soulknife, I just don't see it. They get...some "unarmed strikes" that don't usually matter? A boost to skills that rogue doesn't need? And...a janky, unpredictable teleport? Group telepathy is the most interesting thing, but it's about 2 steps from ribbon. I struggle to even contrive a situation where it MATTERS. Fun, for sure, but that's about it.

Skrum

2024-04-22, 11:09 PM

Keravath

2024-04-22, 11:09 PM

I'm assuming adv attack for each; reckless and rage for the barb and steady aim for the rogue. Basically, ideal conditions for both classes.

I'm using this (https://rpgbot.net/dnd5/tools/dpr-calculator/) to calculate it. My fav tool :)

I'm a bit confused. Using that tool, level 8 barbarian and level 8 rogue, 20 in primary stat, +1 greatsword for the barbarian, +1 short bow for the rogue, no GWM or SS, 8 required roll to hit (eg 16 AC target), both attacks with advantage from either reckless attack or steady aim.

The numbers the calculator seems to give are:

Barbarian: 24.18 from two attacks
Rogue: 22.33 from one attack

At level 9, the rogue goes to 25.74 with the increase in sneak attack.

So, baseline, the rogue is comparable to any other martial if you leave out GWM/SS/PAM/XBOW.

The problem would appear to be the damage increasing feats rather than the rogue itself in terms of damage comparisons between martial classes.

When looking at the monk in these comparisons, the value of stunning strike can't be underestimated. DPS may be a bit lower but crowd control is exceptional in many cases though until recently the monk was further penalized due to the lack of a magical weapon (+to hit/+dam) for their unarmed strikes.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-22, 11:22 PM

Witty Username

2024-04-22, 11:31 PM

There is also a note a rogue with 20 Dex and a shortbow is less optimized rogue, and more minimum viable rogue.

To quick adjust for advantage (as a aside I don't do crits in my averages, the math rarely checks out to be worth):
84 % accuracy for rogue, 22.5 for an average damage hit, 18.9
64 % accuracy for barbarian 22 flat per hit with GWM for a 44 for the whole attack line, 28.16 that isn't including rage but it is about half a +4 bonus, 30.72 after the quick add

Now, there is a thing of crits, I don't like them in averages, but there is a thing to be said here

Barbarian crit, average damage 29, 31 with rage
Rogue crit, average damage 40

now this is only ~ 10 % of the time, which is why I don't bother with it in the average, but it is a thing with rogues, most of their damage is dice, so they gain a lot of damage on crits.

So we are doing at least an mildly optimized build vs this rogue, so let's toss in a couple things:

Elven accuracy is a fair pick on a rogue since they like their advantage and doesn't throw off the Dex gains, and elf allows proficiency in long bow or heavy crossbow(I like that second one)

So let's work those in:
Accuracy goes to 93% about, damage changes slightly 24.5, in the aggregate 22.93

And then that crit stuff,
14% so, one in every seven attacks is a crit now for them and the average damage goes up a little 44 damage

This also is very consistent damage, about half the barbarians attacks are missing, almost all of the rogues are hitting. this matters quite a bit if we don't have advantage for whatever reason or dealing with a high AC enemy.

A quick thing that doesn't come out well in this snapshot, the Barb is peaked, they pretty much peaked at 5th level,

A quick trip to say 15th level:
Barb pre accuracy adjustment, 22 per, 44 total, 25 and 50 with rage
Rogue same 33 damage average ( and this is the short bow one)

A nice thing in the crits though, Barb gets brutal critical twice, that brings it up to
36, 39 with rage
Rogue
61 damage ( for you see, rogue got brutal critical at 1st level, and 3th, and every other odd numbered level in the game

Skrum

2024-04-22, 11:35 PM

In actual gameplay... it's not so simple.

The rogue's features are meant to allow it to stay mobile and out of danger, and to hide. If you're using Steady Aim to generate Advantage, you're assuming you have no need to move. Which is a GIANT assumption.

Secondly, without Sharpshooter, you're not ignoring Cover. If you're aiming for enemies engaged in melee combat with your allies, so you can get your Sneak Attack off, you may be taking a penalty to hit.

It's just not so easy to peg how the rogue is going to work out generally. If you have stuff to hide behind, you may be ducking in and out of hiding and will have Advantage from being an unseen attacker. But if the terrain doesn't allow for it or enemies are harassing you, then you need to use that bonus action to Disengage, or Dash. Then you might have to target someone next to an ally instead and won't have Advantage. Maybe the terrain favors you and you can Steady Aim all you want, maybe not.

If you do include Sharpshooter, then you really need to be able to Hide or stand still for Steady Aim if you want that bonus damage because you NEED the Advantage. And don't forget that two attacks+GWM means the barbarian not only has the potential to do that damage twice, but also proc a bonus action attack if they kill someone.

All entirely correct; I'm just being as generous to the rogue as I can be. They have the ability to generate their own adv, same as barb, so I'm giving 'em credit.

In play, you're right; the rogue is a lot less likely to have advantage as automatically as the barb does.

I'm a bit confused. Using that tool, level 8 barbarian and level 8 rogue, 20 in primary stat, +1 greatsword for the barbarian, +1 short bow for the rogue, no GWM or SS, 8 required roll to hit (eg 16 AC target), both attacks with advantage from either reckless attack or steady aim.

The numbers the calculator seems to give are:

Barbarian: 24.18 from two attacks
Rogue: 22.33 from one attack

At level 9, the rogue goes to 25.74 with the increase in sneak attack.

So, baseline, the rogue is comparable to any other martial if you leave out GWM/SS/PAM/XBOW.

The problem would appear to be the damage increasing feats rather than the rogue itself in terms of damage comparisons between martial classes.

I mean...most people play with feats. Including them in the comparison is hardly a wild leap. And the fact that rogues aren't greatly equipped to use those feats, that's obviously gotta count against them.

When looking at the monk in these comparisons, the value of stunning strike can't be underestimated. DPS may be a bit lower but crowd control is exceptional in many cases though until recently the monk was further penalized due to the lack of a magical weapon (+to hit/+dam) for their unarmed strikes.

Similarly, the table I play at also made monk-friendly charms that enhancement bonuses and extra damage dice. It's a big help to the monk.

Stunning Strike is...yeah I just hate this ability lol. Low percentage move that will also jack up the encounter when it works. I really wish monks had a different version, like it slows instead of stuns. I don't like it as a DM and I don't like it as a player.

Witty Username

2024-04-22, 11:57 PM

All entirely correct; I'm just being as generous to the rogue as I can be. They have the ability to generate their own adv, same as barb, so I'm giving 'em credit.

In play, you're right; the rogue is a lot less likely to have advantage as automatically as the barb does.

Eh, the barb is also less likely to deal damage at all, because of the need to close distance

Not to mention reckless goes both ways, overusing it is a great way to take a bunch of unnecessary damage, with rogue you at least don't often reduce your defenses, and in the case of hiding, actively contribute to them.

Soulknife, I just don't see it. They get...some "unarmed strikes" that don't usually matter? A boost to skills that rogue doesn't need? And...a janky, unpredictable teleport? Group telepathy is the most interesting thing, but it's about 2 steps from ribbon. I struggle to even contrive a situation where it MATTERS. Fun, for sure, but that's about it.

So, I want to show a thing math wise, we are going to not use advantage more for math simplicity

So we have that barbarian attack line:
40% accuracy on them GWM hits, 22 as discussed 8.8, 17.6 average

Rogue (soul knife)
First the two attacks
1d6+5 and 1d4+5 averages 8.5 and 7.5, 65 % accuracy, average 10.4

So we are about 7 points behind, but we haven't put in sneak attack yet
8th level so 4d6
87 % accuracy, since we have to chances to make this connect with the two hits
12.3 extra damage to that adjusted average

we hit 22.7 damage,

Any additional attacks on rogue makes its DPR go up very significantly

And we haven't even gotten into homing strikes yet.

Amechra

2024-04-23, 01:04 AM

JellyPooga

2024-04-23, 02:39 AM

Sneak Attack is a Cantrip.

That's the problem with common perception of the Rogue Class; everyone is judging it by one of it's (arguably) weakest features. No-one would think much of the Wizard either if they weren't looking past the Firebolt cantrip they got at 1st level as if it were their primary function in the game.

That and poor assumptions about how the Class functions, what it's supposed to do and what it's capable of doing. Statements like "Rogues are squishy" and "your average Rogue dumps Strength" and the like are based on such assumptions. Rogue is one of the more modular Classes, allowing for a variety of play styles and builds; Dex is an obvious primary for them, but by no means the only one in the same way that, for instance, Int is for the Wizard or Str for a Barbarian. Likewise, nothing dictates a Rogues AC is capping at light armour; one feat upgrades them to medium armour and shield; arguably an obvious choice for a character that gains no bonus from 2-handing weapons and wants to be in melee.

Snowbluff

2024-04-23, 07:17 AM

stoutstien

2024-04-23, 07:54 AM

Rogues, and monks for that matter, are frequently singled out as being poor choices once you eliminate all the the things that can't be accounted for due to being table level elements. Artificer occasionally get added as well.

Monks and rogues are singled out as amazing when you instead focus on those table level factors because they have tools to circumvent or otherwise deal with challenges that impede the ability to apply the damage in the first place or when damage isn't the method needed.

Kurald Galain

2024-04-23, 08:25 AM

I'm a 5e baby, did Rogues have that stuff previously?
Rogues in 1E/2E are fairly weak in combat (they have low numbers for basically everything), but they have better skills than anyone else, and gain XP faster than every other class (along with the bard).

Rogues in 3E are considered pretty bad, first because lots of things are immune to sneak attack; and second because they have more skills but aren't better at those skills. PF mitigates these issues somewhat but the result is still not stellar.

Rogues in 4E are a competent and high-damage frontliner, and are close to the top when it comes to melee strikers, outclassed mainly by the ranger. They are not noticeably more or less skilled than other classes.

...does that help? Rogues are the "skills guy" but haven't been particularly good at that except in 2E; and they are the "melee striker" but haven't been great at that except in 4E.

Skrum

2024-04-23, 09:30 AM

It's funny to me that the comparison is "Barbarian who is fighting with the best combat-boosting feat for their class and has both Rage and Reckless Attacks already active, which maximizes the benefit of said feat, which is already an outlier" vs. "a Rogue using a fighting style that favors safety over damage". Of course the Rogue's going to look bad with that comparison.

I'm also not surprised that optimizers, who tend to go for an interpretation of the game that heavily favors classes that can nova are down on the Rogue, the class that has no real ability to nova (outside of a couple subclasses). The thing is that the Rogue shines in fights where you aren't free to dump your resources, because it doesn't cost them anything to sneak attack someone in the face.

OK so in my first damage comparison, I gave rogue 18 dex and sharp shooter, the ranged counterpart to GWM. And it did LESS damage. Rogues only get 1 attack, so increasing the chance to miss that attack and not trigger their sneak attack makes them a bad candidate to use let's see, basically the only feat that can increase weapon damage in the game.

I also want to point out that my criticism of rogue damage is contextual: they don't do anything else. If rogue did exactly the damage it did now but could also tank - I'd like them more. If, more fitting to their class theme, they did the damage they did now but also had good CC options - I'd like them more. But they don't do either of those things. They have poor map presence; yes they can skirmish, but as a member of a team, they are bringing very little except damage. And if that's all they're doing, well the damage should be good! And it's...kinda not.

Finally, barb is not a nova class either. In fact, barb is also widely considered a bottom 3 class and suffers from a multitude of their own problems. The fact that rogue compares poorly to barb is not a good look for rogue.

Sure, it uses the loose-y goose-y-est part of the system, but Expert skills on a high-level Rogue should effectively be treated like low-grade superpowers by the party. Barring really extreme cases, the answer to whether or not the T3 Rogue with Acrobatics Expertise can do something acrobatic is an emphatic yes.

Absolutely, there's some version of the game where rogues' skills are a major boon and worth the build resources the class spends on being good at skill checks. But that's not 5e. Skills as a whole are grossly underbaked and thus just aren't that interesting or impactful. Thus the rogue, who is good at skills, gets shafted. Yes it's crappy. But that's unfortunately how the game was written.

Theodoxus

2024-04-23, 09:30 AM

What drives a poor reputation (for the Rogue class)?

Expectations vs reality. That's 100%, always the reason. It's pure psychology. It's why there's debate over the 'bottom of the barrel' class. If you expect the Rogue to work like the expectation from thief-like video games or roguish movies, you're going to be sad and call it the worst. If you expect the Monk work like the expectation from Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan movies, you're going to be sad and call it the worst. If you expect the Ranger to work like the expectation from Robin Hood or World of Warcraft, you're going to be sad and call it the worst.

That's the primary drawback of a class based system - you see a name, it conjures a memory of something likewise named that class and it either matches your memory, or it doesn't. It reminds me of switching from 3rd to 5th editions. There are a lot of similarly named classes, abilities, spells... but there are subtle differences - and if you're bringing in the same mindset because the name is the same, you're going to have at best, not as good a time, and at worst, think the game is broken.

The best and quickest fix is to remove prior expectations and look at the class as it is in 5E, build to support what it does and stop trying to make it do what it's not good at.

The slower fix is to wait for the 2024 patch, I guess... though, because people are people, it'll just cause a shift in perception of what is worst.

Dalinar

2024-04-23, 09:30 AM

Rogues are pretty popular at my table, and I've put some thought into why there's a gap between that and the perception here. Comes down to a few things:

We have a couple players who are enamored with what the Rogue represents narratively, without regard for its mechanics;
Cunning Action is very useful (I have joked that it is addicting);
Our DM puts a lot of work into making sure skill proficiencies are useful (we put a LOT of miles on Arcana in particular; and we're also blessed with robust homebrew systems for travel and crafting, both of which are great ways to turn skill proficiencies into combat advantages);
Our DM also very rarely ever gives us a white-room encounter, and when secondary objectives are present the Rogues tend to be really good at accomplishing them (like the one a couple months ago that involved disarming bombs);
We also get long rests quite infrequently, which lowers the value of long-rest resources like most spellcasting, and of course Rogues don't really care much about that;
While Sneak Attack is bad on paper, it puts out big individual damage numbers, which feels good despite the inconsistency inherent to Rogue damage. One crit for 30+ tends to be a session highlight, even if the average gets dragged down by all the misses

IMO if you're making a tier list of most generally useful classes at most tables, you're going to have the most trouble selling Barbarian, Rogue, or Monk. I think Monk is probably the worst off of those three on average, but there's a lot of individual table reasons that it might be any of those (having lots of single-target fights favors Monk because of how big an action economy swing Stunning Strike is in those types of encounters; Barbarian is carried by Great Weapon Master in some respects, so absent that it can be a struggle, or against enemies that deal damage types Rage doesn't help against).

Ranger gets cited a lot, too, though I think it's propped up by a few things, such as the stellar post-PHB subclasses and Goodberry being a pretty efficient use of low-level slots.

Skrum

2024-04-23, 09:41 AM

Rogues are pretty popular at my table, and I've put some thought into why there's a gap between that and the perception here. Comes down to a few things:

We have a couple players who are enamored with what the Rogue represents narratively, without regard for its mechanics;
Cunning Action is very useful (I have joked that it is addicting);
Our DM puts a lot of work into making sure skill proficiencies are useful (we put a LOT of miles on Arcana in particular; and we're also blessed with robust homebrew systems for travel and crafting, both of which are great ways to turn skill proficiencies into combat advantages);
Our DM also very rarely ever gives us a white-room encounter, and when secondary objectives are present the Rogues tend to be really good at accomplishing them (like the one a couple months ago that involved disarming bombs);
We also get long rests quite infrequently, which lowers the value of long-rest resources like most spellcasting, and of course Rogues don't really care much about that;
While Sneak Attack is bad on paper, it puts out big individual damage numbers, which feels good despite the inconsistency inherent to Rogue damage. One crit for 30+ tends to be a session highlight, even if the average gets dragged down by all the misses

Makes sense. Love to see homebrewed crafting and traveling. That's stellar stuff that I can't believe 5e has never offered good rules for.

IMO if you're making a tier list of most generally useful classes at most tables, you're going to have the most trouble selling Barbarian, Rogue, or Monk. I think Monk is probably the worst off of those three on average, but there's a lot of individual table reasons that it might be any of those (having lots of single-target fights favors Monk because of how big an action economy swing Stunning Strike is in those types of encounters; Barbarian is carried by Great Weapon Master in some respects, so absent that it can be a struggle, or against enemies that deal damage types Rage doesn't help against).

I will defend barb slightly by saying they're almost a "good" class. Like, give them some help in the saving throw dept (a bonus ASI at 6th wouldn't go amiss, considering the feat tax of GWM) and they might not be a top class but they'll at least be exactly what they're advertised as. Tough, hard to stop, and hit hard. Like, not optimal compared to a wizard or paladin or something, but they'll do what they're supposed to, at least through t2 (they still have scaling problems).

Monk and rogue can also be good, but it takes some working and game knowledge. Barb is much closer to being the newb friendly, out of the box basic character that still pulls their weight.

Blatant Beast

2024-04-23, 09:49 AM

A level 8 rogue with 20 dex and a +1 shortbow that deals an additional 2d6 on the first hit each attack action (this is literally an affix my table has added to make up for rogue getting kinda screwed by +d6 per hit weapons) deals 30.14 DPR

A level 8 barb with 18 str, GWM*, and a +1 greatsword that adds d6 damage to each hit deals 37.25

These items are quite representative of the table I play at...but let's see how rogue fairs with just +1 weaponry (everything else the same)

rogue: 23.09
barb: 32.09

Not so good!

The above is a great example of someone putting their finger on a scale.

An 8th level Arcane Trickster, has 4d6 damage from Sneak Attack (14 damage avg) + 2d8 Psychic from Shadow Blade (9 damage avg)+2d8 Thunder from Booming Blade (9 dmg avg).

The Arcane Trickster in this example is doing the around the same gross damage as your sample Barbarian that has a Feat and a Magic Greatsword, but with a greater diversity of damage types.

Spells are overpowered, so it is not surprising that the subclass that seem to be the most popular Rogue Subclass, (Arcane Trickster for those not following along at home), features them, but other Rogue Subclasses, like the Inquisitive are also surprisingly good.

The Inquisitive subclass eliminates the need for friends to enable Sneak Attack, and Ear for Deceit, Eye for Detail, and Steady Eye where all very useful abilities in play in a Lost Mines of Phandelver campaign that later transitioned into Curse of Strahd.

My initial opinion about Rogues, was very similar to your own Skrum, I honestly did not think having a Rogue in the party was a big deal, ( I still sorta feel that way). A Rogue, certainly, is not essential for success. With that stated, throw a Guidance spell on a 9th level Rogue Inquisitive and have them investigate Castle Strahd, (or fight invisible/ethereal hags), and the results where impressive.

Witty Username

2024-04-23, 09:54 AM

OK so in my first damage comparison, I gave rogue 18 dex and sharp shooter, the ranged counterpart to GWM. And it did LESS damage.

The easy solution to that is other options,
Use an access point for booming blade as an example. Soul knife has multiple attacks and works sharpshooter if you must, phantom has bolts from the grave as a simple damage multiplier.
AT and Thief have while admittedly late game options the ability to multiply their sneak attack with additional turns.

Amnestic

2024-04-23, 10:19 AM

Outside of some subclasses, rogues get zero rest-based features with the sole exception of their 20th level capstone. This is both a positive (they're reliable and are limited solely by their hit points) and a negative (can be overshadowed by classes who can burn rest-based features without concern) depending on how many fights the party deals with between naps. If a lot of games frequently have 15 minute combat days, where short rests are absent and long rests are plentiful, the rogue's consistency doesn't get to shine quite as hard.

Skrum

2024-04-23, 10:29 AM

The easy solution to that is other options,
Use an access point for booming blade as an example. Soul knife has multiple attacks and works sharpshooter if you must, phantom has bolts from the grave as a simple damage multiplier.
AT and Thief have while admittedly late game options the ability to multiply their sneak attack with additional turns.

Like what? Magic initiate to get booming blade? I guess that does work fairly well for rogue.

Psychic blades are bad. No way to give them an enhancement bonus, no way to make them any better than a mundane weapon. DND has historically loved abilities that give a character a weapon they can't be disarmed of, but it's not very good in practice. 99% of the time, characters have their equipment.

Aimeryan

2024-04-23, 10:56 AM

JellyPooga

2024-04-23, 11:10 AM

They suffer from the same thing all the martial classes do; lack of agency and lack of interesting play (largely a result of the former, but also because the basic loop of 'I attack' is kind of dull).
That they also suffer on numbers is just the cherry on top.

If WotC developed the skill system both inside and outside of combat then this may all change. I would probably argue that Rogues shouldn't be the only ones with good skills out of the martials though, in that case (Bard not being martial). Expertise is really where all skills should be (i.e., proficiency should be doubled when applied to skills the character is proficient in); I would probably have that baseline and give Rogues something interesting in its place (this being in the aforementioned developed skill system, so what that would be is either non-skill related as it isn't needed or would be related to the new system preferably in a non-numeric function).

This here is a classic example of expectations colouring the Rogue in a worse light than they deserve.

Expertise raising the bar on what constitutes being good at a Skill absolutely should not make doubled proficiency the baseline available to all classes. Baseline Proficiency does that and your GM shouldn't be artificially raising that bar in an attempt to "challenge" the Rogue; they should be allowing the Rogue to be better than everyone else.

Martials doing no more than "just attack", meaning lack of agency, sounds more like a player and/or scenario issue. Just because there's no spell descriptions telling you what you can or can't do, doesn't mean you don't have agency.

Psyren

2024-04-23, 11:11 AM

Rogues in 3E are considered pretty bad, first because lots of things are immune to sneak attack; and second because they have more skills but aren't better at those skills. PF mitigates these issues somewhat but the result is still not stellar.

I will say that 3.5e eventually printed things that help with this like Penetrating Strike. But I agree, it's an issue that PF1 did a much better job with.

I sorta see the arcane trickster being strong; they get spells, which are the easiest way to tell if a class is a good or not. Personally I think their glacial spell progression is both wildly unnecessary and too little to make up for general rogue shortcomings. But still - good subclass.

Soulknife, I just don't see it. They get...some "unarmed strikes" that don't usually matter? A boost to skills that rogue doesn't need? And...a janky, unpredictable teleport? Group telepathy is the most interesting thing, but it's about 2 steps from ribbon. I struggle to even contrive a situation where it MATTERS. Fun, for sure, but that's about it.

"Janky?" On average it's 30ft+, and even if you roll a one (10ft) that's still enough to get out of any grapple, difficult terrain, through hazards etc and still leave your action and move free.

They get TWF and Thrown for free/without a feat, reliable damage before magic weapons are available at most campaigns (and are no worse with magic weapons if you get those), Homing Strikes makes them much less likely to waste their turn than other rogues and costs them literally nothing if they still miss, and hour-long concentration-free invisibility multiple times per day. And the telepathy is very far from a ribbon, unless your party being able to coordinate quietly never comes up at your table; it definitely comes up at mine.

J-H

2024-04-23, 11:23 AM

Did someone say Monks plateau post-11? Is that at 14 and get to be one of the top 3 classes in terms of saving throws (behind Paladins and probably Artificers)? Or at 18 when they can turn invisible and resist everything but force damage for 10 rounds?

I'd put Ranger at the low point because its spell list is lacking when compared to the Paladin or Artificer list and its damage is lower than the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. It's basically the worst of the half-casters, and it doesn't have the inherent tankiness that all the others have. More of the Ranger's power is in the subclass than the base chassis, which is why Gloomstalker and Horizon Walker are so good (HW post-11 is AMAZING. 3 attacks and 30' of teleporting per round gives a rogue/monk grade mobility archer).

I have played a Rogue with a shield. It was really annoying to lose an action swapping back and forth between the shield or not to use a shortbow against a dragon, enough so that I'm just not bothering with shields on any future rogues I make.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-23, 11:26 AM

I will defend barb slightly by saying they're almost a "good" class. Like, give them some help in the saving throw dept (a bonus ASI at 6th wouldn't go amiss, considering the feat tax of GWM) and they might not be a top class but they'll at least be exactly what they're advertised as. Tough, hard to stop, and hit hard. Like, not optimal compared to a wizard or paladin or something, but they'll do what they're supposed to, at least through t2 (they still have scaling problems).

Monk and rogue can also be good, but it takes some working and game knowledge. Barb is much closer to being the newb friendly, out of the box basic character that still pulls their weight.
My barbarians are pretty stellar in tiers 1 and 2. Far from "almost" being a "good class", they excel and are usually tougher and hit harder than most.

I'm in a game now, tier 1, and my barbarian can one-shot some of the enemies, can one-shot tougher enemies on a crit, and resists a lot of damage. The casters are using cantrips and are rolling a single die. Sometimes they roll a 1 for damage. Many times the monsters make their saving throw just on the die roll, before even adding modifiers.

Some of these turns are brutal in how ineffective the casters are when they are trying to conserve their resources and rely on cantrips.

So I don't really see the "barbarians are at the bottom of the barrel" discussion, at least at the levels our games go to. In tier 2 we get Extra Attack, another ASI, and Initiative/Mobility boosts, plus your second subclass feature. Casters are catching up of course with level 3 and 4 spells, and more slots. But my barbarians have never felt "bottom of the pack".

Psyren

2024-04-23, 11:47 AM

Did someone say Monks plateau post-11? Is that at 14 and get to be one of the top 3 classes in terms of saving throws (behind Paladins and probably Artificers)? Or at 18 when they can turn invisible and resist everything but force damage for 10 rounds?

I meant offensively, which none of the things you listed matter for. They do one point more damage per hit on average at 17th level though, so there's that!

I'd put Ranger at the low point because its spell list is lacking when compared to the Paladin or Artificer list and its damage is lower than the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster.

Lacking? ...Have you read it? Spike Growth, Pass Without Trace, Aid, Goodberry, Conjure Animals, Steel Wind Strike, Absorb Elements, Swift Quiver... I'd put it above Artificer for sure, and honestly I think it's a toss-up with Paladin too.

Skrum

2024-04-23, 11:50 AM

Barbs are very good in t1. Yes they're one note, but at no point in the game is that one note more applicable than in t1. They're tougher than everyone, hit harder than anyone, and it's a blast.

But they drop off badly and by t3 where they're playing the exact same game they played at t1 and even their numbers have barely changed (plus mental saving throws become more and more common), barb is not in a good place.

As to this thread as a whole, like the rogue defenders have come out in force. And like... No one is trying to change y'all's mind lol. If you like rogue, continue to do so! One of 5e's greatest achievements is that each class is perfectly playable, and that includes rogue. But like I said up thread, SOME class has to be last, and personally I think that's rogue. They're just playing a different game, and if 5e wasn't 5e, I'm sure I'd change my mind.

Remember, the OP was "why do rogues have a bad rep." Reputation isn't the same thing as an objective evaluation of the class. Rogue in particular is reliant on the DM making sure what the rogue can do comes up and is valuable in the game. Lots of DMs don't do that, or don't do it though, thus rogues have a bad rep.

Pex

2024-04-23, 11:53 AM

I have PTSD about rogues in social play. In the past if a player will be disruptive he'll be a rogue. He'll steal from party members. He will steal treasure meant for the party. He will kill NPCs we want to talk to. He will kill NPC enemies after we talk to them and agree to let them go. Nowadays the disruptive player is not necessarily the rogue and the rogue player can and has been a valuable member of the party engaging in great teamwork. Still, I can't help myself. When joining a game meeting new people I will get silently apprehensive about the player who plays the rogue. He can easily earn my trust while another player gets my stink eye when play begins, but in that initial introduction - "Hi, my name is John Doe. I'm playing a rogue." - I feel a moment of dread. It's not fair to John Doe, but there it is.

Zuras

2024-04-23, 12:18 PM

The reason Rogue player experiences vary wildly is because DMs vary wildly in the opportunities they give Rogues to shine with their skills. They are competent contributors in combat, but if there aren’t any chandeliers to drop or MacGuffins to steal they won’t get true spotlight moments.

All the best Rogue moments in my campaigns have involved theft/replacement of MacGuffins or opening locks/freeing prisoners while under fire.

Crusher

2024-04-23, 12:22 PM

Also, you're saying "from safety" like it's a merit to the rogue. One of my complaints about rogue is exactly that - they do their little sneak attack business, and then scram.

I don't disagree with your math, but I do feel like your assumptions are driven by thought-exercises rather than actual play. Like, sure, this is a good point if every fight starts with both sides within a single-round's move of being in melee, and that does happen a lot. But if its a weird situation or there's terrain considerations (for example, the party is climbing a tower and gets ambushed by monsters from above or the two groups start on opposite sides of a chasm or the monsters can fly or the party is attacked by multiple groups from different directions) then the rogue's range flexibility becomes gigantically more valuable.

The average fight lasts 4 rounds, maybe? If the Barbarian has to spend a single round not attacking for whatever reason, they take a 25% hit to their dps for the fight (and might lose rage, penalizing them further. They'll probably be able to throw a hand-axe at *something*, but it'll still be a substantial hit to their dps). Battlefield flexibility is really hard to quantify, but its a mistake to assume its value is zero.

Rerem115

2024-04-23, 12:30 PM

Full disclosure, my experience may not reflect that of the general population here. The tables I play at tend towards low-medium optimization (no 'cheese' builds, an unspoken agreement to avoid scry and die tactics) but have higher power overall (1st level feats, rolled ability scores, or even gestalt rules).

For most of these games, I've been the Rogue player. Generally, what I've found has been discussed extensively upthread; reliable, if somewhat conditional damage, combat mobility, and enough skills to play a generalist role in multiple fields while still specializing in another. It's one of the few classes that can reliably 'dual-class'; Ranger 5-9/Rogue X is probably my all time favorite build, but you can swap Ranger for Fighter, Barbarian, or even Paladin and still have a great experience.

TL;DR, Rogue is best as a dual class, an enhancement to an Extra Attack martial (or gish!) who wants broad reliability over specializing/committing to a fullcaster track.

Hael

2024-04-23, 12:35 PM

The reason Rogue player experiences vary wildly is because DMs vary wildly in the opportunities they give Rogues to shine with their skills..

Also what tier they are played in. If you mostly play in tier1 campaigns, rogues are perfectly fine. It just falls off a cliff after that point.

To the people defending Rogue damage. Which classes would you say the rogue can reliably outdamage (given sufficient optimization). I think you will find it quite difficult to best the optimum builds of the other classes, even when you take your best rogue builds and put them side to side (eg soulknife <lvl 5, arcane trickster/phantom > lvl 5 etc)

diplomancer

2024-04-23, 12:35 PM

I believe it's mainly the "no resources" issue. It makes them "at odds" with the general resource tendencies of the party, specially if the party has mostly Long Rest resources. Characters with Long Rest resources will want to use them, because they are fun and powerful, and when they run out they will want to rest. Meanwhile, Rogues will still be at almost 100% capacity, limited only by their hit points.

stoutstien

2024-04-23, 12:51 PM

Also what tier they are played in. If you mostly play in tier1 campaigns, rogues are perfectly fine. It just falls off a cliff after that point.

To the people defending Rogue damage. Which classes would you say the rogue can reliably outdamage (given sufficient optimization). I think you will find it quite difficult to best the optimum builds of the other classes, even when you take your best rogue builds and put them side to side (eg soulknife <lvl 5, arcane trickster/phantom > lvl 5 etc)

Quite a few actually once you start adding stuff in like distance, hazards, and attrition/individual decisions for resource management. You can cut a lot of those optimized builds output down by 30-40% with just a single poor choice.

Amnestic

2024-04-23, 01:05 PM

In the past if a player will be disruptive he'll be a rogue.

Unfortunately, I've had similar experiences though not quite so extreme as those you've described, and not universally. Perhaps because it plays into their class fantasy, I frequently see rogues trying to do "solo missions" which are only ever a pain for the DM. It's extremely rare to see similar habits from other classes, even if the characters specialise in stealth or sleight of hand.

Vahnavoi

2024-04-23, 02:05 PM

Pex & Amnestic: well yeah. The class used to be called "Thief", with their primary abilities revolving around stealing and backstabbing. It is 100% logical of a new player picking that class to steal and backstab. And unlike what many people seem to think, nothing in the rules, ever has really excluded other player characters as a target for stealing and backstabbing. To the contrary: since other players and their characters tend to be the most permanent and notable presences in a game, they also make the obvious targets.

So, rogues (and their players) have a poor reputation for being roleplayed correctly. :smallamused:

Amnestic

2024-04-23, 02:47 PM

You may or may not be correct, but if the 'correct' form of roleplaying a class is as out-of-the-norm disruptive to the group/DM, that's probably not a good sign, unfortunately. Especially when it's one of the 'core four'.

I'll reiterate that it's not every rogue, and there's plenty of builds you can make which don't incentivise that sort of disruption - you don't need to have Stealth proficiency at all! - but it's still something that has stuck in the old noggin.

Hael

2024-04-23, 02:50 PM

Quite a few actually once you start adding stuff in like distance, hazards, and attrition/individual decisions for resource management. You can cut a lot of those optimized builds output down by 30-40% with just a single poor choice.

So for instance, you mean something like if I was a bard and took conjure animals as my secret (which on paper greatly outdamages anything a rogue can do in an encounter) but I misuse it and get them all killed, or pick the wrong encounter to waste the resource on?

I’d agree with that sort of thing, except for the fact that my experience is that rogues (and other melee range martials) tend to have more things that muck up their potential dpr than other classes relatively speaking. Skirmishers in particular (monks/rogues) tend to have a lot of bad rounds where they can’t quite go in, b/c they could potentially risk death. Eg a rogue with low hitpoints coming out of hiding is always one surprise away from dying to a crappy kobold with a bow, and therefore might choose not to come out. Meanwhile, that SS artificer who is busy plinking away from range is doing constant reliable damage and is far less at risk of losing a round of contribution.

Kurald Galain

2024-04-23, 02:52 PM

unlike what many people seem to think, nothing in the rules, ever has really excluded other player characters as a target for stealing and backstabbing.

I'm not so sure about all the PHBs and DMGs throughout the decades, but I will note that the various public campaigns (e.g. LG, LFR, PFS) have always had a big boldfaced rule of "No PVP."

stoutstien

2024-04-23, 03:40 PM

So for instance, you mean something like if I was a bard and took conjure animals as my secret (which on paper greatly outdamages anything a rogue can do in an encounter) but I misuse it and get them all killed, or pick the wrong encounter to waste the resource on?

I’d agree with that sort of thing, except for the fact that my experience is that rogues (and other melee range martials) tend to have more things that muck up their potential dpr than other classes relatively speaking. Skirmishers in particular (monks/rogues) tend to have a lot of bad rounds where they can’t quite go in, b/c they could potentially risk death. Eg a rogue with low hitpoints coming out of hiding is always one surprise away from dying to a crappy kobold with a bow, and therefore might choose not to come out. Meanwhile, that SS artificer who is busy plinking away from range is doing constant reliable damage and is far less at risk of losing a round of contribution.

Rogues have a lot of EHP to toss around and skirmishing just doesn't work in 5e so I'd assume in this comparison that it's not attempted. You can use the mobility to bait enemies out of position but I wouldn't call that skirmishing.

Rogues and monks are not easy classes to play because you have to read encounters rather than your PC sheet but that doesn't make them worse off.

If you are getting them enemy to ready an action to shoot you as you dip out to attack then your are also providing a sizable amount of mitigation as well. You don't want a rogue to get into an position to deal damage without hindrance but doing so takes a lot of time(actions). Unlike say a fighter or or barbarian you can't edge them out temporality to buy time.

**Won't get much argument from me that the artificer is the best consistent damage dealer in the game in 99% of the challenges a party will see but they don't have spike threat. They tend to do a lot of damage because it's not worth avoiding but a rogue hanging around makes your HP threshold before retreating is going to be higher. You can't bait out their damage and block it. You just have to try to prevent them from getting advantage and hope.**

Potato_Priest

2024-04-23, 03:51 PM

I still think monk is the bottom of the barrel, but it is not a very deep barrel.

What makes you think monks are bottom barrel? I get that their white room damage isn't super awesome after level 6 or so, and they suffer from a lack of range options (but not more so than strength based fighters and paladins).

In actual play though they are so good at dealing with the types of environmental and situational challenges that make other martials cry, can operate at peak capacity with no gear whatsoever, and stunning strike is an amazingly flexible and useful tool.

Psyren

2024-04-23, 04:30 PM

To the people defending Rogue damage. Which classes would you say the rogue can reliably outdamage (given sufficient optimization). I think you will find it quite difficult to best the optimum builds of the other classes, even when you take your best rogue builds and put them side to side (eg soulknife <lvl 5, arcane trickster/phantom > lvl 5 etc)

That's just it, they don't have to outdamage anyone. They're already near the top of the other two pillars, being top of the combat pillar too would make them overtuned. I'm okay if their damage is lower as long as it's competitive.

With that said, the damage a party member adds shouldn't just be limited to their individual output. A 5.5e rogue giving up 3d6 SA to make a target blinded until the end of its next turn is likely adding way more than 3d6 damage to that target from its own party, but calculating that is going to be tricky.

Vahnavoi

2024-04-23, 04:47 PM

You may or may not be correct, but if the 'correct' form of roleplaying a class is as out-of-the-norm disruptive to the group/DM, that's probably not a good sign, unfortunately. Especially when it's one of the 'core four'.

Disruptive for what?

Fighting monsters and looting dungeons? Sure. You know what else is disruptive for that? Traps. Resource scarcity. The monsters themselves. Bluntly, a lot of people are under the misconception that a game being co-operative means there should be no obstacles nor friction to co-operation. That is really, really far from truth. In actual fact, a good chunk of co-operative games add obstacles and restrictions so that co-operation becomes more challenging - because co-operation itself is part of the challenge. There is no inherent flaw to one or more special roles existing to create mayhem in the group. It's a difficulty toggle: there's a choice between games that don't need those roles and co-operation is hence that much easier, and games that do need them and you need to watch your back as a consequence. :smallwink:

---

I'm not so sure about all the PHBs and DMGs throughout the decades, but I will note that the various public campaigns (e.g. LG, LFR, PFS) have always had a big boldfaced rule of "No PVP."

You are correct about public campaigns & I would have to amend my statement to cover them.

But, consider: typically rules for specific campaign are only added when basic rules DON'T include such rules. And it typically isn't necessary to add rules to ban something no-one ever tries - to the contrary, bans are often targeted at common things. So there are two possibilities:

1) player versus player, under basic rules, is possible and common

2) a lot of campaign holders decides to add a redundant rule for whatever reason.

:smallamused:

Skrum

2024-04-23, 05:08 PM

Disruptive for what?

Fighting monsters and looting dungeons? Sure. You know what else is disruptive for that? Traps. Resource scarcity. The monsters themselves. Bluntly, a lot of people are under the misconception that a game being co-operative means there should be no obstacles nor friction to co-operation. That is really, really far from truth. In actual fact, a good chunk of co-operative games add obstacles and restrictions so that co-operation becomes more challenging - because co-operation itself is part of the challenge. There is no inherent flaw to one or more special roles existing to create mayhem in the group. It's a difficulty toggle: there's a choice between games that don't need those roles and co-operation is hence that much easier, and games that do need them and you need to watch your back as a consequence. :smallwink:

---

You are correct about public campaigns & I would have to amend my statement to cover them.

But, consider: typically rules for specific campaign are only added when basic rules DON'T include such rules. And it typically isn't necessary to add rules to ban something no-one ever tries - to the contrary, bans are often targeted at common things. So there are two possibilities:

1) player versus player, under basic rules, is possible and common

2) a lot of campaign holders decides to add a redundant rule for whatever reason.

:smallamused:

I really hope that I'm simply misunderstanding you and you aren't in fact pushing that type of antagonistic behavior.

Character vs character conflict is fine, within reason, over roleplay decisions. But if someone tries to steal loot or pickpocket fellow players because "that's that my character would do," that's gonna become player vs player conflict with REAL QUICK. I would flatly not tolerate it as a DM or player. I don't even like splitting loot in character - break character, figure out what's fair, and move on.

Pooky the Imp

2024-04-23, 05:08 PM

IMO there are a couple of issues:

1) The Rogue seems intended as a 'tricky' class, but it has barely any tricks.

Cunning Action is a great start at Lv2, but then the tricks just run out. Some of the subclasses bring tricks, but often you're waiting until at least Lv9 to unlock them. And that can feel very, very late. e.g. Soulknife throwing a knife to teleport is nice (even if the distance is unreliable), but Wizards have had Misty Step for the last 7 levels.

Moreover, many of the tricks their subclasses bring are based on limited resources or outright spells. Thus, the idea of the rogue not being reliant on rests quickly goes out the window.

2) Waaaaaaay too much focus on Sneak Attack.

This feels like a holdover from editions long past, and one that badly needs to be put to pasture. Part of the issue is that Sneak Attack never evolves. It adds an extra d6 at Lv1. Cut to Lv19 and it's still just adding d6s. Could we not have an option to forfeit some of the damage to inflict a debuff on the enemy?

More than that, though, it's just not very interesting as abilities go. Not least because it's entirely passive. This is one of the reasons the Rogue feels so lacking in tricks - it's core ability is just a passive that adds more dice.

I wish there was someone at WotC who remembered the Book of Nine Swords, the Holy Grail that finally managed to make martials interesting. Alas, all that remains of it is a heavily watered-down subclass for the Fighter.

Perhaps one day we'll have a Rogue class based on the Swordsage, rather than on a chassis that was never particularly good or interesting even in prior editions.

Psyren

2024-04-23, 05:21 PM

1) The Rogue seems intended as a 'tricky' class, but it has barely any tricks.

2) Waaaaaaay too much focus on Sneak Attack.

Cunning Strike and Weapon Mastery appear to help with both of these.

1) player versus player, under basic rules, is possible and common

PvP is certainly possible, but common? Both the PHB and DMG make it very clear that cooperative play is the assumed baseline of the game, so I have no idea where you're getting this from.

Vahnavoi

2024-04-23, 05:25 PM

I really hope that I'm simply misunderstanding you and you aren't in fact pushing that type of antagonistic behavior.

I have as much against PvP in D&D, as I have against games such as Murder, Werewolf, Saboteur, Among Us, etc. - nothing at all.

I also don't have anything against purely co-operative D&D, but I expect enough self-awareness from my players to not pick unco-operative roles if they want that.

Character vs character conflict is fine, within reason, over roleplay decisions. But if someone tries to steal loot or pickpocket fellow players because "that's that my character would do," that's gonna become player vs player conflict with REAL QUICK. I would flatly not tolerate it as a DM or player. I don't even like splitting loot in character - break character, figure out what's fair, and move on.

Have you considered that being this miserly about what are, in the end, fictive game tokens, is pretty silly? It's a game affair, settle it in the game. Have your guy roll the other guy in tar & feathers if you have to. But don't make more about it than it is.

JNAProductions

2024-04-23, 05:29 PM

I have as much against PvP in D&D, as I have against games such as Murder, Werewolf, Saboteur, Among Us, etc. - nothing at all.

I also don't have anything against purely co-operative D&D, but I expect enough self-awareness from my players to not pick unco-operative roles if they want that.

Have you considered that being this miserly about what are, in the end, fictive game tokens, is pretty silly? It's a game affair, settle it in the game. Have your guy roll the other guy in tar & feathers if you have to. But don't make more about it than it is.

That's an unusual stance. Most people have a strong dislike of PvP in general.

I'm with Skrum on this one-default expectations for D&D is that you play together. PvP can happen, but it should be carefully done, and with the consent of all players involved.

Vahnavoi

2024-04-23, 06:05 PM

That's an unusual stance. Most people have a strong dislike of PvP in general.

No they don't. Majority of popular games are PvP, majority of gamers are both familiar with and capable of enjoying the format. Indeed, this is the primary reason why PvP happens in D&D! Playing against other players is common and players bring a common game paradigm with them. The fact that some character archetypes pretty much beg to be pitted against one another suggests that it can be done. Never doing it is a missed opportunity.

Majority of people only dislike PvP in D&D because they think its specific rules mandate co-operative play, which, as noted, isn't as true as people claim. Only a minority dislike PvP in general, and most of them only because they're supremely sore losers.

I'm with Skrum on this one-default expectations for D&D is that you play together. PvP can happen, but it should be carefully done, and with the consent of all players involved.

Default expectations aren't preferences. A game's default settings aren't necessarily even the most fun way to play. Saying "this should carefully done" is as silly as saying setting up a game of Werewolf "should be carefully done". Consent? You tell players a game's settings before play, just like any other time, and see who applies. There's nothing exotic or particularly difficult about any of this.

JNAProductions

2024-04-23, 06:08 PM

I was referring to D&D, not universal gaming.

Vahnavoi

2024-04-23, 06:35 PM

And it should be obvious why I am referring to universal gaming.

JNAProductions

2024-04-23, 06:42 PM

And it should be obvious why I am referring to universal gaming.

...

I don't understand.
We're in a D&D forum, talking about D&D. In all my experience playing D&D, well over a decade (so not as long as the real grognards, but still a good while) I've never seen someone's default response to PvP being positive.

Skrum

2024-04-23, 06:43 PM

Have you considered that being this miserly about what are, in the end, fictive game tokens, is pretty silly? It's a game affair, settle it in the game. Have your guy roll the other guy in tar & feathers if you have to. But don't make more about it than it is.

I don't buy this in the slightest. One person's fun cannot be at another person's expense, even if "they don't mind." Yeah, how hilarious, one character is getting 3 times the loot anyone else is getting - that's not fun, that's just irritating. And the game quickly devolving into character vs character revenges, nah, not for me. The DM spent time writing a world and a story, and I want to experience it.

Witty Username

2024-04-23, 07:12 PM

Aimeryan

2024-04-23, 07:34 PM

This here is a classic example of expectations colouring the Rogue in a worse light than they deserve.

Expertise raising the bar on what constitutes being good at a Skill absolutely should not make doubled proficiency the baseline available to all classes. Baseline Proficiency does that and your GM shouldn't be artificially raising that bar in an attempt to "challenge" the Rogue; they should be allowing the Rogue to be better than everyone else.

Martials doing no more than "just attack", meaning lack of agency, sounds more like a player and/or scenario issue. Just because there's no spell descriptions telling you what you can or can't do, doesn't mean you don't have agency.

I disagree; the d20 is too much of a factor for characters that are meant to be highly skilled in that skill. It results in high level characters with proficiency regularly failing at tasks that a level 1 character will succeed at with some regularity. It is too lolrandom and not enough strategic predicatability, which limits agency (rather than luck). Rogues bypass this with Expertise, and it works great - they just need a developed skill system in which to play. The problem is, Rogues having this alone (out of the martials) means all the other martials get to have no fun here. Rogues don't need to be the only ones reliably good with skills - they should bring different things to the table and let what should be a whole pillar be for every martial to play around in.

In addition, I would probably make it so casters have fewer skill proficiencies in the same way they have fewer weapon proficiencies - something to do with how much of their time going to learning how to wield magic detracting from more mundane practice. This way, the skill space can be something martials excel at in particular.

Psyren

2024-04-23, 07:53 PM

Default expectations aren't preferences. A game's default settings aren't necessarily even the most fun way to play.

Fun is subjective - and absent data, the default settings are the ones you should assume are most prevalent. What data do you have to support this claim:

Majority of popular games are PvP, majority of gamers are both familiar with and capable of enjoying the format.

Amechra

2024-04-23, 08:01 PM

OK so in my first damage comparison, I gave rogue 18 dex and sharp shooter, the ranged counterpart to GWM. And it did LESS damage. Rogues only get 1 attack, so increasing the chance to miss that attack and not trigger their sneak attack makes them a bad candidate to use let's see, basically the only feat that can increase weapon damage in the game.

Well, there's your problem - you tried to optimize Rogue damage numbers without understanding how it works. If you had the Rogue use TWF, they'd deal quite a bit more damage (since they'd get two attacks, upping the chance that they'd get to apply their sneak attack damage).

Also, here's the thing about your wider criticism... you're ignoring the rest of both classes and the side effects of how those classes deal their damage. The Barbarian deals better damage, but they're stuck with melee range and are giving their enemies Advantage to hit them to do so. Meanwhile, the Shortbow Rogue deals their inferior damage to more-or-less anyone on the battlefield, and has defensive tools that make them hard to profitably get rid of for Team Monster (on top of explicit defensive features like Evasion and Uncanny Dodge, being able to Hide as a bonus action makes it tricky to target them with stuff). The Rogue is basically a transferable DoT, and that's leaving aside subclass-derived utility (like the Thief opening up Healer shenanigans or the Mastermind handing out Advantage on attack rolls).

Would I complain if the Rogue got Cunning Strike, though? Nah. I miss Ambush feats...

Skrum

2024-04-23, 08:08 PM

Well, there's your problem - you tried to optimize Rogue damage numbers without understanding how it works. If you had the Rogue use TWF, they'd deal quite a bit more damage (since they'd get two attacks, upping the chance that they'd get to apply their sneak attack damage).

Also, here's the thing about your wider criticism... you're ignoring the rest of both classes and the side effects of how those classes deal their damage. The Barbarian deals better damage, but they're stuck with melee range and are giving their enemies Advantage to hit them to do so. Meanwhile, the Shortbow Rogue deals their inferior damage to more-or-less anyone on the battlefield, and has defensive tools that make them hard to profitably get rid of for Team Monster (on top of explicit defensive features like Evasion and Uncanny Dodge, being able to Hide as a bonus action makes it tricky to target them with stuff). The Rogue is basically a transferable DoT, and that's leaving aside subclass-derived utility (like the Thief opening up Healer shenanigans or the Mastermind handing out Advantage on attack rolls).

Would I complain if the Rogue got Cunning Strike, though? Nah. I miss Ambush feats...

Do you think any of what you said here counters the main claim, that rogue is a weak class and at least partially deserves its reputation as such?

Trask

2024-04-23, 08:11 PM

What drives it is largely internet hivemind-ism and hyperbole. Rogues are completely fine, maybe one of the best iterations of the class ever printed. Is it SOO strong that Youtubers (or people on this forum...) will start gushing about it? No. What gets them going is Coffeelocks and Sorlocks and Padlocks and all the other locks. So its not going to blow your hair back for raw damage, but is it still a good class? Yes. Its flexible, has a strong niche in breaking the bounded accuracy on ability checks, and respectable damage that can be dealt from a distance, and surprisingly resilient with a d8 hit die, uncanny dodge, and slippery mind, good action economy, and best of all very SAD. Not to mention many powerful and interesting subclasses. But for some, if a class doesn't have powerful nova potential or some other powerful gimmick, its a weak class. Maybe that is the rogue's main sin as designed, its so well-rounded that people don't see its obvious "point". But people who enjoy them, enjoy them a lot.

This is all based on my experience DMing for them, playing them, and playing alongside them many, many times.

If the Rogue has a weakness its that feats now allow us to get expertise in skills, which I think was a mistake that I'm disappointed to see return in the new edition.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-23, 08:17 PM

Indeed, this is the primary reason why PvP happens in D&D!
A bold claim.

You wouldn't happen to have anything to substantiate it, would you?

Playing against other players is common and players bring a common game paradigm with them. The fact that some character archetypes pretty much beg to be pitted against one another suggests that it can be done. Never doing it is a missed opportunity.
Your opinion is noted, and not in line with my experience in 20 years of D&D.

Majority of people only dislike PvP in D&D because they think its specific rules mandate co-operative play, which, as noted, isn't as true as people claim. Only a minority dislike PvP in general, and most of them only because they're supremely sore losers.
LMAO

So recently, the moon druid in our party rolled a sleight of hand check to nab a key off me. I find this kind of behavior supremely annoying. Nevermind that he's a little halfling and it's a giant-sized key and anyone would have clearly noticed the halfling trying to snatch this thing off me, he rolled Sleight of Hand and beat my Passive Perception.

I don't like it because it breaks trust. It also sets a precedent that if anything beats my Passive Perception it's open season. Were I a "supremely sore loser", I would have rolled my three attacks against the little halfling, used Action Surge to do it again, and ended his thieving life.

Instead, I allowed it to happen without complaint and moved along. I've played with this player for several years now and know that he enjoys going against the party. It's annoying AF, but it is what it is. In our last campaign, we all agreed not to hand over an artifact to an evil NPC, and when we showed up to the meeting without it, the player revealed that he had nicked the artifact and brought it with us and handed it over to the evil NPC.

I don't find "do the opposite of what the party wants just for the sake of it" to be particularly interesting or clever.

Default expectations aren't preferences. A game's default settings aren't necessarily even the most fun way to play. Saying "this should carefully done" is as silly as saying setting up a game of Werewolf "should be carefully done". Consent? You tell players a game's settings before play, just like any other time, and see who applies. There's nothing exotic or particularly difficult about any of this.
So you say. Clearly it's something you feel strongly about, that likely isn't the case at most tables.

Re Rogue: What Trask said.

Psyren

2024-04-23, 08:34 PM

If the Rogue has a weakness its that feats now allow us to get expertise in skills, which I think was a mistake that I'm disappointed to see return in the new edition.

What's so bad about that? It's a feat to get 1 expertise, while the rogue gets 4 of them for free as well as a bonus feat (and Reliable Talent/Stroke of Luck to boot.) They're still king.

And yes, there are multiple feats that grant it now - but frankly, if a player wants to burn their ASIs on Skill Expert + Prodigy + Keen Mind I say let them.

Skrum

2024-04-23, 08:34 PM

What drives it is largely internet hivemind-ism and hyperbole. Rogues are completely fine, maybe one of the best iterations of the class ever printed. Is it SOO strong that Youtubers (or people on this forum...) will start gushing about it? No. What gets them going is Coffeelocks and Sorlocks and Padlocks and all the other locks. So its not going to blow your hair back for raw damage, but is it still a good class? Yes. Its flexible, has a strong niche in breaking the bounded accuracy on ability checks, and respectable damage that can be dealt from a distance, and surprisingly resilient with a d8 hit die, uncanny dodge, and slippery mind, good action economy, and best of all very SAD. Not to mention many powerful and interesting subclasses. But for some, if a class doesn't have powerful nova potential or some other powerful gimmick, its a weak class. Maybe that is the rogue's main sin as designed, its TOO versatile and TOO flexible that people don't see its obvious "point". But people who enjoy them, enjoy them a lot.

This is all based on my experience DMing for them, playing them, and playing alongside them many, many times.

If the Rogue has a weakness its that feats now allow us to get expertise in skills, which I think was a mistake that I'm disappointed to see return in the new edition.

Flexible...how? Because they can bonus action dash and disengage? Because they switch from melee to range fairly easily? IME rogues are incredibly limited. Can they tank? Can they heal? Can they CC? Can they buff? Can they debuff? Can they AoE? Basically, no. They can't do any of that.

If skills were better developed, I'd be far more likely to believe that rogues are "completely fine." But I'm really not understanding how rogue skills are this amazing skeleton key of untapped power.

Trask

2024-04-23, 08:46 PM

What's so bad about that? It's a feat to get 1 expertise, while the rogue gets 4 of them for free as well as a bonus feat (and Reliable Talent/Stroke of Luck to boot.) They're still king.

And yes, there are multiple feats that grant it now - but frankly, if a player wants to burn their ASIs on Skill Expert + Prodigy + Keen Mind I say let them.

When I think back to the original design notes for D&D Next and how Expertise was this feature that was supposed to, in a limited way, break bounded accuracy and how that was a Big Deal to the class it makes me think that letting feats provide Expertise is bad power creep at the expense of another class. Yes even with these feats Rogue is still the best and Rogue can benefit from them too. but there are only so many skills worth having Expertise in. I think I could be convinced on this issue but for now I still think it should've been a class-exclusive feature.

Flexible...how? Because they can bonus action dash and disengage? Because they switch from melee to range fairly easily? IME rogues are incredibly limited. Can they tank? Can they heal? Can they CC? Can they buff? Can they debuff? Can they AoE? Basically, no. They can't do any of that.

If skills were better developed, I'd be far more likely to believe that rogues are "completely fine." But I'm really not understanding how rogue skills are this amazing skeleton key of untapped power.

I'm not sure if you and I want the same things out of a skill system so I'm not going to "go there", but I think rogues are flexible and versatile. They have the ability to deal damage from melee or ranged, as you mentioned (which is worth mentioning not every class can do optimally at the same time). They have good mobility, solid resilience, they CAN heal actually if you play a Thief for Healer shenanigans. They get an extra feat not being so dependent on the power feats (though they still benefit from them) lets them branch into stuff like Lucky, Resilient, even Inspiring Leader, Observant, Ritual Caster, etc. These things aren't going to get anyone to make a clickbait Youtube thumbnail but they will make a solid and well-rounded character with a lot to offer.

Also I would quibble with your language. Can they "tank"? What class "tanks"? Don't we spend a good chunk of time on this forum chiding newcomers that "tanking" doesn't exist in D&D? If you want to "tank" as a Rogue go for high Con with your Dex and pick up Sentinel, and because you get 1 more free ASI than non-fighters its easier to do that. I DM'ed for a character once, a Fairy Barbarian/Rogue that filled the "tank" role pretty well. Can they "CC?" Sure, if you go for grappling which Rogues can actually do. Sure, it isn't "You send out spectral chains that completely lock down everyone and turn them into meat pinatas" but I didn't claim that Rogues have uber gimmicks, I said they are very versatile and can do a lot of things. In my experience this is true, and in my experience also it is enough, and with some of the stronger subclasses its more than enough.

You can check out Person_Man's Rogue guide, came out almost when Next was first released, he largely agrees and makes a good case, a lot still applies even in a post-Tasha's world.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?395706-Person_Man%92s-5E-Rogue-Guide

Skrum

2024-04-23, 09:03 PM

I'm not sure if you and I want the same things out of a skill system so I'm not going to "go there", but I think rogues are flexible and versatile. They have the ability to deal damage from melee or ranged, as you mentioned (which is worth mentioning not every class can do optimally at the same time). They have good mobility, solid resilience, they CAN heal actually if you play a Thief for Healer shenanigans. Also I would quibble with your language. Can they "tank"? What class "tanks"? Don't we spend a good chunk of time on this forum chiding newcomers that "tanking" doesn't exist in D&D? If you want to "tank" as a Rogue go for high Con with your Dex and pick up Sentinel, and because you get 1 more free ASI than non-fighters its easier to do that. I DM'ed for a character once, a Fairy Barbarian/Rogue that filled the "tank" role pretty well. Can they "CC?" Sure, if you go for grappling which Rogues can actually do. Sure it isn't "You send out spectral chains that completely lock down everyone and turn them into meat pinatas" but I didn't claim that Rogues have uber gimmicks, I said they are very versatile and can do a lot of things. In my experience this is true, and in my experience also it is enough.

You can check out Person_Man's Rogue guide, came out almost when Next was first released, he largely agrees and makes a good case, a lot still applies even in a post-Tasha's world.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?395706-Person_Man%92s-5E-Rogue-Guide

In the last game I played the party got into a fight with a large amount of skeletons of various types. My barbarian got a decent initiative roll, raged, and ran into the middle. The skeletons mobbed him, and he took a TON of damage. By combat's end, he had taken 184 damage (before resistances). But he was still standing, and more importantly, because he was in the middle of the field being threatening and easy to attack, the other party members could do their thing.

That's what I mean by tank. No it's not sticky-tanking in the MMORPG sense, it's "can you wade into the direct line of fire and absorb a ton of attacks/damage." Rogue can take a hit, thanks to uncanny dodge. But that's about bailing themselves out, it's not suitable for actual tanking.

Rogue grappling is incredibly oversold, as talked about earlier in this thread. With expertise their athletics will roughly equal a str-based fighter. But they don't have extra attack, so it's a far bigger commitment of action resources to grapple, and they're worse at it than basically any class with extra attack.

Trask

2024-04-23, 09:19 PM

In the last game I played the party got into a fight with a large amount of skeletons of various types. My barbarian got a decent initiative roll, raged, and ran into the middle. The skeletons mobbed him, and he took a TON of damage. By combat's end, he had taken 184 damage (before resistances). But he was still standing, and more importantly, because he was in the middle of the field being threatening and easy to attack, the other party members could do their thing.

That's what I mean by tank. No it's not sticky-tanking in the MMORPG sense, it's "can you wade into the direct line of fire and absorb a ton of attacks/damage." Rogue can take a hit, thanks to uncanny dodge. But that's about bailing themselves out, it's not suitable for actual tanking.

Rogue grappling is incredibly oversold, as talked about earlier in this thread. With expertise their athletics will roughly equal a str-based fighter. But they don't have extra attack, so it's a far bigger commitment of action resources to grapple, and they're worse at it than basically any class with extra attack.

Not being able to out-tank a Barbarian is no sin, that's what that class was designed to do. And in general, yes I agree it's not the place where the Rogue shines. Same goes for grappling, if it could completely outshine the Fighter that wouldn't really make sense, but while perhaps overrated it holds it own and if you add some strength to the class it can be a solid grappler, especially if you dip 1 into Barbarian. Or if you go Arcane Trickster and grab enlarge.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-23, 09:25 PM

I'm never one to suggest that the martial's features get handed out like candy but... if the wizard and bard and warlock can get Extra Attack with their subclass features, why not the Rogue? I would seriously consider playing one if it got Extra Attack.

A conversation that just happened in one of my games:

Me: Can't wait until level 5 when I get Extra Attack.
Warlock: Yeah, I'll get 3rd level spells.
Bladesinger: Yeah, I get 3rd level spells at level 5 and Extra Attack at level 6.
Me: *facepalm*

Skrum

2024-04-23, 09:31 PM

Not being able to out-tank a Barbarian is no sin, that's what that class was designed to do. And in general, yes I agree it's not the place where the Rogue shines. Same goes for grappling, if it could completely outshine the Fighter that wouldn't really make sense, but while perhaps overrated it is not a non-option.

I'm not saying rogue needs to be as good as the barb at taking a beating - I'm saying that's what tanking is, and I don't think rogue is very good at it. Like, below average among all classes. Rogue has relatively poor AC options, a medium hit die, and their only melee defense tool takes their reaction and works against a single attack. Their main defense is "don't be there." But that's literally the opposite of tanking/drawing fire.

They're somewhat better at grappling - it taking their entire action is really punishing and crummy, but sure, I'll give 'em credit. It's a tool in the toolbox.

I'm never one to suggest that the martial's features get handed out like candy but... if the wizard and bard and warlock can get Extra Attack with their subclass features, why not the Rogue? I would seriously consider playing one if it got Extra Attack.

A conversation that just happened in one of my games:

Me: Can't wait until level 5 when I get Extra Attack.
Warlock: Yeah, I'll get 3rd level spells.
Bladesinger: Yeah, I get 3rd level spells at level 5 and Extra Attack at level 6.
Me: *facepalm*

Rogue should absolutely positively without question get extra attack. They're a flippin' martial class!! I would throw extra attack, medium armor prof, and shield prof at them in a heartbeat. Give them options beyond dex-based builds.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-23, 09:37 PM

Rogue should absolutely positively without question get extra attack. They're a flippin' martial class!! I would throw extra attack, medium armor prof, and shield prof at them in a heartbeat. Give them options beyond dex-based builds.
I would immediately be interested in playing one with these additions.

Remember when Barbs, Rangers, and Paladins all got 4 attacks in 3rd edition? Those were the days.

Minus the awful movement mechanics lol.

Trask

2024-04-23, 11:01 PM

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-23, 11:11 PM

I'm not suggesting Extra Attack as a "fix" or anything, just that if it had it I'd be more interested to play one. Having only a single attack in melee sucks.

Skrum

2024-04-23, 11:42 PM

I wouldn't go the Extra Attack route personally, not that I hate it. But if Rogues ought to do more damage, I think it would be neat if they got the expanded critical hit range of the Champion bolted on. I think that would fit really well with what they already get, and also simulates a bit of that assassin feel that many seem to desire with huge criticals.

I don't feel that rogues should have extra attack as a method to boost their damage per se - it's more about how they play. Shove prone, attack at advantage for a sneak attack. Shove and grapple in the same turn. Let them function like an actual martial class. Take a little pressure off their bonus action.

Ignimortis

2024-04-24, 01:06 AM

JellyPooga

2024-04-24, 02:17 AM

It never ceases to amuse me when I see arguments like "Rogues aren't good tanks because they have low Con" or "Rogues aren't as good at grappling as Fighters because they have low Strength". No. That's not how you make a fair comparison. If you're putting the Rogue in the same arena as a Fighter or Barbarian, or whatever, then compare their differences when all other things are equal or at least the playing field is roughly level for whatever specific thing is being compared.

Comparing HP efficiency? You'd better be doing so in good faith and at least offering the Rogue the same Con as the Fighter or Barbarian. Comparing AC? Then allow the Rogue the liberty of having a build that cares about AC. Asking if the Rogue can CC or heal? Well we'd better look at the options available that might actually do so rather than blinding ourselves to the possibilities.

Part of the problem is that the Rogue chassis is flexible rather than specialised and stood next to any one other class, that makes them look inferior. If you stand them next to the entire rest of the party, though, they can and do have the ability to not only participate, but contribute meaningfully in any of the fields that almost any of the others do AND THEN, sometimes even on the same turn, turn around and contribute in another, entirely different way. Their flexibility also means they can do this reactively or opportunistically and that must have a cost. If Rogues maintained this level of cross-pillar, multi-role agency as well as competing with other, more specialised Classes in terms of raw numbers and nova capability, then they would be massively overtuned. Rogues aren't supposed to be as good at grappling as a Fighter, but they nearly are. They're not supposed to be as good at healing as a Cleric, but they can be built to help pick up some of the slack. Few Rogues are going to have the luxury of standing toe-to-toe with and tanking the onslaught of a horde of enemies like the Barbarian can, but they might still be standing after it when even a Fighter or Ranger might have fallen.

5e Rogues feel a lot to me like 3.5 Bards; the jack of all trades that most players feel is just bad at everything, but carefully curated without the baggage of assumption and played right can be far more effective than might appear at first blush.

Is the "plucky and irritating, definitely-not-a-kender halfling thief that's part lockpick, part coward, dealing little more than chip damage with his daggers before running away with the party loot" as much a liability as a useful companion? Well yeah, but so is the Con 8 Wizard who never prepares the right spells, or the Barbarian who picks a fight with everything because he doesn't have time for subtlty or social grace. None of these really say anything about the Classes they misrepresent. If we observe the class in the worst possible light, then of course we'll struggle to see through the gloom to what's actually there of value.

If instead, stood next to the aforementioned horrible "halfling thief" stereotype, was a strapping former imperial legionary; armoured and armed with sword, shield, bow and tools, with the wit to use them, fleet of foot, strong of will and a tongue that's at once honeyed and razor sharp. A reliable ally no matter the circumstance, always where he's needed, precisely when he needs to be there. That's a very different image that the Rogue is capable of portraying (and it doesn't even include his subclass :smalltongue:).

Witty Username

2024-04-24, 03:16 AM

Kurald Galain

2024-04-24, 03:29 AM

If instead, stood next to the aforementioned horrible "halfling thief" stereotype, was a strapping former imperial legionary; armoured and armed with sword, shield, bow and tools, with the wit to use them, fleet of foot, strong of will and a tongue that's at once honeyed and razor sharp. A reliable ally no matter the circumstance, always where he's needed, precisely when he needs to be there. That's a very different image that the Rogue is capable of portraying.

That's indeed a very different image... and the question is if the rogue is actually capable of portraying it. In other words, do the rules back up what the flavor text suggests?

And the answer is, not really. The legionary is armoured but can only use light armor; has a shield but is not proficient in it; his strength of will is belied by his poor wisdom save; and he's not reliable with social skills until level 11.

So the rogue talks big, but his actions can't back it up. Huh, that just might be why people have an issue with the class. :smallamused:

JellyPooga

2024-04-24, 03:44 AM

Rogue should absolutely positively without question get extra attack. They're a flippin' martial class!! I would throw extra attack, medium armor prof, and shield prof at them in a heartbeat. Give them options beyond dex-based builds.

I will go on record saying with these changes there would be no reason to play any other martial class than rogue.

Hard agree with Witty Username here. And for Skrum and Kurald Galain, here's a build for you to consider;

Race: V.Human
Class: Rogue
Standard Array: Str:15, Dex:13, Con:14, Int:10, Wis:12, Cha:8
[Feats/ASI:
1st: +1 Dex/+1 Con, Moderately Armoured (+1 Str)
4th: +2 Str
8th: Resilient (Con)
10th: +2 Str

Skills: Acrobatics, Athleticsx, Insight, Intimidationx, Perceptionx, Sleight of Hand, Survivalx
Equipment: Scale Armour (upgrading to Half-plate), Rapier or Shortsword, Shield, Hand Xbow
HP at Level:
1st: 10
5th: 38
9th: 75

This is one of my favourite baseline Rogue configurations that I'll adjust to taste and is largely my basis for comparison to other melee focused classes. Note also that I haven't included archetype into consideration. You don't need options to be baked into a class for them to be applicable and Moderately Armoured is actually a remarkably good feat for the Rogue if multiclassing isn't allowed and front-line combat is your desired goal. AC at level 1 is 18. Can any Fighter claim significant improvement on that (barring a ludicrously rich one that starts with full plate)? Is the (on average) additional 1+lvl hit points that a Fighter gets really that much of a game changer? Tack on the usual Rogue goodies and you do have a non-dex based, competent at a range of fields, front-line melee adventurer.

Kurald Galain

2024-04-24, 04:54 AM

Hard agree with Witty Username here. And for Skrum and Kurald Galain, here's a build for you to consider;
Thank you for posting an actual build to discuss :smallsmile:

Can any Fighter claim significant improvement on that (barring a ludicrously rich one that starts with full plate)? Is the (on average) additional 1+lvl hit points that a Fighter gets really that much of a game changer?
I'd say the rogue's defenses and hit points are really ok. Fighter gets Second Wind, rogue gets Uncanny Dodge, that's pretty much a wash. I agree that Mod Armor is a good feat, but even without that a dex-primary rogue has solid defenses.

It's intentional design that the rogue has less offense than a fighter or barb (no second attack, action surge or rage; rogue weapons don't work with GWM/PAM). This is a tradeoff. And the catch lies in what the rogue gets in return.

First, the rogue gets better mobility via e.g. cunning action. This is certainly a fun and flashy ability, but due to how 5E's movement and OA rules work, it's just not very valuable. Some players enjoy dashing into and out of combat, but it's not a particularly effective strategy.
And second, the rogue gets better skills via expertise. Well, 5E's skill system has been debated to death several times over. So let me just say that mechanically speaking, at levels most commonly played at, the rogue gets +15% on most of his skills. And that tends to get drowned out by the variance on 1d20.

So that's the deal. The rogue loses a lot, in trade for things that can be made to shine by the DM, but it appears most DMs don't actually do that. And if they don't, well then the rogue has made a pretty bad tradeoff.

JellyPooga

2024-04-24, 05:40 AM

So that's the deal. The rogue loses a lot, in trade for things that can be made to shine by the DM, but it appears most DMs don't actually do that. And if they don't, well then the rogue has made a pretty bad tradeoff.

Therein lies the argument, I suppose. In my opinion, the Rogue loses a little in the numbers game (a little less AC, HP, to-hit bonus, etc.) to gain a lot in opportunity/versatility. Yes, that gain is GM dependent to an extent but so is, for example, including the social and exploration pillars at all, running intelligent NPCs, sandboxing a campaign vs. railroading it, variety of enemies and all manner of factors that might impact how effective a character or class is. Just saying "it's DM dependent, so isn't good" doesn't hold much water because everything always is and if the Rogue has an ability that makes them good in X circumstance, it very much can be comparable to the Fighter being good in Y, even if Y is more common in some games.

Kurald Galain

2024-04-24, 05:45 AM

Just saying "it's DM dependent, so isn't good" doesn't hold much water because everything always is
Certain parts of the game are much more DM-dependent than other parts. That is why we're hearing this complaint about the rogue, but not about (e.g.) the barbarian or the cleric.

JellyPooga

2024-04-24, 06:47 AM

Certain parts of the game are much more DM-dependent than other parts. That is why we're hearing this complaint about the rogue, but not about (e.g.) the barbarian or the cleric.

Except we kind of do. Few Barbarians are mentioned in discussions about the Social Pillar, except with regard to their ineptitude at it. Similarly for Clerics in discussions about stealth and scouting (outside a couple of domain options), or the exploration pillar as a whole.

The whole "GM dependent" argument suggests to me that, perhaps, there's less at fault with the Rogue Class so much as there is how games are being run. I'll compare it to the Long Rest vs. Short Rest argument; in a game with no short rests, Warlocks and Monks are severely underpowered compared to what should be expected. If a majority of players run 5-min adventuring days that's a player problem, rather than those Classes being weak.

"I only value X, so things that do Y are weak" should not apply if Y is an expected part of the game. That a large number of players aren't utilising Y might colour common perception, but actually only means those players are missing an aspect of the game from their play experience. Compare it to a statement like "Ancient Red Dragons aren't enough of a threat because we don't use Legendary or Lair Actions". Those Legendary and Lair Actions are there for the express purpose of making ancient dragons more challenging foes; if you're not using them, that's a you problem. Same goes for the Rogue; if you're not including terrain, distance and other interactive elements to your combats, as well as minimising non-combat encounters and removing consequence from rests, then of course your perception of the Rogue will be lacking because, arguably, your campaign/game style is lacking in aspects the game rules expect you to engage with.

Aimeryan

2024-04-24, 06:52 AM

Certain parts of the game are much more DM-dependent than other parts. That is why we're hearing this complaint about the rogue, but not about (e.g.) the barbarian or the cleric.

Which is largely the problem with Rogues in a nutshell, yes. WotC designed a class that excelled at the entirely uncodified portion of the game.

Kurald Galain

2024-04-24, 07:07 AM

Except we kind of do. Few Barbarians are mentioned in discussions about the Social Pillar, except with regard to their ineptitude at it. Similarly for Clerics in discussions about stealth and scouting (outside a couple of domain options), or the exploration pillar as a whole.
That's a red herring. There's nothing about barbarians or clerics that makes them worse at social skills or stealth (resp.) than other classes. Barbs and clerics clearly don't have the poor reputation that rogues have (which this thread is about).

I'll compare it to the Long Rest vs. Short Rest argument; in a game with no short rests, Warlocks and Monks are severely underpowered compared to what should be expected.
However, this is a fair point. Warlocks are often called problematic because many DMs don't give out short rests all that often. I think we had a thread about that just last week.

And this is not a player problem. This is a inherent in the rules: short rests take an hour, and for most characters it doesn't make sense to sit still for that long after every combat.
Likewise, that rogue mobility is largely pointless is not a player problem. Rather, it is inherent in the movement and OA rules that cunning action isn't very useful (although it's fun and flashy).

"I only value X, so things that do Y are weak" should not apply if Y is an expected part of the game.
The catch is that for warlocks, Y = "abilities that need an hour's rest to recharge", and this is not an expected part of the game.
Likewise, the catch is that for rogues, Y = "being better at skills than bounded accuracy allows", and this is not an expected part of the game either.
So "things that do Y are weak" applies here because Y is not an expected part of the game.

Which is largely the problem with Rogues in a nutshell, yes. WotC designed a class that excelled at the entirely uncodified portion of the game.
Precisely.

skills are wildly unreliable in 5e, being subject to GM's whims far more often than any other feature in the system, and you get Rogues being pretty low on satisfaction charts.
And that, too.

Skrum

2024-04-24, 07:19 AM

@Jelly

So like. What's your point. That we're wrong about rogues being weak? That we're wrong about the reasons people think rogues are weak? (Whether rogues are weak or not they certainly have that reputation!).

The sample build you gave, it looks solid. Good even, in the right game. Idk that it would excel at the table I play at, but that doesn't say very much; it's just one table.

I still have to question how it scales though. Level 7, 8, 9, IME melee characters really need AC in the low 20's. It'd be low - but sure, they'd have uncanny dodge, which.... Well it sorta works. I strongly suspect it'd be pushed back into a skirmishing roll though. Which leads back to all of my of original critiques of rogue (lack of presence, generally poor contributions, a feeling of "below replacement level")

Amnestic

2024-04-24, 07:29 AM

IME melee characters really need AC in the low 20's.

Yeah but your games run high powered - a discussion we've had before re: hexblades, so the rogue would either have magic items (+1 shield and +1 armour brings them to 21, for example) or everyone would be in equally the same boat.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-24, 07:30 AM

First, the rogue gets better mobility via e.g. cunning action. This is certainly a fun and flashy ability, but due to how 5E's movement and OA rules work, it's just not very valuable. Some players enjoy dashing into and out of combat, but it's not a particularly effective strategy.
Can you elaborate on this? Because our monk dashes in and out of combat and it's quite effective. Even my fighter has Mobile and being able to "Disengage", while not a part of his strategy every turn, is useful at times.

And second, the rogue gets better skills via expertise. Well, 5E's skill system has been debated to death several times over. So let me just say that mechanically speaking, at levels most commonly played at, the rogue gets +15% on most of his skills. And that tends to get drowned out by the variance on 1d20.
I'm definitely in camp "the skill system needs work", but I agree with Jelly that this is a game/DM/Player issue, not a Rogue issue.

Taking the time to achieve Advantage on the roll goes a long way, either through making the circumstances yourself, someone using the Help action, or through Tool/Skill proficiency combos ala Xanathar's. Expertise closes the gap further. Better guidance on setting DCs would also help a lot, so not everything encountered is 15+ (Mearls' comments on this would make it a non-issue). In tier 3, Reliable Talent means you're auto-passing Hard DCs on your best skills, and Medium DCs with your lesser skills.

I think the issue is more that combat is a disproportionate part of the game, and rogue's are perfectly mediocre here. For someone like me, I can't get over the single attack roll on a weapon class, and using your Bonus action for a second attack means you're not using Cunning Action or Steady Aim.

EDIT: Re - ACs in the low 20s

I agree with Amnestic. I am currently playing an Armorer Artificer with an AC of 23 at level 10 and practically nothing hits me. It's obscene, and probably overpowered, but maybe in more difficult games it would be appropriate.

Keltest

2024-04-24, 07:39 AM

Skrum

2024-04-24, 07:40 AM

Yeah but your games run high powered - a discussion we've had before re: hexblades, so the rogue would either have magic items (+1 shield and +1 armour brings them to 21, for example) or everyone would be in equally the same boat.

I don't want to go down the specifics of the rules of the table I play at - but if we're assuming each character gets the same magic items, but one class started with more armor, that class will continue to have more armor.

======

So, I don't want to just compare to paladin; that's a narrow way to critique a class or build and DND can and should contain multitudes. And yet. Paladin exists in the game lol. There's a degree of "that's what's also available."

If I was playing a rogue and get my moment to shine, but then the paladin player gets three moments to shine because they're playing a much better class, well, it's gonna cross my mind that maybe I made a poor choice.

And that's the crux of "weak class, strong class" discussions. Rogue isn't weak in an absolute sense (like literally unplayable like some 3e classes were), but weak relatively is still gonna feel weak.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-24, 07:47 AM

Skrum

2024-04-24, 07:54 AM

I don't have a tremendous amount of experience with rogues at the table, but I do always wish there was a skills guy in the group to handle that part of exploration.

And I do think youtube optimizers drive a lot of the reputation of virtually all parts of the game, and are often misguided.

Like, what does it mean to be a skills guy? Having a decent survival and perception check? Clerics do that just fine, as do druids, by dint of having way higher wisdom.

Scouting is...well it's a contentious topic. But I personally don't think the value of scouting is such that it's worth whatever rogue is paying for it. Not even close.

stoutstien

2024-04-24, 08:13 AM

I've never understood the complaint that classes that focus on ability checks are somehow worse due to GM fiat. It's not like it's any different from any other part of the game.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-24, 08:39 AM

Like, what does it mean to be a skills guy? Having a decent survival and perception check? Clerics do that just fine, as do druids, by dint of having way higher wisdom.

Scouting is...well it's a contentious topic. But I personally don't think the value of scouting is such that it's worth whatever rogue is paying for it. Not even close.
Actually I think there is value in having a set of critical skills on one single character, as it means they can accomplish more and make use of these skills together.

As an example, our current tier 3 game, the monk has Stealth and Perception. But he doesn't have Athletics, Investigation, or Thieves' Tools. So even if he scouts ahead, what he can accomplish while out ahead is limited. He may be able to make some checks and succeed at them, but not consistently, and the chances go down as the DCs go up.

If we had a rogue, their minimum roll on Stealth and Perception would be somewhere around 18, or 22 with Expertise. And it can be 15 with Investigation and Thieves' Tools, or 19 with Expertise (depending on ability scores of course).

Point being, a rogue could move ahead of the party with Stealth, perceive enemies and secret doors and traps with Perception, discover mechanisms to open those secret doors or disarm those traps with Investigation, then disarm them with Thieves Tools, climb to hard to reach locations where these mechanisms are located with Athletics, balance along beams or narrow ledges with Acrobatics, etc.

I can't assist the monk when he goes ahead, despite having +5 on Investigation, because I have -1 and Disadvantage on Stealth checks. So I do think that splitting skills across a party can sometimes cause deficiencies, and I think there is value in a character that starts with at minimum 6 skill proficiencies and that also has native Expertise.

Kane0

2024-04-24, 09:00 AM

Hmm, i'm pretty sure I stole some concepts from UA, or was it elsewhere? To touch up the Rogue a bit without just leaning into being more of a fighter.

*Digs through notes*
Ah here we go!

- Give them a fighting style, but not Extra Attack (natively, maybe as part of one or some subclasses)
- Somewhere in Tier 2 tack on a rider to Sneak Attack that gives you the choice of advantage on your next attack or disadvantage on theirs
- Somewhere in Tier 3 tack on a rider to sneak attack that offers a save or be either dazed or weakened (both new conditions derived from mind whip and ray of enfeeblement respectively) until the start of your next turn
- Somewhere in Tier 4 provide both of the Tier 2 rider and/or disadvantage on the save of the Tier 3 rider
- Expand reliable talent to be any ability check and not just proficient ones, maybe starting at a floor of 7 in tier 2 then rising to 10 in tier 3 and 13 in tier 4.
- Expand Slippery Mind to also include Cha saves, split into an earlier tier even
- Expand Stroke of Luck to also be usable on saves or to make attacks that hit, crit. Basically just turn any d20 test into a nat 20 once per short rest.

Basically, give combat options that make sneak attack a more helpful tool beyond straight damage (without eating up actions) and actually go all-in on hitting those ability checks, plus a few quality of life items.

JellyPooga

2024-04-24, 09:10 AM

The catch is that for warlocks, Y = "abilities that need an hour's rest to recharge", and this is not an expected part of the game.
Likewise, the catch is that for rogues, Y = "being better at skills than bounded accuracy allows", and this is not an expected part of the game either.
So "things that do Y are weak" applies here because Y is not an expected part of the game.

There's a difference between what the game expects and what players are doing and I think you are conflating the two. The game expects Rogues to break the usual paradigm of what most characters can do with regard to skills. Players often expect that all characters should have that because GMs are raising the bar to continue to challenge the Rogues higher bounds. If Players are changing the game expectations to match their own due to how a specific GM is running the game, then elements like the Rogue which are designed to function or excel in that area are going to be downplayed because the Players changed the goalposts. Is that the fault of the player or the game? Similar for Warlocks; if players are saying "an hour is too long for short rests so we don't take them", then that's absolutely their fault if the Warlock appears underpowered, because it's the game that expects parties to take short rests.

So like. What's your point. That we're wrong about rogues being weak? That we're wrong about the reasons people think rogues are weak? (Whether rogues are weak or not they certainly have that reputation!).

The sample build you gave, it looks solid. Good even, in the right game. Idk that it would excel at the table I play at, but that doesn't say very much; it's just one table.

I still have to question how it scales though. Level 7, 8, 9, IME melee characters really need AC in the low 20's. It'd be low - but sure, they'd have uncanny dodge, which.... Well it sorta works. I strongly suspect it'd be pushed back into a skirmishing roll though. Which leads back to all of my of original critiques of rogue (lack of presence, generally poor contributions, a feeling of "below replacement level")
Essentially, yes, my point is that if you see Rogues as weak for the reasons being given (largely speaking that they don't match up in combat), then your perspective is too narrow and you need to look at the broader value of what they do bring to the table a little closer. If the games you play in don't value the things the Rogue exemplifies, then yeah, that there is why you perceive them as weak; not that they are per se. It goes back to my contention that Sneak Attack is a Cantrip; everyone sees the prominence of it on the Class Features table (because it takes up a lot of real estate) and stops there, assuming that it's what the Class is all about, in the same way one might look at the Wizard or Clerics table of Spell Slots by level and assume that's what the main class focus is. Only in the latter case it's true and the former it's a bit misleading. The Rogue is not, primarily, a combat focused Class. It's well established and accepted that Rogues simply do not contribute in combat as effectively as many other Classes; they're decent enough, but by no means a front-runner (except maybe before level 4). That's not under contention. The argument doesn't stop there though, because the Rogue is bringing more to the table where many of the classes they're being compared to do not. Yes, there's outliers, particularly in some later released material, but few do so across the board or as flexibly.

As for my sample build, this is what it looks like at level 9 (I have this build saved as a template at levels 1,5,9,13,17 & 20);
Attack: +1 Rapier, +9 melee (1d8+5d6+5 (27) piercing)
AC: 21 = 16 (+1 Half-plate) +2 (Dex) +3 (+1 Shield), HP: 75
Str: 18 (+4), Dex: 14 (+2), Con: 16 (+3), Int: 10 (+0), Wis: 12 (+1), Cha: 8 (-1)
Saves: Str +5, Dex +6, Con +7, Int +4, Wis +1, Cha -1

Uncanny Dodge and Evasion go a long way toward extending those 75hp and I think that AC:21 with only +1 equipment at that level is probably lowballing. We can add Arcane Trickster on to this and boost that effective AC much higher with Shield, Blur, Mirror Image and more, if that's what's desired, or in a game that utilises a lot of terrain the Thief Rogue has much greater facility to add the +2 or +5 from half or three-quarter cover than almost any other class. A Fighter at the same level with the same Ability Scores only has 10 more maxHP and at most 2 points more of AC (and that if they took Defence FS, otherwise it's only 1 extra). Fighter pulls way ahead on DPR, assuming they've built built efficiently, but also doesn't have the Rogues Expertise or Cunning Action; both of which are good enough to be game-changing (or at least they should be, outside of white room exercises and in the wider context of a campaign as opposed to an encounter).

Blatant Beast

2024-04-24, 09:30 AM

That's just it, they don't have to outdamage anyone. They're already near the top of the other two pillars, being top of the combat pillar too would make them overtuned. I'm okay if their damage is lower as long as it's competitive.

Expertise is available to all characters now, via a Feat. Expertise, especially in low tier play, is not that much better than the aid provided from a Guidance cantrip.

5e does not make learning new languages something the system natively supports. One either needs to take the Linguist feat, or have enough downtime in between sessions to learn a language.

A rogue dedicated to diplomacy, might simply be unable to effectively communicate, due to not being able to speak the target's language, and most rogue subclasses do not offer telepathy.

A rogue devoted to stealth, is great at hiding themselves if nothing is looking at them, but Pass w/o Trace is allowing everyone to hide. A cleric of Trickery is adding Advantage to someone else's Stealth roll from level one.

Picking locks is great, but the Silence spell, turns anyone with a hammer into a silent lockpick.

Expertise in Animal Handling? There is a spell for that....more than one in fact.
Expertise in Medicine? Not great...the same is true for Expertise in Acrobatics, (might as well take Athletics as that skill is more broadly applicable).

Expertise in Knowledge skills, also pose their own narrative issues. In a movie or a play, it would probably come across as strange that the low intelligence criminal, that comes from a long line of smuggler's, and whom has no formal education and talks like a mafia member from the movie Donny Brasco, (Thieves Cant, baby...forget about it), at level up can suddenly become one of the foremost experts on any bit of arcana or trivia.

It is like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix instantly learning Gongfu,----suddenly the rogue knows celestial mechanics and how the gods relate to the constellations, (Expertise Religion).

Even in regards to Knowledge skills, a one level dip in Knowledge cleric, might be a better option than taking Rogue levels, as the Knowledge Domain yields two Knowledge based Expertise skills, and access to medium armor and shields, access to clerical scrolls and magical items, Ritual Magic, and some first level spells.

My experience with 5e is people tend to multi-class less than in prior editions, but Rogues and Warlocks are both classes, that I have yet to see played up to 20th level as a single class character.

I've seen two high level Arcane Tricksters, played by different players, advance in a similar fashion: at most they take 11 levels of the rogue class to garner Reliable Talent, and take the rest in Bladesinger.

Extra Attack + Bladesong+ more Wizard spells, and Wizard stuff is generally better than the T4 class stuff the rogue class has. Re-do spells, such as Silvery Barbs also makes abilities like Reliable Talent, in essence weaker, because handing out Advantage to team mates is easier, and the system has a plenitude of options that do that.

Overtime, 5e has almost systemically added in features that weaken the Rogue's grasp on their own niche. BG3 has some great examples of this....one does not need a Rogue at all...stacking buffs, and using Inspiration is all one really needs to pass checks in that game.

Kurald Galain

2024-04-24, 09:31 AM

The game expects Rogues to break the usual paradigm of what most characters can do with regard to skills.
No, the game does not. The game expects rogues to have a +3 bonus with most of their skills (at the levels most commonly played at), and that doesn't break any paradigm.

I'll grant that Reliable Talent is actually a game changer for rogues, but it comes online much too late.

the game that expects parties to take short rests.
The game expects the occasional short rest, but not very often and certainly not after every combat. You can tell because a short rest explicitly takes an hour (as opposed to five minutes, in the previous edition).

- Expand reliable talent to be any ability check and not just proficient ones, maybe starting at a floor of 7 in tier 2 then rising to 10 in tier 3 and 13 in tier 4.
That's a good idea; this really helps rogues find their niche.

Amnestic

2024-04-24, 10:05 AM

I don't want to go down the specifics of the rules of the table I play at - but if we're assuming each character gets the same magic items, but one class started with more armor, that class will continue to have more armor.

The contention was that by the end of tier 2, a melee would need "low 20s AC", which a medium armour rogue with a shield would typically have, via magic items. They cleared the bar you asked for.

So, I don't want to just compare to paladin; that's a narrow way to critique a class or build and DND can and should contain multitudes. And yet. Paladin exists in the game lol. There's a degree of "that's what's also available."

Sure, and a plate wearing 2h paladin who takes the Blind Fighting or Interception fighting style's going to have 18 AC, plus whatever magic items he gets. That's less than the medium armour shield rogue (by 1).

And that's fine.

Tendril

2024-04-24, 10:12 AM

My experience with 5e is people tend to multi-class less than in prior editions, but Rogues and Warlocks are both classes, that I have yet to see played up to 20th level as a single class character.

This touches on what I feel is a pretty big issue with the rogue. If you want a sneaky character that's good at skills, you only really need 1 or 2 levels of rogue to make that happen. Why would I want to be a level 7 rogue when I could be a fighter 5 rogue 2? Especially when considering that rogue has the weakest level 5 in the game, lacking both 3rd level spells and extra attack.

Whenever I think of making a rogue I find myself thinking "What if I just played class X instead with a rogue dip?", and pretty much always I end up feeling like rogue isn't worth investing in.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-24, 10:21 AM

Expertise is available to all characters now, via a Feat. Expertise, especially in low tier play, is not that much better than the aid provided from a Guidance cantrip.
A feat is a big investment, and only covers 1 skill; now the rogue is up 2 feats on this character. Further, Guidance requires casting a spell, which you may not want to do if you're trying to be quiet, and which may tank a social encounter if you do it in the middle of a conversation.

5e does not make learning new languages something the system natively supports. One either needs to take the Linguist feat, or have enough downtime in between sessions to learn a language.

A rogue dedicated to diplomacy, might simply be unable to effectively communicate, due to not being able to speak the target's language, and most rogue subclasses do not offer telepathy.
Sure, there may be times it doesn't work. This is true for virtually everyone. Ranger I think has the easiest time learning new languages.

A rogue devoted to stealth, is great at hiding themselves if nothing is looking at them, but Pass w/o Trace is allowing everyone to hide. A cleric of Trickery is adding Advantage to someone else's Stealth roll from level one.
This is not a guarantee. I have a -1 to Stealth AND Disadvantage and even with Pass Without Trace it's not a sure thing in our game.

Picking locks is great, but the Silence spell, turns anyone with a hammer into a silent lockpick.
Hammers are less useful against traps, which are governed by the same mechanic that allows you to pick locks.

Expertise in Animal Handling? There is a spell for that....more than one in fact.
Is there? I know you can Speak with Animals but... is that the same as getting an animal to do what you want? Or stop it from being spooked? I'm not so sure.

Also... so far we're casting Speak With Animals, Telepathy, Silence, Pass Without Trace... how many spells are we devoting to replacing the rogue?

Expertise in Medicine? Not great...the same is true for Expertise in Acrobatics, (might as well take Athletics as that skill is more broadly applicable).
This strikes me as sort of saying that when exploring, the terrain is never challenging, and any old spellcaster can walk up and cast a spell to solve the problem, or cast a spell to get to the thing and then cast another spell to solve the problem.

And then of course, the same spellcasters cast their spells in combat and end it within 2 turns.

Sounds like a very easy game of Dungeons and Dragons.

Expertise in Knowledge skills, also pose their own narrative issues. In a movie or a play, it would probably come across as strange that the low intelligence criminal, that comes from a long line of smuggler's, and whom has no formal education and talks like a mafia member from the movie Donny Brasco, (Thieves Cant, baby...forget about it), at level up can suddenly become one of the foremost experts on any bit of arcana or trivia.

It is like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix instantly learning Gongfu,----suddenly the rogue knows celestial mechanics and how the gods relate to the constellations, (Expertise Religion).
I don't find this "issue" compelling in the least. The rogue is an expert.

Even in regards to Knowledge skills, a one level dip in Knowledge cleric, might be a better option than taking Rogue levels, as the Knowledge Domain yields two Knowledge based Expertise skills, and access to medium armor and shields, access to clerical scrolls and magical items, Ritual Magic, and some first level spells.
Many people dip classes. Are we saying now that fighters and wizards are no good because they also dip other classes?

My experience with 5e is people tend to multi-class less than in prior editions, but Rogues and Warlocks are both classes, that I have yet to see played up to 20th level as a single class character.

I've seen two high level Arcane Tricksters, played by different players, advance in a similar fashion: at most they take 11 levels of the rogue class to garner Reliable Talent, and take the rest in Bladesinger.
Taking a class to third tier, gaining 4 Expertises and an extra feat, along with Reliable Talent... and this is an argument that the class is no good...

Extra Attack + Bladesong+ more Wizard spells, and Wizard stuff is generally better than the T4 class stuff the rogue class has. Re-do spells, such as Silvery Barbs also makes abilities like Reliable Talent, in essence weaker, because handing out Advantage to team mates is easier, and the system has a plenitude of options that do that.
This is symptomatic of handing every mechanic in the game to wizards on a silver platter.

Overtime, 5e has almost systemically added in features that weaken the Rogue's grasp on their own niche. BG3 has some great examples of this....one does not need a Rogue at all...stacking buffs, and using Inspiration is all one really needs to pass checks in that game.
My group hasn't found that ANY class is needed.

Hael

2024-04-24, 10:31 AM

Extra attack definitely does not overpower rogues in the slightest. In fact their damage output barely moves that much. The reason is that there is an antisynergy with the usual tactics to pump up their damage numbers. For instance haste attack + ready action and using their reaction to hit sneak attack again with something like warcaster + booming blade. Both components (booming blade and ready attack) conflict somewhat with extra attack.

Extra attack only really adds a lot of dpr if you have a build that emphasizes it, eg PAM/GWM with advantage and extra damage riders (like paladin improved smite+divine smite). The bladesinger multiclass extra attack version on a rogue is better, but its still not a mega damaging build even there.

Regarding the extra pillars that rogues are supposedly good at. The problem is that skillmonkeys tend to be redundant in optimized parties in 5e. You can very much in the aggregate replace them with judicious party choices. Casters also have a great deal of tools to replicate or exceed what they do.

Scouting is a bit of a trap (again at least in the high op versions of games that I play). You are infinitely better suited to send in a druid familiar (or a druid wildshape that can fly away if something goes wrong), or eg to use divination.

And overall, they have the same problem that sorcerors have. Which is that their role is basically completely overshadowed by a better solution (the bard). IF the bard didn’t exist, you could probably push the rogue up a tier or so.

stoutstien

2024-04-24, 10:33 AM

This touches on what I feel is a pretty big issue with the rogue. If you want a sneaky character that's good at skills, you only really need 1 or 2 levels of rogue to make that happen. Why would I want to be a level 7 rogue when I could be a fighter 5 rogue 2? Especially when considering that rogue has the weakest level 5 in the game, lacking both 3rd level spells and extra attack.

Whenever I think of making a rogue I find myself thinking "What if I just played class X instead with a rogue dip?", and pretty much always I end up feeling like rogue isn't worth investing in.

This is just a framing issue. Rouges don't have a weak 5th lv as much as they don't scale in spikes so it's less noticable. The gap between extra attack and SA scaling at this point is tiny unless one or the other doubles down on damage via feat investment.

Blatant Beast

2024-04-24, 10:33 AM

Evasion is a huge selling point for going up to Rogue level 7, but I see your point Tendril.

Evasion, as an ability is great for keeping a Rogue unharmed, but this keeps the Rogue as a 'selfish class', often able to take care of itself, but not adding much to the group in terms of reducing a group's collective liabilities.

Last week, in a 20th level game, the 4 PCs, (including a Rogue and Monk), were facing a number of custom CR 2 yard trash creatures that had an explosive AoE demise, (DC 11 Dex save for 21 damage, half damage on save).

After several encounters, the party Bard and Fighter are a bit jacked up, even with Fire Resistance, because each foe they kill is contributing a small amount of damage to them.

Of course the PCs with Evasion have taken zero damage, from these deadman trigger explosions.
Evasion, despite increasing an individual PCs survivability, has very little influence on increasing an Adventuring Groups overall survivability.

Evasion as an ability, does not mitigate the need for a party to rest, and the rogue offering to take extended watches, because they have taken no Dex Save Damage, nor have any abilities that need recharge is just not that great of a boon.

As a matter of group composition, (which I would argue is the true measure optimization...how and what can this Unit of Adventurers do), a Rogue, being a selfish class is just not adding as much to overall group survival as other PC options.

Jason Bourne is great at surviving, but is quite poor at keeping his friends alive. The Rogue PC class, has the same problem. Ultimately, this is a problem, when D&D games are usually played with the focus of keeping the party alive, and not a single PC, (whom can not even Rez their downed friends).

In regards to Dr. Samurai's points in an above post: sure there can be times in which, pre-buffing is not available, but by definition, such times are going to be few and far between. A DM might be incentivized to add more constraints that keep the Rogue class more relevant in play, but overall I do not think that is a great development from a systemic prospective.

The largest issue with the Rogue in 5e, to my mind, is: The Rogue class is designed as a loner, (except for Sneak Attack), which is a bad design viewpoint for a game that has as it's base organizational focus the Adventuring Group.

Skill Expert is a half feat. +1 to the ability score of your choice + Expertise in Athletics is a solid option for any character, but especially for low strength PCs...the cost strikes me as minimal. Barbarians are feat starved, but other classes do not require GWM to the same degree.

Crusher

2024-04-24, 10:53 AM

...

I don't understand.
We're in a D&D forum, talking about D&D. In all my experience playing D&D, well over a decade (so not as long as the real grognards, but still a good while) I've never seen someone's default response to PvP being positive.

Yeah, I *totally* agree with this. Obviously, not every group is the same. On the other hand, every time I've ever seen PvP related stuff come up its been very poorly received. A few months ago, at a relatively new table I've been playing at, a character outright stole a valuable, interesting item from another PC (the fighter, who was oddly good at slightly of hand stole a wyvern's egg from the Beast Master Ranger). The ranger was *not* pleased and considered not coming back, and while no one made a big deal out of it, I don't think its a coincidence the fighter never came back after that session.

That having been said, one of my most bittersweet moments as a DM was creating a moral conundrum so tough the party nearly turned on each other to resolve it. In fact, the end of the campaign was semi-near (party was level 18 and plan was to go to 20, there were two big adventures to go), so the party agreed to freeze that campaign so everyone could think about things. We started the next campaign a little early, and 2 more campaigns later no one has any interest in revisiting that one.

It was satisfying to create something that connected so strongly with the players, but they *hated* it, which I felt bad about.

LudicSavant

2024-04-24, 10:55 AM

From level 1-9, Rogue has only one non-combat feature of note (aside from subclass): Expertise in 2-4 skills (which is something that the Bard has in addition to a whole bunch more). And what Expertise does at these levels is provide a roughly Guidance-sized bonus to a few skills.

And unless it's a Dex skill, odds are it's not so much putting you ahead as it is catching you up to whoever was maxxing a mental attribute -- a Rogue with Expertise in Perception likely has about as much Perception as an unbuffed Cleric. Heck, even a Wizard's owl will have 18 Passive Perception.

Most (but not all) of the good non-combat utility skills (Perception, Insight, Investigation, Persuasion, Arcana, etc) are based on mental stats, and the majority of classes based on mental stats have really damn good utility features on top of maxxing those primary stats.

As for Dex skills, we've got...
- Sleight of Hand doesn't have a lot of rules associated with it; your mileage will vary a lot based on DM and campaign, I suspect.
- Acrobatics, which is usually inferior to Athletics.
- and Stealth, which is a pretty great skill. But while Rogues are good at it, the best stealth characters generally either bring their party with them on the infiltration (for example, with Pass Without Trace), or have some way to bypass the various things that make stealth fail without a check (e.g. counters to divinations, special senses, hiding while observed, etc), or both. Rogues usually do neither of those things.
- Thieves' Tools I'd say is usually not as useful of a trap-bypassing skill as Perception, Investigation, or Arcana. For example, Arcana can find, identify, and disarm any magic trap or trap-like spell, whereas Thieves Tools only applies to a few of the example traps in the DMG, and generally isn't even the best way to bypass those traps.

Later on the bonus from Expertise grows to a roughly Advantage-sized bonus, and you get Reliable Talent too, which is worth ~+2 to a normal roll (or +0.7 to an Advantage) roll on average.

Subclasses can add more in terms of non-combat utility, but precious few Rogue subclasses actually add good non-combat skills. A very notable exception is the Soulknife, which gets a larger-than-Expertise, Bardic Inspiration-sized skill amp from its psi die (on top of Expertise!), and some other useful non-combat features too (like one of the better forms of telepathy in the game).

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-24, 10:57 AM

How many spell slots are people devoting to out of combat challenges? Especially at low levels, when the slots are not so many and competing more with your offensive abilities.

Psyren

2024-04-24, 11:18 AM

Expertise is available to all characters now, via a Feat.

Already covered this; 1 feat gets you one expertise, compared to rogue who gets 4 of them for 0 feats.

Expertise, especially in low tier play, is not that much better than the aid provided from a Guidance cantrip.

Numerically, no. But Guidance spam has considerations beyond the numerical boost it provides. Loud chanting before every check is not always practical for instance.

Those practical considerations apply to your other examples. A rogue with a language barrier won't be able to benefit from Guidance either. A silenced hammer isn't equivalent to a rogue's lockpicks; the caster might be concentrating on something way more useful than Silence, or the hammer in question may not be suitable for breaking the lock in question, or both.

Overtime, 5e has almost systemically added in features that weaken the Rogue's grasp on their own niche. BG3 has some great examples of this....one does not need a Rogue at all...stacking buffs, and using Inspiration is all one really needs to pass checks in that game.

You don't need any specific class in BG3; you could respec everyone to Barbarians if you wanted and still clear the game. That's not an indictment of rogue, it's a testament to how well BG3's narrative is designed.

Sindeloke

2024-04-24, 11:23 AM

I don't feel that rogues should have extra attack as a method to boost their damage per se - it's more about how they play. Shove prone, attack at advantage for a sneak attack. Shove and grapple in the same turn. Let them function like an actual martial class. Take a little pressure off their bonus action.

You could make them the "action economy class." Extra reaction per round (uncanny dodge against multiattack, or uncanny dodge and still get an off-turn sneak attack). Extra interaction per round (this shouldn't have been restricted to the thief in the same way that mindless rage shouldn't have been restricted to the berserker). Extra shove, trip, or grapple per round (could staple this into cunning action, but I'd rather see it just allowed during the attack action, rogues have enough competition for the bonus action already).

Point being, a rogue could move ahead of the party with Stealth, perceive enemies and secret doors and traps with Perception, discover mechanisms to open those secret doors or disarm those traps with Investigation, then disarm them with Thieves Tools, climb to hard to reach locations where these mechanisms are located with Athletics, balance along beams or narrow ledges with Acrobatics, etc.

Another problem with rogues is that, while this is certainly a situation that gives the rogue an opportunity to have their cool moment, it also completely sucks for the rest of the party. They're sitting on their asses at the front of the dungeon, twiddling their thumbs, while the rogue gets to Do Stuff.

A bard's Awesome Moment may be convincing a terrible fey to help the party instead of eating them, but the barbarian and the wizard are still there in the conversation. They can ask questions, attempt knowledge or intimidation checks, and remain involved in the game. A fight might be carried by a GWM action surge or a well-used forcecage, but the whole party is still in the initiative order; the monk is still getting flurries on the minions that the fighter ran past, the ranger can deal the killing blow on the monster the sorcerer locked up. Other classes' moments to shine still function in a group context, allowing other members of the team to continue to participate in the game.

If a class is designed, on the other hand, so that its best case scenario is spending 30-60 minutes monopolizing the DM's time with an elaborate forward action, while everyone else hangs out on their phone wondering why they agreed to drive all the way out here when they could be doomscrolling reddit just as comfortably at home, that's not great for the class' reputation.

I think @Blatant Beast has it right, talking about the rogue as a "selfish" class, something that also ties into the rather hilarious "lol pvp is totally fine and awesome and people who think me having my fun at their expense is bad are the real losers who just need to git gud" little tangent upthread; rogues have a bad reputation because they're, more than any other class, built around a set of mechanics and a thematic history that are kind of orthogonal to group play. Obviously they can be team players, because team play is a player choice, not a character choice - but if staying with the group, resting when they want to rest, and not taking their stuff means the class isn't playing to its potential or getting its time to shine, it's probably been accidentally designed for a different game.

Tendril

2024-04-24, 11:24 AM

This is just a framing issue. Rouges don't have a weak 5th lv as much as they don't scale in spikes so it's less noticable. The gap between extra attack and SA scaling at this point is tiny unless one or the other doubles down on damage via feat investment.

Well I tend to see a lot of SS and GWM by this level, so the reality is that rogues do end up weak comparatively. I also place pretty high importance on characters being strong at roughly the levels 5-8, since I feel campaigns tend to spend a lot of time there. That's partly a table thing, but it does also seem to be an intentional design decision if you look at XP tables.

This isn't to say that rogues are unredeemable or anything, but at best rogues seem "ok" at the levels where most classes feel like total powerhouses.

stoutstien

2024-04-24, 11:38 AM

Well I tend to see a lot of SS and GWM by this level, so the reality is that rogues do end up weak comparatively. I also place pretty high importance on characters being strong at roughly the levels 5-8, since I feel campaigns tend to spend a lot of time there. That's partly a table thing, but it does also seem to be an intentional design decision if you look at XP tables.

This isn't to say that rogues are unredeemable or anything, but at best rogues seem "ok" at the levels where most classes feel like total powerhouses.

That's an issue with lopsided effects certain feats have rather than an indication that the class itself is the problem. Of course stuff like alert and ritual caster have the potential to fill in the gap but it's harder to toss that in a excel sheet.

Now the gap the rogue subclasses get at this point is an issue with the *feel* factor for sure but that a different issue that they ran into trying to receive reconcile the rather normalized scaling the class has with the space that has left. They almost had it figured out with the last 2 subclasses.

**If I had my way I would have made the formation the party moved around in more interactive. the rogue/ranger/other classes with a focus on environmental interactions have benefits that shift depending where they are. PWT should be something a ranger provides by leading the way rather than just face smash spell solution for example.

LudicSavant

2024-04-24, 11:41 AM

Other classes aren't slouches in non-combat stuff. For example, take a Druid.

A Rogue might have taken Expertise in Perception. A Druid will often have a similar base bonus simply by virtue of Wisdom being their main stat, then can boost it further using their abilities. For example, you can wildshape into a bird and gain keen sight for +5, not to mention an eye in the sky viewpoint and a handy disguise. Or they can have their familiar do it, since they can get those now from Tasha's.

A Rogue might have Expertise in Stealth on top of a higher Dexterity, but a Druid can drop a Pass Without Trace to give everyone in the party +10 for an hour, enabling full-party stealth tactics.

A Rogue might take Expertise in Athletics, but a Druid can just circumvent most navigation challenges, and they have better battlefield control than any grappling a single-attack Rogue can muster.

And a Druid's subclass features are often no slouch in the non-combat features department. For example, Stars Druid gets Guidance, a Reliable-Talent-esque feature, and a 1d6 Reaction check amp that can be used Prof/day to boost not only your own skill checks, but anyone in the party's. Or their saves or attack rolls, too.

Amnestic

2024-04-24, 11:42 AM

JellyPooga

2024-04-24, 11:57 AM

I think @Blatant Beast has it right, talking about the rogue as a "selfish" class, something that also ties into the rather hilarious "lol pvp is totally fine and awesome and people who think me having my fun at their expense is bad are the real losers who just need to git gud" little tangent upthread; rogues have a bad reputation because they're, more than any other class, built around a set of mechanics and a thematic history that are kind of orthogonal to group play. Obviously they can be team players, because team play is a player choice, not a character choice - but if staying with the group, resting when they want to rest, and not taking their stuff means the class isn't playing to its potential or getting its time to shine, it's probably been accidentally designed for a different game.

I really can't disagree with this more. More than almost any other Class (the one exception that come to mind being the Bard), the Rogue is designed as a team player. The myth that they're a solo class is perhaps born from earlier editions or from the kind of players that gravitate toward the class due to false expectations, but in 5e they are a party's best friend. If nothing else, the Rogue wants a friend to generate Sneak Attack without needing Advantage. Further, they benefit more from off turn attacks, such as can be gained from Haste or Battlemaster Commander's Strike, due to that Sneak Attack (an OA/off-turn attack from a Rogue simply does more damage than from anyone else). Uncanny Dodge means the Rogue can take one hit per turn at lower cost than most others, which may be all that's needed to save someone on the backline. Evasion means they don't care about friendly fire from AoE. Cunning Action means the Rogue can do the things that others can't, like be where they need to be, when they need to be there. Expertise and Reliable Talent save resource based features like spell slots and their otherwise entirely resource-free chassis means that no-one, repeat no-one, is doing anything because the Rogue demands it, which is more than can be said of the Wizard when he's out of spells, the Warlock when he wants a quick nap or the Barbarian who isn't feeling angry enough to face the next encounter. All of this in on the surface, core chassis, basic Rogue function and absolutely makes them a team player, let alone their subclasses which do things like "Give everyone Advantage on everything. Forever. From a distance" or "Give the Big Bruiser disadvantage on attack rolls against everyone but me"...yeah, really selfish features like that :smallamused:

stoutstien

2024-04-24, 12:05 PM

Tendril

2024-04-24, 12:07 PM

That's an issue with lopsided effects certain feats have rather than an indication that the class itself is the problem.

What's the difference? Rogue doesn't interact well with most boosts to attacks (which also includes things like magic weapons, not just feats) and so they feel bad. Sure, this means the issue isn't just the design of the rogue, it's also the design of the systems around it... but if a class doesn't mesh well with the systems of the game then that is an issue. I'm not trying to prove a point about where the problem comes from, all I'm really saying is that rogue has a problem.

If you're using SS/GWM, then you've probably sacrificed an ASI to get it, so you'll have, what, 16 main stat, +3 PB, so a total of +1 to your actual attack bonus once the -5 is taken off?

Yeah, it's a big payoff if you hit. If.

+1 before the roll. But then you might add advantage from Reckless Attack. Or maybe you're using the Archery fighting style. Or someone is using Bless. Or Faerie Fire. Web. There's a lot of ways to make attacks better at hitting.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-24, 12:08 PM

I think @Blatant Beast has it right, talking about the rogue as a "selfish" class, something that also ties into the rather hilarious "lol pvp is totally fine and awesome and people who think me having my fun at their expense is bad are the real losers who just need to git gud" little tangent upthread; rogues have a bad reputation because they're, more than any other class, built around a set of mechanics and a thematic history that are kind of orthogonal to group play. Obviously they can be team players, because team play is a player choice, not a character choice - but if staying with the group, resting when they want to rest, and not taking their stuff means the class isn't playing to its potential or getting its time to shine, it's probably been accidentally designed for a different game.
The response to every skill is "The spellcaster can do it better than you, let them do it" and these same people are saying the rogue is the selfish class lol. Unbelievable. Meanwhile, the rogue is trying to find the critical clues and disarm the traps so the party can progress safely.

By the way... if you send the familiar forward to scout, you're putting the party in the same exact position as if the rogue were doing it. Except this time it's a wizard or druid so... now it's not a problem that everyone else is "twiddling their thumbs".

Other classes aren't slouches in non-combat stuff. For example, take a Druid.

A Rogue might have taken Expertise in Perception. A Druid will often have a similar base bonus simply by virtue of Wisdom being their main stat, then can boost it further using their abilities. For example, you can wildshape into a bird and gain keen sight for +5, not to mention an eye in the sky viewpoint and a handy disguise. Or they can have their familiar do it, since they can get those now from Tasha's.

A Rogue might have Expertise in Stealth on top of a higher Dexterity, but a Druid can drop a Pass Without Trace to give everyone in the party +10 for an hour, enabling full-party stealth tactics.

A Rogue might take Expertise in Athletics, but a Druid can just circumvent most navigation challenges, and they have better battlefield control than any grappling a single-attack Rogue can muster.

And a Druid's subclass features are often no slouch in the non-combat features department. For example, Stars Druid gets Guidance, a Reliable-Talent-esque feature, and a 1d6 Reaction check amp that can be used Prof/day to boost not only your own skill checks, but anyone in the party's. Or their saves or attack rolls, too.
So a Stars Druid is going to use both Wild Shapes for a familiar, and a +5 bonus to a Perception check. Very interesting use of resources there simply to 1-up the rogue.

This is what is called high optimization right?

Crusher

2024-04-24, 12:25 PM

. Asking if the Rogue can CC or heal? Well we'd better look at the options available that might actually do so rather than blinding ourselves to the possibilities.

In a recent campaign I've been playing a Thief Rogue and one of my favorite characters: Razor McStabbington, MD. Doctor and Ninja. He's a doctor who heaps scorn on clerics and paladins who outsource the work to some vague concept in the sky, "Oh, great Googly-Moogly, please heal this warrior's broken arm!" It frustrates him that this approach works, but doesn't change his attitude. Expertise in Medicine and Stealth, along with the Healer feat.

Despite the presence of a Paladin and Cleric he's at least arguably still the party's primary healer at level 7 because he can toss out 1d6+11 hp in healing as a bonus action (or do it twice/round!) at a cost of 5sp per heal. Sure, he can only do it once per character per short rest, but it really adds up. He's like the Warlock of healers and has been accused of being OP more than once.

LudicSavant

2024-04-24, 12:30 PM

This is what is called high optimization right?

No. This is the barest of basics.

So a Stars Druid is going to use both Wild Shapes for a familiar, and a +5 bonus to a Perception check. Very interesting use of resources there simply to 1-up the rogue.

:smallconfused: As a Wis-based class with Guidance, a Stars Druid can one-up a Rogue's Perception while using zero resources.

stoutstien

2024-04-24, 12:57 PM

What's the difference? Rogue doesn't interact well with most boosts to attacks (which also includes things like magic weapons, not just feats) and so they feel bad. Sure, this means the issue isn't just the design of the rogue, it's also the design of the systems around it... but if a class doesn't mesh well with the systems of the game then that is an issue. I'm not trying to prove a point about where the problem comes from, all I'm really saying is that rogue has a problem.

+1 before the roll. But then you might add advantage from Reckless Attack. Or maybe you're using the Archery fighting style. Or someone is using Bless. Or Faerie Fire. Web. There's a lot of ways to make attacks better at hitting.

Because feats where a scatter shot of options that were included without playtest. It was a lottery that could have as easily swung a different direction with minimal word changes.

It's important to identify issues where they are not where the symptoms manifest or you end up doing exactly what they always do with the solutions making it worse.

Theodoxus

2024-04-24, 01:05 PM

The more I think about skill systems in D&D and D&D-likes, the more I come to the conclusion that while the core idea isn't that bad, having a "skill class" certainly is. Even if your skills are developed enough to be useful in combat (mostly looking at PF2 here), your action economy doesn't support using more than 2 or 3, often with overlapping purposes with other skills.

I was thinking along these lines while walking this morning. I'm already going full bore on Ability Check proficiency as outlined in the 2014 DMG. The issue I'd been having is how to specialize in those cases where a character should have a specialized skill (or set). Where a Strength check is sufficient for your every day climb or jump check - roll a d20, add some modifier and get a result, it doesn't really capture the essence of someone who's an amazing climber.

So, my working solution (and by working, I mean currently back of the napkin math) is two fold. First, Ability Checks: Your proficiency in Saves mirrors your proficiency in checks. Yes, this means Rogues eventually get Wisdom Check proficiency, and Monks eventually get proficiency in all Ability Checks. This makes sense to me. It also means Resilient provides an additional benefit. Still fine. No, Aura of Protection does not provide a boon to Ability Checks.

All Ability Checks are base DC 16. 10 and less is failure. 11-15 is success with drawback. 16 to 20 is standard success. 21+ is critical success. Ability Checks are also for rather generic checks; Strength Checks to jump, climb, swim, push heavy things, etc. Int checks to know basic information, with the higher the roll granting additional information, and a success with drawback would be something like 2 truths and 1 lie. Wis checks would be perception and insight; Cha checks for persuasion and deceit. - I'm hoping to generate 3 basic checks for each attribute that aren't too esoteric. Constitution would probably overlap a bit with strength; using endurance for swimming against a current type things. Muscles help, but being able to tread for time is better. Other 'feats of endurance' might be running in a chase scene, withstanding being hugged to death (cute puppies, giant octopus, whatever), things like that.

Then you have Specializations, or Skills, or something named like that, and they're generally stuff you don't roll. If you're specialized in climbing, you can climb anything that would be below a DC 25 skill check without having to roll. If you're specialized in Arcane Lore, you know pretty much everything that isn't super specialized knowledge when it comes to the arcane. These specializations allow characters to really be 'the best' for their area of expertise. A Wizard with proficiency in Intelligence Checks has a decent chance to know if a mushroom is poisonous. A Druid with specialization in Nature just knows, unless that mushroom is someone's science experiment that has been done in the strictest super secret lab or something.

I'm currently thinking of just using the number of Skills provided in each classes description, but open the selection to any - since these specializations are less what a class is granting and more what the player wants their character to excel at.

Expertise will work a little differently, since they apply to Ability Checks. Each instance of Expertise would allow the PC to either double the PB for a specific Ability Check, or grant proficiency to another Ability. So, a Rogue, with Dex and Int, might choose to put one Expertise on Dex, granting a higher chance of success on their Ability Checks for Dexterity, and their second Expertise in Charisma, granting them the normal PB to Charisma Checks. This way, even if a 1st level Rogue picks Wisdom, they'll get their double PB bonus at 14th, so the attribute isn't 'wasted'.

I'd also love to bring back skill tricks for Rogues; I think Rogues should be force multipliers for the other members of the party. This would (hopefully) remove the desire for Rogues to be 'lone wolves' which works about as well as PVP in a co-op game, while simultaneously making an 'all rogue party' less of an incentive.
So, as a force multiplier, the new Cunning Strike is a great start, but I'd go farther, using Skill Tricks to open up tactical opportunities that other classes could exploit.

JellyPooga

2024-04-24, 01:31 PM

No, the game does not. The game expects rogues to have a +3 bonus with most of their skills (at the levels most commonly played at), and that doesn't break any paradigm.I think you undersell or don't realise how significant that additional +3 really is. A level 5 Rogue with Expertise and primary focus on the relevant Ability Score has +10 to their chosen skill, as compared to the +7 of a similarly focused character without it. That opens DC:30 as a possibility for that character. It will take characters without Expertise until level 13 to reach that same level of proficiency, but a level 5 Rogue can achieve it as a matter of routine, so long as time or risk are not at issue. Let me say that again; a level 5 Rogue can routinely accomplish the Near Impossible on any given task within the purview of their expertise. That is a massive shift in what is possible in the game for those characters. Yes, Guidance exists and offers a similar bonus, but it does also come with its own caveats; it's a spell, requires concentration, has verbal and somatic components and the caster must be in touch range of the character performing the task. Those are not insignificant. Without magical assistance, DC:30 remains not near, but actually impossible for most characters until they're well on the way to the highest tier of play. It requires magic or heroic tier competence to match what the Rogue is doing at 5th level. That's what Expertise is and how significant it's supposed to be; it's the ability to do things that most people don't even think can be done at all.

It's also why I don't think Reliable Talent comes on too late. Yes, it'd be nice to have it earlier but with Expertise, Rogues are already hitting just about every DC ever published. Do we really need to remove every skill check of DC:20 or lower from the game (again, bringing up +10 modifiers for a Rogue of lvl.5 or higher)? I think offering RT too early makes the same mistake that Natural Explorer does by removing checks rather than integrating them into a more interesting mechanic.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-24, 01:35 PM

Sindeloke

2024-04-24, 02:09 PM

By the way... if you send the familiar forward to scout, you're putting the party in the same exact position as if the rogue were doing it. Except this time it's a wizard or druid so... now it's not a problem that everyone else is "twiddling their thumbs".

"Sneaking across balance beams to disarm traps" is something quite a bit more than scouting. I've never seen a familiar disarm a long hallway of traps one by one and then carefully solve a puzzle door to prepare the area for when the party gets there, and that's the claim about why the rogue's scouting is special compared to literally anyone else who invests in Stealth and Perception. If the familiar goes ahead, or an arcane eye, or whatever, it looks at things and the DM describes what it sees. Takes exactly the same ten to ninety seconds that the description would have taken when the party got there.

If all the rogue is doing is just looking around, sure, that doesn't take much time from the party, but then he's not using his special multiple-expertise-on-one-character power and he could just be a monk with good Dex and Wis.

Or better yet, a party-friendly shadow monk, who can cast pass without trace and bring everyone.

Pooky the Imp

2024-04-24, 02:24 PM

My issue with all of this is the specialist vs the generalist.

And it's always the case that because a generalist CAN do something the specialist can do, it's asserted that the generalist can simply replace the specialist.

That's why I always ask... how many spell slots are you devoting to this through the course of an adventuring day? These are resources that can be used elsewhere.

Like the Stars Druid. Yes, you can use your Wild Shape for "Reliable Talent" on Int/Wis checks outside of combat. But then you're not getting that "Reliable Talent" on Concentration checks in combat, nor the other benefits of your Starry Form. Similarly, you can use Cosmic Omen to boost someone's ability check... but then you're not using it to buff someone's saving throws, or attack rolls, or debuff an enemy's saves/attacks.

This is all true.

However, it's also heavily dependant on how many times those things are actually coming up over the course of an adventuring day.

Casting a spell (or using another limited-use resource) in place of a skill check will obviously burn through resources quite quickly. On the other hand, using limited resources to guarantee success on especially important skill checks would seem perfectly reasonable.

Bear in mind that hit points are a limited resource, too. So if you rely on expertise but end up fluffing a key roll (because a d20 is still swingy) and end up taking damage as a result, you're still down a limited resource. It just happens to be a different kind of limited resource. :smalltongue:

It's like the do-it-all mage that can cast Silvery Barbs to impose Disadvantage, Shield to protect themselves from attacks, Absorb Elements to tank energy damage, Counterspell to ruin an enemy's plans, and also make a chunky Booming Blade opportunity attack.

Wow. So impressive. Except, you can only ever do one of those things. And instead of trying to "do everything", you could devote those spell slots to something else. Let the specialists specialize.

See, this is where our philosophies heavily diverge.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with having all of those. If anything, it sounds exceptionally useful.

Yes, you're not going to be doing all of them at the same time. But so what? The point is not to use all your spells all the time. The point is to have a utility belt of options that are there when you need them. Shield is there to protect you from either a single high-damage attack or a swarm of little ones. Absorb elements can protect you from a lot of damaging spells, AoEs and the like. Silvery Barbs can protect you or an ally from a single attack, whilst also adding Advantage as a bonus. And those three spells are all just Lv1, yet will remain useful throughout a mage's entire career.

Then you've got Counterspell, which is absolutely incredibly when you need it. It's not something you're going to be casting every round or even every fight. But when an enemy wizard throws out Synaptic Static, you (and your party) will be incredibly grateful to have it. :smallwink:

LudicSavant

2024-04-24, 02:34 PM

Sorcerer comes with a good skill amp these days too (on top of their full spellcasting and Subtle metamagic and such). Their new Magical Guidance feature lets you reroll skill checks after seeing the roll.

A proper face might have max Cha and Expertise and various rerolls and skill amps on top of that and utility spells and features that can help with various non-combat scenarios with or without rolls.

Bard gets just as much Expertise as a Rogue on top of full spellcasting and a bunch of other heavy utility features.

How about a non full caster? Well, the Tasha's version of the Ranger gets an extra free cast of a utility spell, ignore difficult terrain, a climb speed and swim speed (which I'd say is better than Expertise in Athletics as far as non-combat stuff goes), and they get Expertise in a skill of their choice (say, Perception), and they get to cast stuff like Pass Without Trace.

Or there's the Artificer, getting Expertise with all tool proficiencies, Flash of Genius to amp both their own or allies' checks , cantrips including Guidance, rituals, half-casting with a bunch of utility spells, and a bunch of infusions and magic items.

Witty Username

2024-04-24, 02:48 PM

If you're using SS/GWM, then you've probably sacrificed an ASI to get it, so you'll have, what, 16 main stat, +3 PB, so a total of +1 to your actual attack bonus once the -5 is taken off?

Yeah, it's a big payoff if you hit. If.
A thing to add to this because I have checked this math.*

We frequently compare rogue without feat investment to builds with GWM + PAM or the ranged equivalent.
But this leads to problems if we consider some fixes.

For example adding extra attack, this would make rogue go from one of the weaker options for damage at 5th level into the best - and having run those numbers it starts to beat out things like GWM/SS or PAM/XBE, notably without any feat investment.

And 5th would still be a low strength level for the rogue specificly.

*I can provide numbers when I have more time, if people are interested.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-24, 03:12 PM

"Sneaking across balance beams to disarm traps" isn't scouting. I've never seen a familiar disarm a long hallway of traps one by one and then carefully solve a puzzle door to prepare the area for when the party gets there, and that's the claim about why the rogue's scouting is so special compared to literally anyone else who invests in Stealth and Perception. If the familiar goes ahead, or an arcane eye, or whatever, it looks at things and the DM describes what it sees. Takes exactly the same ten to ninety seconds that the description would have taken when the party got there.
Oh, so the familiar isn't replacing the rogue's scouting ability.

This is all true.

However, it's also heavily dependant on how many times those things are actually coming up over the course of an adventuring day.

Casting a spell (or using another limited-use resource) in place of a skill check will obviously burn through resources quite quickly. On the other hand, using limited resources to guarantee success on especially important skill checks would seem perfectly reasonable.
I agree. I'm not saying a spell can't be used ever to solve an out of combat challenge. But that's a far cry from replacing everything a rogue can contribute. It depends on how many skill checks are called for in a day, and how many spell slots you have (and proper spell known/prepared).

Bear in mind that hit points are a limited resource, too. So if you rely on expertise but end up fluffing a key roll (because a d20 is still swingy) and end up taking damage as a result, you're still down a limited resource. It just happens to be a different kind of limited resource. :smalltongue:
Yeah, but I'm not sure the "blunder our way through the world tapping the spell button when we need it" is much better in this regard, especially if you're using combat features for out of combat uses. You may be saving HP out of combat, and spending it in combat.

See, this is where our philosophies heavily diverge.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with having all of those. If anything, it sounds exceptionally useful.

Yes, you're not going to be doing all of them at the same time. But so what? The point is not to use all your spells all the time. The point is to have a utility belt of options that are there when you need them. Shield is there to protect you from either a single high-damage attack or a swarm of little ones. Absorb elements can protect you from a lot of damaging spells, AoEs and the like. Silvery Barbs can protect you or an ally from a single attack, whilst also adding Advantage as a bonus. And those three spells are all just Lv1, yet will remain useful throughout a mage's entire career.

Then you've got Counterspell, which is absolutely incredibly when you need it. It's not something you're going to be casting every round or even every fight. But when an enemy wizard throws out Synaptic Static, you (and your party) will be incredibly grateful to have it. :smallwink:
I value flexibility too. But there is a cost associated with it, as with most things.

There is value in consistency and specialization as well. If you're frontlining for the party, and relying on the threat of your OA to keep the enemy from moving, but also need Shield to protect your AC, then you're not Counterspelling or using Silvery Barbs. But, like in my current party, maybe you're the only one that can counterspell, because the other three players are a fighter, monk, and ranger. So maybe you should focus on the unique things you can provide to the party, instead of spreading yourself thin trying to do all the things. If you have these amazing combat spells that impose battlefield control and debilitating conditions, why spend those slots/spells known overshadowing another member of the party with redundancy? You have something powerful and unique that you bring to the table, focus on that.

A thing to add to this because I have checked this math.*

We frequently compare rogue without feat investment to builds with GWM + PAM or the ranged equivalent.
Do we? I thought the original comparison gave the rogue Sharpshooter.

Sindeloke

2024-04-24, 03:34 PM

Huh. The idea of things within your skill set just working certainly helps to resolve the "skills beg for permission, spells simply happen" dichotomy.

It does kind of exacerbate the difference between the skilled and unskilled on both ends, though. I definitely like any idea that makes people who are supposed to be good at a skill, actually good, but I also have a lot of respect for the design goal that anyone in the party, with or without proficiency, should feel like it's worth rolling to try something in most cases. Under the current system, in theory, you'll see checks between 5-10 that give the barbarian a good shot at passing a religion check or give the wizard reason to feel unsteady but not hilariously clumsy on a rocking boat. Not being able to set anything below 10 means you have to either say the rocking boat isn't a problem for anyone, or that the wizard is going to be on his butt for twice as many rounds as he would have otherwise.

So, as a force multiplier, the new Cunning Strike is a great start, but I'd go farther, using Skill Tricks to open up tactical opportunities that other classes could exploit.

There's, of course, a whole other conversation here, about how tactical the game actually allows you to be, given rules (or lack thereof) around weapon reach, elevation, movement, status effects, etc. But yeah things like trips, granting attacks, debuffing enemies, and the like are definitely a good area of potential development. Use that bonus action to throw a haste potion at a buddy, or stab someone with a blade coated in an elemental spider venom that causes cold vulnerability.

Oh, so the familiar [I]isn't replacing the rogue's scouting ability.

You can't have it both ways, unfortunately. Either the rogue is doing a bunch of checks and disarming and extra stuff that the familiar isn't doing, and therefore taking up more time and making the party sit on their thumbs doing nothing, or the rogue is doing exactly what the familiar is doing, and therefore isn't bringing anything unique or impressive to the table.

Psyren

2024-04-24, 03:46 PM

Kane0

2024-04-24, 03:55 PM

Cunning Strike
When you damage a creature with a Sneak Attack on your turn, choose one of the following:
- You gain advantage on your next attack roll against that creature until the end of your next turn
- That creature suffers disadvantage on the next attack it makes until the end of your next turn

Devious Strike
When you damage a creature with a Sneak Attack on your turn, choose one of the following:
- That creature must make a Constitution saving throw or be Weakened until the start of your next turn
- That creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or be Dazed until the start of your next turn

Insidious Strike
When you damage a creature with a Sneak Attack on your turn, choose one of the following:
- You can apply both options of your Cunning Strike feature
- That creature suffers disadvantage on the saving throw of your Devious Strike feature

LudicSavant

2024-04-24, 04:23 PM

Lacking slots doesn't exempt one from attrition -- in fact, a lot of the resourceless characters do poorly at endurance challenges (e.g.if you replace your party's Rune Knight with a Champion, you usually go fewer encounters before the party needs to rest or fail, rather than more. Same goes for replacing your Arcane Trickster or Soulknife with a Mastermind or something).

This is because the primary cause of attrition isn't using up ability slots, it's overcoming obstacles. Even a 'resourceless' character is spending check opportunities, action economy, hit points, or time.

Witty Username

2024-04-24, 04:50 PM

Do we? I thought the original comparison gave the rogue Sharpshooter.

The original comparison was rogue, dex 20 with shortbow.
Vs barbarian with rage up and GWM.

Skrum did mention sharpshooter reduces rogue's DPR, which is probably true. Similar mechanics are in play for paladin and GWM, since such feats get worse the more valuable ones individual attacks are.

But my note there is I would use other options.
Off the top of my head, things like piercer, booming blade, elven accuracy etc.

Skrum

2024-04-24, 07:28 PM

The original comparison was rogue, dex 20 with shortbow.
Vs barbarian with rage up and GWM.

Skrum did mention sharpshooter reduces rogue's DPR, which is probably true. Similar mechanics are in play for paladin and GWM, since such feats get worse the more valuable ones individual attacks are.

But my note there is I would use other options.
Off the top of my head, things like piercer, booming blade, elven accuracy etc.

8th level Rogue w/ a +1 shortbow, 20 dex, and elven accuracy against AC 17
w/o adv: 16.15
w/ adv: 24.99

8th level Barb w/ a +1 greatsword, 18 str, and GWM against AC 17
w/o adv (I don't love adding this because barb can get adv far more freely than the rogue can, but just for comparison's sake)
w/ GWM: 17.5
w/o GWM: 17.5 (yeah, it's the same. Kinda funny)

w/ adv
w/ GWM: 29.09
w/o GWM: 24.89

--------

Barb with adv matches rogue with elven accuracy. Barb with adv and using GWM beats rogue

I will note, rogue isn't noncompetitive. In play, my guess is it basically feels equal. Rogue having range is going to be able to attack each turn a little easier, while barb will occasionally spend their turn moving.

The part that is going to feel the most imbalanced between the two is when the barb hits twice. Especially if they're using GWM, that's gonna be FAR more damage than the rogue could possible do outside of a very strong crit.

Dork_Forge

2024-04-24, 09:07 PM

Barb with adv matches rogue with elven accuracy. Barb with adv and using GWM beats rogue

I will note, rogue isn't noncompetitive. In play, my guess is it basically feels equal. Rogue having range is going to be able to attack each turn a little easier, while barb will occasionally spend their turn moving.

The part that is going to feel the most imbalanced between the two is when the barb hits twice. Especially if they're using GWM, that's gonna be FAR more damage than the rogue could possible do outside of a very strong crit.

In terms of looking outside of DPR numbers (which can be really detached from the reality of actually playing the game), the Barbarian is taking on a lot more risk to get their advantage (assuming Reckless) and the Barbarian is going to miss more. A lot more.

A GWM Barbarian is going to miss around 25% more than the Rogue not taking that accuracy hit. Just because the +10 pumps the average numbers higher doesn't make that any harder of a pill to swallow when the Barbarian keeps missing because the dice aren't in their favour, or heck, because they are experiencing the average result, which is them missing.

But in terms of the existing comparison piece I tried out that RPG bot calculator, it's pretty nice, for reference though I through this at it instead:

Rogue (level 8), TWF (w/Style) and two +1 Scimitars:

w/o adv. 27.19
w/adv 35.87

So simply going TWF with the style, which you can grab with V.Human or CLineage easily and still max 20 at 8th, pretty much blows the GWM Barbarian out of the water considering the reliability of the damage. (honestly, I was surprised by that)

Or we can do something else, like just play a Soulknife:

w/o adv. 23.80
w/adv. 32.29

Or what if we play a Soulknife with Thrown Weapon style or Dueling?

w/o adv. 26.20
w/adv. 35.65

Or since the Barbarian is going at it with a LR resource invested, let's try an AT with a Shadow Blade and Booming Blade (and note, they have a much easier time getting advantage between the familiar and SB conditions):

w/o adv. 20.88
w/adv. 29.98
w/adv. and EA 34.34

Now, it's my first time using that calculator and there's a lot of back-and-forth changing but I don't think I made any errors, or at least no egregious ones.

So the numbers from the tool you like to use suggest that a Rogue can match or even beat out that Raging, +1 weapon, GWM Barbarian comparison point if they're actually somewhat optimized for damage. Of course, you can make the Barbarian hit harder with some more optimization, but I think the point that the Rogue can hang in damage with a damage-orientated Barbarian should have been made.

Witty Username

2024-04-24, 09:24 PM

8th level Rogue w/ a +1 shortbow, 20 dex, and elven accuracy against AC 17
w/o adv: 16.15
w/ adv: 24.99

8th level Barb w/ a +1 greatsword, 18 str, and GWM against AC 17
w/o adv (I don't love adding this because barb can get adv far more freely than the rogue can, but just for comparison's sake)
w/ GWM: 17.5
w/o GWM: 17.5 (yeah, it's the same. Kinda funny)

w/ adv
w/ GWM: 29.09
w/o GWM: 24.89

--------

Barb with adv matches rogue with elven accuracy. Barb with adv and using GWM beats rogue

I will note, rogue isn't noncompetitive. In play, my guess is it basically feels equal. Rogue having range is going to be able to attack each turn a little easier, while barb will occasionally spend their turn moving.

The part that is going to feel the most imbalanced between the two is when the barb hits twice. Especially if they're using GWM, that's gonna be FAR more damage than the rogue could possible do outside of a very strong crit.

If I may swap out +1 shortbow, for +1 rapier which allows the application of booming blade:
Advantage
W/o = 25.85
W/adv = 35.583
W/elvish = 39.65 *as we get to latter, this is actually higher than the non-crit average, crits are starting to actually matter statistically

The straight average is only 37 to the barbs 44 so you may be right that the barbarian will feel pretty good about hitting twice, but my quick math is that will only be about a third of the time, even with advantage

More to my earlier point though,

For the rogue with the shortbow, let's just add extra attack like is sometimes recommended
so we have 1d6 + 5, 1d6 + 5 and 4d6 sneak attack dice,

advantage:
W/o 23.67
W/ 31.19*

I dropped it being a +1 weapon for this math, and as it turns out, we are beating those barbarian with GWM numbers in both categories, no feats or special options, just extra attack and sneak attack with a shortbow. This is what I mean when I say that adding extra attack may be too much, It makes featless no multiclass rogue beat out optimized builds, potentially opens up those optimized builds for rogue on top of that, and has a number of other potential knock on effects with things rogue is already capable of.

*this may be a little high, when calculating for crit sneak attack is frustrating as hell since technically the first hit not critting reduces the chances of the next hit critting with sneak attack, so it is not quite the same as advantage numbers, so this may be slightly high by a point

Edit @Dork_Forge for some Yes, and
For the Two-weapon fighting example, you don't even need the fighting style for a chunk of that, the bonus action attack is a bit lackluster on its own, but a lot of the benefit is for sneak attack with increased consistency.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-24, 10:03 PM

In terms of looking outside of DPR numbers (which can be really detached from the reality of actually playing the game), the Barbarian is taking on a lot more risk to get their advantage (assuming Reckless) and the Barbarian is going to miss more. A lot more.

A GWM Barbarian is going to miss around 25% more than the Rogue not taking that accuracy hit. Just because the +10 pumps the average numbers higher doesn't make that any harder of a pill to swallow when the Barbarian keeps missing because the dice aren't in their favour, or heck, because they are experiencing the average result, which is them missing.

But in terms of the existing comparison piece I tried out that RPG bot calculator, it's pretty nice, for reference though I through this at it instead:

Rogue (level 8), TWF (w/Style) and two +1 Scimitars:

w/o adv. 27.19
w/adv 35.87

So simply going TWF with the style, which you can grab with V.Human or CLineage easily and still max 20 at 8th, pretty much blows the GWM Barbarian out of the water considering the reliability of the damage. (honestly, I was surprised by that)

Or we can do something else, like just play a Soulknife:

w/o adv. 23.80
w/adv. 32.29

Or what if we play a Soulknife with Thrown Weapon style or Dueling?

w/o adv. 26.20
w/adv. 35.65

Or since the Barbarian is going at it with a LR resource invested, let's try an AT with a Shadow Blade and Booming Blade (and note, they have a much easier time getting advantage between the familiar and SB conditions):

w/o adv. 20.88
w/adv. 29.98
w/adv. and EA 34.34

Now, it's my first time using that calculator and there's a lot of back-and-forth changing but I don't think I made any errors, or at least no egregious ones.

So the numbers from the tool you like to use suggest that a Rogue can match or even beat out that Raging, +1 weapon, GWM Barbarian comparison point if they're actually somewhat optimized for damage. Of course, you can make the Barbarian hit harder with some more optimization, but I think the point that the Rogue can hang in damage with a damage-orientated Barbarian should have been made.
A couple of points, and I admit that I may not be using the calculator correctly.

But firstly, you say the barbarian is missing, despite the fact that with Advantage (which they can muster, at-will) they have a 60% hit chance, and a 10% crit chance. This is the same as virtually everyone else, unless you assume they have Advantage. Except...

How is the TWF Rogue getting Advantage for this comparison? They are using their Bonus Action to attack, so they're not using Cunning Action to Hide, and they're not using Steady Aim (which would only work on one attack anyway). So what's the justification for assuming Advantage? They don't have Extra Attack to shove Prone first and then TWF. So what is the assumption here?

Thirdly, if I plug in a minimum to hit of 12 (8 base, +5 GWM, -1 weapon), with 1d12+16 for damage (assuming variant human as you did, and 20 Strength), I get a DPR of 32.66. That's with Reckless Attack, but not assuming Rage. So this is like minimum GWM barbarian. This will go up with Rage, with Zealot, with Giants, with crits/kills and GWM, with Berserker/Battlerager, with another magic item since the rogue has two magic weapons, etc.

Witty Username

2024-04-24, 10:39 PM

But firstly, you say the barbarian is missing, despite the fact that with Advantage (which they can muster, at-will) they have a 60% hit chance, and a 10% crit chance. This is the same as virtually everyone else, unless you assume they have Advantage. Except...

In comparison to a rogue's accuracy, which if we are talking specifically sneak attack is 84& by traditional reckoning (60% accuracy with advantage, but in this case advantage because it only needs one of two attacks to land rather than true advantage)

Frankly, advantage on the second attack probably doesn't matter that much, since the prime goal of rogue attack lines is to land sneak attack. hide for the bonus action or go for the third bite if you you outright missed. and advantage has some pretty significant diminishing returns when it gets excessive. Triple advantage vs 4 * advantage at 60% is 94% vs 97& in terms of accuracy.

Dork_Forge

2024-04-24, 10:41 PM

Edit @Dork_Forge
For the Two-weapon fighting example, you don't even need the fighting style for a chunk of that, the bonus action attack is a bit lackluster on its own, but a lot of the benefit is for sneak attack with increased consistency.

Yeah, I know that a lot of TWF for Rogues is the SA consistency, but I personally like making the attack as worthwhile as possible. Afterall, it was a damage comparison and every little helps given it's a relatively small investment for a decent damage bump throughout the life of the character.

A couple of points, and I admit that I may not be using the calculator correctly.

But firstly, you say the barbarian is missing, despite the fact that with Advantage (which they can muster, at-will) they have a 60% hit chance, and a 10% crit chance. This is the same as virtually everyone else, unless you assume they have Advantage. Except...

The them missing thing wasn't about the calculator, I didn't do anything with the Barbarian I just compared to Skrum's, it was more about the reality.

They have a -6 compared to the Rogue's to-hit, without advantage they will hit a lot less. With advantage, given it's worth roughly +5, they'll still hit less especially since adv. isn't actually a real bonus and just a second chance.

I don't believe any sane Barbarian is going to Reckless all the time, unless they really want to be a heal-burden or roll up a new character, but the mix of GWM and a lower Str score is significant.

How is the TWF Rogue getting Advantage for this comparison? They are using their Bonus Action to attack, so they're not using Cunning Action to Hide, and they're not using Steady Aim (which would only work on one attack anyway). So what's the justification for assuming Advantage? They don't have Extra Attack to shove Prone first and then TWF. So what is the assumption here?

There is no assumption, I just provided the with and without advantage numbers for all of them for completeness. A TWF Rogue is generally going to have adv. less and rely on ally-given sources more, that's a given.

Thirdly, if I plug in a minimum to hit of 12 (8 base, +5 GWM, -1 weapon), with 1d12+16 for damage (assuming variant human as you did, and 20 Strength), I get a DPR of 32.66. That's with Reckless Attack, but not assuming Rage. So this is like minimum GWM barbarian. This will go up with Rage, with Zealot, with Giants, with crits/kills and GWM, with Berserker/Battlerager, with another magic item since the rogue has two magic weapons, etc.

I'm going to guess by to hit you meant a minimum of 12 on the die rather than the to-hit bonus? On an AC17 target isn't that 13 not 12?

Regardless, I'm not really getting the point of this part. My point was never that the Barbarian sucks, or the Rogue always does more damage, I even pointed out the Barbarian could be optimized for higher damage (as you have done here).

My point was that even with the, imo egregious, baseline comparison given (+4 Str, +1 item, GWM) the Rogue can still compete on damage with very simple and minor/obvious optimization. That's it. It's a thread basically dumping on and defending the Rogue, I was just defending the Rogue, not dumping on the Barbarian.

As an aside for the whole give the Barbarian another item thing, I really didn't think that mattered tbh since it was an uncommon item at 8th and for item parity the Barbarian could just have a cloak of protection or something. There really isn't all that much swinging around in worn damage boosts at uncommon, or I think generally actually.

Skrum

2024-04-24, 10:45 PM

Dork_Forge

2024-04-24, 11:13 PM

Yeah I don't see how TWF makes all that much of a difference. I'm giving the rogue adv because of steady shot (and rather generously too, since they can't move when they use it, and if an enemy gets in their grill they either have to switch to melee or at best attack at neutral).

And if the option is two attacks w/o adv or 1 attack with elven accuracy...well TWF is two chances to hit, and elven accuracy is "three." Steady shot w/ elven accuracy is more likely to get that hit and trigger sneak attack.

I'm not really sure what the issue is here, given the numbers were provided with your own calculator. But TWF is just straight up more actual damage, not just increasing the chance of the 4d6 (avg. 14) Sneak Attack, it's adding its own 1d6+5/6 (avg. 8.5/9.5). TWF is one of the top-shelf damage options for a martial in Tier 1 and getting a second attack is always going to be nice.

But it was also just one of several options I provided.

Also, what damage is being added with booming blade? Because starting at level 5, it adds 1d8 on hit. Assuming the enemy is going to move to trigger the second effect is extremely presumptive. Likely, they're either 1) already in melee and don't need to move, or 2) are ranged enemies who won't move unless they absolutely have to. IME, it is not common to get that secondary damage.

I didn't factor in rider damage at all. I just added the 1d8 attack rider to the 2d8 Shadow Blade. Realistically in some situations the damage will be higher if the rider is triggered or if you use Green-flame Blade and hit a second target.

TL:DR the secondary damage was entirely omitted from the numbers, but would realistically come up sometimes now you've brought it up.

Like, I get it, you guys want to defend rogue and show how good they can be. But you're making extraordinarily favorable assumptions, and the barb doesn't even have a subclass. Shadow blade is a 2nd level spell, which 8th level rogues get 2 of, and it's concentration, and they don't even get Constitution prof. An 8th level barb by comparison has 4 rages.

No favourable assumptions made, and the Barbarian is only missing a subclass because you didn't provide one in the comparison point, but most(?) of them aren't reliably adding anything of note to the damage anyway, and stuff like Zealot complicates using GWM since it increases the value of the base attack.

For the whole Shadow Blade thing, yep an AT can pull that off twice a day, but realistically speaking dropping a d8 and using a rapier for the other encounters is probably going to do just fine. Most tables shouldn't be throwing so many difficult combats at the party in a single day that the AT needs to resort to Shadow Blade more than twice. For maintaining concentration, Uncanny Dodge is great for that, though if it drops it drops.

Same with the Barbarian, they have 4 Rages, that may not be enough to Rage in every combat, but realistically they shouldn't need to Rage in every single encounter at this level.

Listen, I've played with rogues. They can dish, if given some space to work. That's not the core of my criticism.

Then what is the core of your criticism, given all the Barbarian GWM comparisons I thought it was the Rogue's damage lacking?

Witty Username

2024-04-24, 11:29 PM

I didn't factor in rider damage at all. I just added the 1d8 attack rider to the 2d8 Shadow Blade. Realistically in some situations the damage will be higher if the rider is triggered or if you use Green-flame Blade and hit a second target.

I did for mine, and I personally don't see much issue with it. That being said, my parties tend to be pretty significantly ranged. Quick smack, fall back feels pretty natural.
Heck, the barbarian stint that I played uses a halberd for that little extrar range (and halberds are my favorite weapon).

My overall point is shortbow is not the end of rogue options. And we should keep what we have in mind, before throwing a bunch of nonsense at problem.

Like doubling sneak attack dice would solve the damage issue, but I expect that would at least be mildly excessive.

Skrum

2024-04-24, 11:40 PM

Then what is the core of your criticism, given all the Barbarian GWM comparisons I thought it was the Rogue's damage lacking?

Under ideal conditions, rogues can do solid damage. Basically, if they're able to maintain distance and consistently hide or use steady aim, their damage racks up quickly. But it tends to be conditionally fragile - Darkness? Fog Cloud? Invisible enemy? Damage drops to nearly negligible. The barb can always not use GWM and still be attacking at net neutral in those cases.

Or if they're not given space - same deal. Fast enemies that a rogue can't stay away from, and they start having to make some very punishing choices in terms of their output. Swashbuckler can handle this the best, but that's just one subclass, and they don't have better defense than any other rogue so that kind of enemy still chews them up.

But even in the best of cases, rogue has no presence. To a quite high degree they rely on other members of the party keeping enemies off them so they can do their steady aim, hide, whathaveyou. And despite needing to jump through those hopes...rogue damage is at best competitive with straightforward melee builds. Basically, the melee guy is doing two jobs - being the distraction, and doing damage. The rogue is doing one thing, damage, but needing a distraction.

In my mind, if rogue is going to be a situational threat like that, they should be doing good damage. Like, burst damage, which is rewarded in the game WAY more than steady output.

Schwann145

2024-04-25, 03:35 AM

In the last game I played the party got into a fight with a large amount of skeletons of various types. My barbarian got a decent initiative roll, raged, and ran into the middle. The skeletons mobbed him, and he took a TON of damage. By combat's end, he had taken 184 damage (before resistances). But he was still standing, and more importantly, because he was in the middle of the field being threatening and easy to attack, the other party members could do their thing.

That's what I mean by tank. No it's not sticky-tanking in the MMORPG sense, it's "can you wade into the direct line of fire and absorb a ton of attacks/damage." Rogue can take a hit, thanks to uncanny dodge. But that's about bailing themselves out, it's not suitable for actual tanking.

Sorry, I know this is a couple pages back (I'm just getting caught up), but this jumped out at me a bit for a couple reasons:
•Would the Barbarian in question have survived without the DR from Rage? If not, that means no one else would have either, regardless of their "tanking" capability (such as a Fighter or Paladin or such).
•Everyone always seems to forget that part of Cunning Action is the ability to bonus action Dodge. I'd think a Moderately Armored Rogue who can Dodge every round without giving up their offense is in a better tanking position than their more traditional tanking contemporaries. :smallwink:

Edit: Well... dang. One day I'll learn not to post in the middle of the night while tired. Not today though. :smalltongue: Thanks for the catch, Kane0.

Kane0

2024-04-25, 04:02 AM

•Everyone always seems to forget that part of Cunning Action is the ability to bonus action Dodge.

You're thinking of Patient Defense on the Monk. Cunning Action is Dash, Disengage or Hide.

Skrum

2024-04-25, 08:09 AM

Sorry, I know this is a couple pages back (I'm just getting caught up), but this jumped out at me a bit for a couple reasons:
•Would the Barbarian in question have survived without the DR from Rage? If not, that means no one else would have either, regardless of their "tanking" capability (such as a Fighter or Paladin or such).
•Everyone always seems to forget that part of Cunning Action is the ability to bonus action Dodge. I'd think a Moderately Armored Rogue who can Dodge every round without giving up their offense is in a better tanking position than their more traditional tanking contemporaries. :smallwink:

Edit: Well... dang. One day I'll learn not to post in the middle of the night while tired. Not today though. :smalltongue: Thanks for the catch, Kane0.

Yes, it was due to his damage resistance; actual damage taken was 92. But - he's a barb with 17 AC. Because his AC was only 17, he took A LOT of hits that, say, 23 AC would've deflected.

I obviously don't have a list of all of the attacks that hit him and can't say for sure what the minimum AC would be to reduce the raw damage from 184 to something a 10th level fighter or paladin could survive. But to your point, that particular situation was pretty barb-specific. Like, I'm quite certain that a more pedestrian 20ish AC would still have led to 100+ damage, and it would take pretty special AC to AC-tank their way through that.

I'm not saying "rogue isn't as tough as barbarian, there for rogue sucks." My point was that tanking isn't about being able to mitigate errant hits. To sell me on rogue being able to tank, they'd need to be able to survive some level of focused fire, multiple attacks for at least a few rounds against notable threats. I think it plainly obvious that rogue can't do that.

Hael

2024-04-25, 08:44 AM

The highest damage rogue I could make at lvl 8 against AC17 was an EA arcane trickster Rogue (max stat) using shadowblade and booming blade (I assume 50% of the rider damage). That gives me 39.16 dpr (w advantage, which between shadowblade and ba should be relatively common). Without shadowblade and using booming blade, I get 34.8dpr with advantage (just booming blade and a +1 rapier) and 22 dpr without advantage (so no steady aim). Rogue gets 2 shadowblades per day.

The highest damage barbarian I could make at lvl 8 was a custom lineage Zealot PAM/GWM/ barbarian (18 str) with a +1 polearm (by assumption from above). While raging, the Zealot hits for 46.4 dpr (reckless) or 29.17 (non reckless). Without Rage it hits for 27.2 (no adv) and 42.9(adv). Barbarian gets 4 rages a day.

So this is actually decently close (order 10%), except that the Barbarian gets more (eg double) resources to hit his peaks. Note that assuming steady aim and reckless is usually a bit of a bad assumption in practice. At high op levels both will get you killed very fast.

Feel free to check my math (I used Ludics calculator). (edit: removed EA for barbarian, but messed up the -5/+10.. edited for correctness).

Skrum

2024-04-25, 09:11 AM

PAM/GWM/EA barbarian (18 str) with a +1 polearm (by assumption from above). While raging, the Zealot hits for 43.1 dpr (reckless) or 28.8 (non reckless). Without Rage it hits for 25.2 (no adv) and 37.5 (adv). Barbarian gets 4 rages a day.

Barb can't make use of elven accuracy (I assume that's what EA is); that requires dex or mental stat-attack rolls, and barb of course needs to use str.

So this is actually decently close (order 10%), except that the Barbarian gets more (eg double) resources to hit his peaks. Note that assuming steady aim and reckless is usually a bit of a bad assumption in practice. At high op levels both will get you killed very fast.

Agreed; constantly using reckless is quite reckless

That said - I will die on the hill that barb is going to get to use reckless way more than the rogue will get to use steady aim. A rogue not moving for a round often simply not possible, especially if they favor ranged weapons. If someone is adjacent to them, they're looking at using Steady Aim just to offset disadvantage. Shadow Blade is nice in that it can seamlessly switch from ranged to melee, but still, a rogue is often constrained in Steady Aim use beyond their own risk tolerance.

Barb on the other hand has built in mitigation for using Reckless. That doesn't mean they can Reckless with abandon, it still has to be use smartly, but barb more than any other class is built to take hits. Steady Aim is at direct cross-purposes to everything else a rogue does.

Blatant Beast

2024-04-25, 09:38 AM

Already covered this; 1 feat gets you one expertise, compared to rogue who gets 4 of them for 0 feats.

The answer "4 is greater than one" is a bit jejune. The Expertise Ability is clearly subject to marginal utility. A Rogue's fourth selection of Expertise, is generally not worth as much as their prior picks, because those prior Expertise picks were spent on addressing needs and wants, and the fourth Expertise pick is probably just going wherever.

The fact that the 5e skills themselves have differing inherent utility also further exacerbates the marginal utility issue above. Expertise in Performance is just not as generally applicable as Expertise in Perception, for example.

A Rune Knight fighter, that wants to be the King of Grapplers, does not need 4 options for Expertise, they just need Expertise in Athletics. The fact that the Skill Expert Feat also grants a +1 to an ability score, makes the opportunity cost very low, (especially for a VHuman fighter, whom is receiving extra feats from both race and class).

A Circle of the Moon Druid, that has Expertise in Athletics, has garnered a huge boost to their Wildshaped Grappling ability.

Ludic, in a prior post, mentions that a Rogue's Expertise, often is either enabling "win more" dice rolls, ("Hey look, my stealth check was a 37 against the DC 10"), or just maintaining a level of parity in terms of performance, (a 10 wisdom Rogue with Expertise in Perception, is performing at around the same level as a 20 Wisdom Cleric with proficiency in Perception, before Reliable Talent). I also find this observation to be true.

We also have design artifacts in the system that throw skill usage off, even when dealing with Expertise and the Reliable Talent abilities. The Reliable Talent ability does not help with Passive Checks, only active checks. A Rogue that wishes to be the most perceptive person in the world, still needs to take the Observant Feat, to increase their Passive Perception.

If your Rogue with Expertise in Stealth is trying to streak across the court during a NBA game, or across the stage during a Taylor Swift concert, that rogue is going to be spotted, as they are visible.

A Rogue, trying to cross a bridge made of webbing, stealthily, likewise runs into the limitations of Expertise: it does not matter that the Rogue's Stealth check was an astronomically high number, a Giant Spider's Websense still defeats a Stealth Ability Check of 42.

At some point, even the Stealthiest Rogue, needs magic, to succeed....that is the system as designed.

I would argue, it should not be this way. An Ability check of 31 is the highest result a PC without Expertise can achieve when they have proficiency in a skill and a +5 ability score modifier. A roll higher than 31 either requires preternatural skill or magic.

A Rogue's Expertise, should have built into it's description, degrees of success for super high rolls.

To go back to the example of a Rogue trying to Stealthily cross a bridge made of webs; a Rogue whom rolls a Stealth Ability Check greater than 31, should be able to defeat Web Sense, for example. At the extremes, an ability roll over 31, is showing that extreme skill, is like magic itself, and should be able to do things that normally would be impossible.

Without, something like this, Expertise at high levels, often is just "win more", which is not particularly useful.

Hael

2024-04-25, 10:04 AM

Barb can't make use of elven accuracy (I assume that's what EA is); that requires dex or mental stat-attack rolls, and barb of course needs to use str.

Yep sorry you are right, I caught that too (as well as another mistake with -5/10) and edited my post. The last time I played a rogue and ran these sorts of numbers was pre Tashas, and before rogues got steady aim, which actually makes a huge difference to their overall dpr.

Still if people want a sort of integrated dpr, you would look at something like a six encounter day. With 2 shadowblades a day a Rogue would get something like (1/3) *(39.1) + (2/3) * (34.8) = 36.2 assuming steady aim .. and the barbarian with 4 rages would get something like (2/3) * (46.4) + (1/3) *(42.9) ~ 45.2. assuming reckless attack.

Without advantage the Rogue would have (1/3)*(24) + (2/3) * (22.45) ~ 23 dpr and the Barbarian would have (2/3) *(29.2) + (1/3) * (27.2) ~ 28.5 dpr.

JellyPooga

2024-04-25, 10:22 AM

At some point, even the Stealthiest Rogue, needs magic, to succeed....that is the system as designed.

Is it though? I ask genuinely rather than rhetorically. I mean, going back to my previous point regarding who can or can't hit those high DCs, it does require magic to achieve a DC of 30 before level 13 and even then it's a ritual that takes 10 times as long as the task would normally to do it with any certainty. With Expertise, it still takes 10 times as long, but without the magic and at the low, low level of 5.

To misquote "any sufficiently advanced technique appears as magic to the uninitiated". A level 5 character with Expertise is arguably pulling off what at least appear to be magical effects in their "near impossible" results. This isn't some houserule; it's just extrapolation from the rules at hand. Quite what extent that reaches in actual play is indeed GM dependent, but that such results should appear to achieve what any layman would consider actually impossible is without question. Once a Rogue hits level 11, those feats of "near magic" should become commonplace activity.

The rules are not a straight jacket and those that are written open to interpretation shoukd be interpreted accordingly.

Skrum

2024-04-25, 10:28 AM

Still if people want a sort of integrated dpr, you would look at something like a six encounter day. With 2 shadowblades a day a Rogue would get something like (1/3) *(39.1) + (2/3) * (34.8) = 36.2 assuming steady aim .. and the barbarian with 4 rages would get something like (2/3) * (46.4) + (1/3) *(42.9) ~ 45.2. assuming reckless attack.

Without advantage the Rogue would have (1/3)*(24) + (2/3) * (22.45) ~ 23 dpr and the Barbarian would have (2/3) *(29.2) + (1/3) * (27.2) ~ 28.5 dpr.

That feels about right to me TBH. Rogues do more damage than I probably give them credit for, but GWM barbs are hard to compete with when it comes to round over round damage in that level range*

But, even when I made the DPS comparison 4 pages ago, my point wasn't that rogues do bad damage - they're in the ballpark of other martial characters. Little lower, but in the ballpark. My point was that IMO, those other martial characters that are doing slightly better damage bring more value to the party by dint of also being tough and/or armored and thus being a battlefield presence. Rogue, as noted, is a "selfish" class (while also relying on others to give them space to work!)

If rogue as doing 15% more damage than barb, like that'd be a better place for them; they're the glass cannon martial striker.
If rogue was doing the same damage but had a series of notable damage mitigation abilities, that's a better place for them.
If rogue was doing the same damage but also was doing some cool CC stuff, that'd be a great place for them.

*I also want to point that rogue's and barb's type of steady damage is not where the meta of the game is. A paladin or gloom stalker ranger will do less damage over 10 rounds than a barb, but they dealt more in the first 2 or 3 and that's what actually matters.

elyktsorb

2024-04-25, 10:28 AM

I never thought Rogue was bad, but I do think it's kind of boring. But that just might be a me thing.

stoutstien

2024-04-25, 10:43 AM

I don't think neither rogue or barbarian is going to wow you with damage as they're both built for applying pressure more than anything else. You almost want the enemy to focus on trying to prevent you the deal damage because that opens up one of the spike types to drop the hammer.

This is a commonality of the classes that tend to have higher than normal initiative, enhanced movement, secondary forms of situational defenses, and soft threat to force poor decisions.

If your table generally allows people to dump damage on any target they want without any real setup then it's going to look bad just the same way that other games that focus on player versus player tactics that breakdown when speed/burst meta takes over.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-25, 10:46 AM

There is 0 reason to use "high OP" ( a term that hasn't been defined) as the standard for anything.

The answer "4 is greater than one" is a bit jejune. The Expertise Ability is clearly subject to marginal utility. A Rogue's fourth selection of Expertise, is generally not worth as much as their prior picks, because those prior Expertise picks were spent on addressing needs and wants, and the fourth Expertise pick is probably just going wherever.
I can't believe this point began with calling people's opinions naive.

Again, we go back to this idea that out of combat challenges can be solved by a single skill. That's really nice. Makes it simple to assume only one Expertise matters, or that a single spell will solve the issue.

It seems to me rogues may have a bad reputation because no one engages with out of combat stuff all that much.

A Rune Knight fighter, that wants to be the King of Grapplers, does not need 4 options for Expertise, they just need Expertise in Athletics.
But what does this have to do with what the rogue can provide? I don't think the rogue is judged by how useful a dip would be to Rune Knights.

Ludic, in a prior post, mentions that a Rogue's Expertise, often is either enabling "win more" dice rolls, ("Hey look, my stealth check was a 37 against the DC 10"), or just maintaining a level of parity in terms of performance, (a 10 wisdom Rogue with Expertise in Perception, is performing at around the same level as a 20 Wisdom Cleric with proficiency in Perception, before Reliable Talent). I also find this observation to be true.
A rogue's expertise will enable 10-15% more successes, up to 20-30% at higher levels, and even more with Reliable Talent.

Yes, there is "win more", but there is also "more win".

And we can't create a simultaneous scenario where the skill system is so vague and up to fiat that rogues suck, and also a scenario where the DC is 10 and the rogue is just providing overkill.

We also have design artifacts in the system that throw skill usage off, even when dealing with Expertise and the Reliable Talent abilities. The Reliable Talent ability does not help with Passive Checks, only active checks. A Rogue that wishes to be the most perceptive person in the world, still needs to take the Observant Feat, to increase their Passive Perception.
That's fine.

If your Rogue with Expertise in Stealth is trying to streak across the court during a NBA game, or across the stage during a Taylor Swift concert, that rogue is going to be spotted, as they are visible.
A disguise kit and Deception/Performance might be useful here. Again... thinking that only one skill will ever be used at a time is sort of giving you the result that you want.

A Rogue, trying to cross a bridge made of webbing, stealthily, likewise runs into the limitations of Expertise: it does not matter that the Rogue's Stealth check was an astronomically high number, a Giant Spider's Websense still defeats a Stealth Ability Check of 42.

At some point, even the Stealthiest Rogue, needs magic, to succeed....that is the system as designed.
Firstly, I am not sure this is correct. Everyone has a normal jump distance, and then you can roll Athletics to surpass that. I don't know why a rogue can't roll exceptionally well and not alert a spider through websense. In fact, this seems like exactly the kind of thing that someone with a really high check could do.

In practical games, that aren't "high OP", the DM is free to adjudicate things however they want. They are not bound by the black letters in the book to only do what is explicitly said.

Secondly, who can approach this spider without alerting it? What sort of magic are you envisioning here? Is there a clear path in the air that you're seeing, and a high level wizard that is going to cast Fly on everyone? What sort of magic do you see bypassing this?

Without, something like this, Expertise at high levels, often is just "win more", which is not particularly useful.
It is, actually. Consistency is a good thing. Part of the problem of playing a big strong barbarian, as an example, is that you can still regularly fail Strength checks. There is value in consistently being able to do things that reflect what your character is good at.

JellyPooga

2024-04-25, 10:48 AM

Rogue, as noted, is a "selfish" class (while also relying on others to give them space to work!)Can you point me to where the Rogue has any rule that is more selfish than any other class? I've already noted several specific abilities the Rogue has that are explicitly the opposite, geared specifically toward team play. So far, the only evidence that the Rogue is selfish I've seen is based on individual playstyle (which is a player issue, not a class one) or baseless expectation.

I only contest the claim because it is obviously part of the Rogues poor reputation, but I've yet to be convinced it's based on anything but stereotypes rather than rules.

Skrum

2024-04-25, 11:21 AM

In practical games, that aren't "high OP", the DM is free to adjudicate things however they want. They are not bound by the black letters in the book to only do what is explicitly said.

This is something to talk about because it might be the single biggest reason why I personally don't think rogue is very good.

Affirmed vs Implied Abilities
A simple comparison: aura of protection vs expertise in stealth
The aura is clearly defined ability with explicit rules about what it does, when it works, etc. A DM might try to "work around it" by...creating lots of threats that split the party up. Or, showering the party with AoE effects that punish them for grouping around the paladin. But regardless of how the DM responds (or don't respond), the paladin has an aura that provides a very powerful buff to anyone within 10 ft of them. It's a fantastic ability.

Compare that to a 9th level rogue with +13 in stealth. Hell, let's say they have Boots of Elvenkind too, so most of the time they're rolling a +13 with adv. There's essentially no stealth roll they can't succeed at. What does that give them? Well...they can sneak around, I guess?

Some things they could very plausibly do, considering the supernatural levels of stealthiness -
1) Hide in Plain Sight. Wood elves get a conditional version, but short of that, there's no RAW way to do this. If the rogue is caught out in the open, they don't even get to roll. They just get seen
2) Straight up Invisible. There could be a rule wherein if a creature's stealth roll exceeds a perception check by 15 or more, they're effectively invisible, regardless of conditions (gloom stalkers have a cool version of this that they don't even have to roll for; they're just invisible to dark vision. Rogue? crickets)
3) Make hide checks as part of your movement. This is what cunning action is supposed to do, but in reality the rogue just gets jammed up on bonus actions. If they disengage as a bonus action, they can't hide, even in perfect conditions. It doesn't matter that they have an average stealth roll of 27; they just can't get away.

Of course, any DM can add something like this, and many will do an ad hoc version when someone rolls a nat 20 on their skill check. But the base game doesn't say anything about it. Ergo, the DM has to constantly work, be reminded, and think of good things to happen when the rogue has a crazy roll. But it's never going to be consistent or something the rogue can look at their character sheet and go "oh, perfect, I can do X."

The inertia of the rules is against rogues. Rogues are supposed to be the skill class, but skills barely do anything at all, RAW. It's up the DM to do all this fill work to make the class work how it probably should. When the DM does that work? Rogue works amazing! Practically gods. When the DM is running a tough encounter and has a million things to track? Yeah sorry rogue, I don't have time for that right now. What does your sheet say?

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-25, 11:26 AM

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-25, 11:36 AM

3) Make hide checks as part of your movement.
There must be something in the air because I was thinking about this earlier this morning; that martials should be able to do things as part of their movement, or by spending some of their movement. That would allow them to do more without gunking up the action economy.

Of course, any DM can add something like this, and many will do an ad hoc version when someone rolls a nat 20 on their skill check. But the base game doesn't say anything about it. Ergo, the DM has to constantly work, be reminded, and think of good things to happen when the rogue has a crazy roll. But it's never going to be consistent or something the rogue can look at their character sheet and go "oh, perfect, I can do X."

The inertia of the rules is against rogues. Rogues are supposed to be the skill class, but skills barely do anything at all, RAW. It's up the DM to do all this fill work to make the class work how it probably should. When the DM does that work? Rogue works amazing! Practically gods. When the DM is running a tough encounter and has a million things to track? Yeah sorry rogue, I don't have time for that right now. What does your sheet say?
For my part, I am not moved much by these arguments. On either side. Would I like more granularity in the rules, and explicit abilities? Yeah, for sure. I wasn't phased by 3rd edition or 4th edition, as opposed to some of the visceral reactions people have when discussing those editions.

But the problem is people will complain that it's too much for the players to keep track of and you need system mastery and you'll forget your little bonuses etc etc.

So we get 5E, which is more vague and leaves everything open. And now we get complaints that the DM has to do too much.

For me... playing D&D is a commitment to play the freaking game, whether as a DM expanding on what the rules already say, or as a player keeping track of all their features. So I can only shrug my shoulders.

Witty Username

2024-04-25, 11:37 AM

Barb on the other hand has built in mitigation for using Reckless. That doesn't mean they can Reckless with abandon, it still has to be use smartly, but barb more than any other class is built to take hits. Steady Aim is at direct cross-purposes to everything else a rogue does.

Rogue also has built in mitigation with uncanny dodge.

Let's use a monster as a reference, let's go with a fire elemental. It has a +6 attack, rogue will have an AC of about 17. That gives the fire elemental a 50/50 hit rate.
Dealing an average of of 10 damage a turn.
Rogue has uncanny dodge, which will only be 1 attack.
But notably here that is usually sufficient for this attack line, 2 attacks with a 50/50, the majority of the time it will be one hit. So the break down is something like 0-25%, 5-50%, 15 -25%. 6.25 is the average being taken a turn.
This will get worse if we are fighting multiple of these, which we probably are by 8th level, but this is just a snapshot.

For barbarian, I am being mean and picked an enemy that does fire damage, so unless bear that will be 10 or 15 (5-7.5 if we are a bear) received dpr depending if they are using reckless.

Steady aim does have the cost of possition, but not AC, Uncanny dodge is also weaker, but I would also note more reliable as it doesn't have issues with damage types, doesn't use a resource, and the caviot that it needs to be an attack is pretty easy to make.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-25, 11:40 AM

Yes but Rage is protecting you from all the other BPS damage you are taking in that encounter or throughout the day, so it's still not really apples to apples.

And sometimes you are using Reckless Attack when enemies already have Advantage. My barbarian, right now as we speak, is currently in a life or death battle against a pack of wolves, backed up against a tree lol. He's using Reckless Attack and it functionally has no drawback in this case because of Pack Tactics.

Not to say your observations are wrong, but the game is really more complex than our comparisons can capture.

stoutstien

2024-04-25, 11:53 AM

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-25, 12:05 PM

Why not climb the tree and avoid the attacks all together?
I took a bad risk. We have many encounters in the day and they can be quite challenging in this game. I had already used 1 rage against a bunch of swarms. I have an AC of 21, and thought I could risk some attacks and not Rage, since I'd be up in the tree in a single turn and be making ranged attacks.

Well... 4 hits later and a failed Strength save and I'm at the foot of the tree but prone. Since we're playing on a grid, I can't climb up into the 3rd square because I don't have enough movement after standing up. If I survive this round (unlikely) then I will hopefully not be prone on my following turn and I'll Disengage and climb. Fingers crossed!

stoutstien

2024-04-25, 12:08 PM

I took a bad risk. We have many encounters in the day and they can be quite challenging in this game. I had already used 1 rage against a bunch of swarms. I have an AC of 21, and thought I could risk some attacks and not Rage, since I'd be up in the tree in a single turn and be making ranged attacks.

Well... 4 hits later and a failed Strength save and I'm at the foot of the tree but prone. Since we're playing on a grid, I can't climb up into the 3rd square because I don't have enough movement after standing up. If I survive this round (unlikely) then I will hopefully not be prone on my following turn and I'll Disengage and climb. Fingers crossed!

Ouch lol. Well if anything it's true to troupe.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-25, 12:16 PM

Ouch lol. Well if anything it's true to troupe.
When I saw the results of the wolf attacks I was like "Mistakes were made" lol. Why didn't I just rage?! :smallsigh::smallamused:

stoutstien

2024-04-25, 12:21 PM

When I saw the results of the wolf attacks I was like "Mistakes were made" lol. Why didn't I just rage?! :smallsigh::smallamused:

I might have just dodged delayed them if I wanted to give the party a round to get in position if I had that kind of AC. Without pack tactics you could probably safely eat more actions then you'd save by trying to bring a few down.

Skrum

2024-04-25, 12:24 PM

When I saw the results of the wolf attacks I was like "Mistakes were made" lol. Why didn't I just rage?! :smallsigh::smallamused:

It is in the barb handbook....First, rage xD

My barb died once in similar circumstances. Surrounded by harpies, already pretty hurt, I used Reckless for (well I can't even remember my reasoning, but it was bad reasoning, even without the benefit of hindsight). Harpies attacked me back and the advantage they got turn what would've been like 2 hits into 4 hits and 2 crits. Died immediately.

stoutstien

2024-04-25, 12:44 PM

It is in the barb handbook....First, rage xD

My barb died once in similar circumstances. Surrounded by harpies, already pretty hurt, I used Reckless for (well I can't even remember my reasoning, but it was bad reasoning, even without the benefit of hindsight). Harpies attacked me back and the advantage they got turn what would've been like 2 hits into 4 hits and 2 crits. Died immediately.

It's always been my hang up with the barbarian. it's looks relatively straightforward on paper but it actually takes a good eye to toggle your rage and RA to get the most out of it and not get nuked in a single round if you get it wrong.

It's also why I consider alert or increasing your Dex modifier low key one of the best things you can do on a barbarian. Going first pulls double duty in getting someplace to be annoying and getting your primary ability online before they eat into you.

Aimeryan

2024-04-25, 12:45 PM

A consideration is that AC17 makes sense if fighting one monster at level 8 (although it can still be on the high end), it makes far less sense when fighting more than one monster due each being of a lower CR. The effect of SS/GWM is far stronger on lower AC, while ranged extra attacks also have multiple enemy potential.

For a ranged level 8 Fighter (standard XBE/SS, probably also 20 Dex still thanks to the extra ASI and VH/CL choice) the extra survivability over melee is great. If going against lower AC targets or Advantage is obtained from some source (we shouldn't just be thinking about being solo) then the damage is also comparable, or better when accounting for rounds where the melee is not able to attack (possibly because their dead, but maybe they just can't reach - especially if talking about multiple enemies).

Meanwhile, ranged Rogue can't add Shadow Blade and/or Booming Blade - but ranged Fighter still has XBE/SS.

Skrum

2024-04-25, 01:27 PM

It's always been my hang up with the barbarian. it's looks relatively straightforward on paper but it actually takes a good eye to toggle your rage and RA to get the most out of it and not get nuked in a single round if you get it wrong.

I see what you're saying but do we need a literal faceroll character? I like the idea of simpler and more complex character options, does barb have to be even more straightforward to qualify?

In any case, my feeling is the "complexity" of barb, such as it is, comes back to their janky character design. Decisions for a barb revolve around some rather gross deficiencies, like being essentially useless if they not raging (and rage only activating on their turn AND being annoyingly easy to drop). If barb didn't live and die by rage, they'd have less glaring weaknesses and thus the player wouldn't have to sweat every use of rage or reckless attack in the same way.

It's also why I consider alert or increasing your Dex modifier low key one of the best things you can do on a barbarian. Going first pulls double duty in getting someplace to be annoying and getting your primary ability online before they eat into you.

Totally agree; an easy way to vastly improve barb would be to give them extra ASI's. They are feat AND attribute starved relative to fighter and even paladin.

Can you point me to where the Rogue has any rule that is more selfish than any other class? I've already noted several specific abilities the Rogue has that are explicitly the opposite, geared specifically toward team play. So far, the only evidence that the Rogue is selfish I've seen is based on individual playstyle (which is a player issue, not a class one) or baseless expectation.

I only contest the claim because it is obviously part of the Rogues poor reputation, but I've yet to be convinced it's based on anything but stereotypes rather than rules.

It's not a rule, it's about what they bring to the party. Can they cast bless? Can they cast healing word? Can they cast silvery barbs? What about faerie fire? Can they use runic shield? Ancestral guardians? Aura of protection? Thunder gauntlets? Twilight Sanctuary? Balm of Peace? Web? Darkness? Plant Growth? Hold person? Bardic inspiration? Flash of insight? Can they run up to a pack of enemies and just soak hits for the team? Etc etc etc

Do they act as a force multiplier, or are they just kinda doing their thing? That's what I mean by selfish.

Not to say they have NO abilities like this, but not very many, and not very good ones.

EDIT: arcane trickster gets some of the spell goodies, so I'll admit that what I said doesn't apply to that particular subclass very well. But, ranger isn't a good class just because gloom stalker exists. Rogue isn't a good class just because arcane trickster exists.

LudicSavant

2024-04-25, 01:33 PM

At some point, even the Stealthiest Rogue, needs magic, to succeed....that is the system as designed.Is it though? I ask genuinely rather than rhetorically. I mean, going back to my previous point regarding who can or can't hit those high DCs, it does require magic to achieve a DC of 30 before level 13 and even then it's a ritual that takes 10 times as long as the task would normally to do it with any certainty. With Expertise, it still takes 10 times as long, but without the magic and at the low, low level of 5.

To misquote "any sufficiently advanced technique appears as magic to the uninitiated". A level 5 character with Expertise is arguably pulling off what at least appear to be magical effects in their "near impossible" results. This isn't some houserule; it's just extrapolation from the rules at hand. Quite what extent that reaches in actual play is indeed GM dependent, but that such results should appear to achieve what any layman would consider actually impossible is without question. Once a Rogue hits level 11, those feats of "near magic" should become commonplace activity.

Blatant Beast is referring to the fact that there are a large number of mechanics that make stealth rolls auto-fail, regardless of how high said rolls are.

As they put it:

a Giant Spider's Websense still defeats a Stealth Ability Check of 42.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-25, 02:28 PM

I might have just dodged delayed them if I wanted to give the party a round to get in position if I had that kind of AC. Without pack tactics you could probably safely eat more actions then you'd save by trying to bring a few down.
I thought about it.

I had 4 wolves next to me when my turn came up. We all agreed to get into trees (there are 26 wolves in total), but artificer failed her Athletics check and was still on the ground. So I thought I'd move to another tree and try to draw the wolves away from her direction. Dodge probably would have been the better move, but I was worried that a lucky hit would keep me from moving. Would up being too conservative in the end.

It is in the barb handbook....First, rage xD
I know, I know! I think I got greedy, hoping to escape up the tree and avoid spending a second Rage use.

My barb died once in similar circumstances. Surrounded by harpies, already pretty hurt, I used Reckless for (well I can't even remember my reasoning, but it was bad reasoning, even without the benefit of hindsight). Harpies attacked me back and the advantage they got turn what would've been like 2 hits into 4 hits and 2 crits. Died immediately.
Oof, it happens. One of my DMs LOVES telling me when an attack hits/crits specifically because of Reckless Attack. It makes him so happy. Unfortunately I don't get anything in return for delighting him in this way, except deducting hit points from my HP total lol.

Totally agree; an easy way to vastly improve barb would be to give them extra ASI's. They are feat AND attribute starved relative to fighter and even paladin.
Agreed.

It's also why I consider alert or increasing your Dex modifier low key one of the best things you can do on a barbarian. Going first pulls double duty in getting someplace to be annoying and getting your primary ability online before they eat into you.
Also agreed. I am very much looking forward to level 7 for Advantage on Initiative and moving as part of Raging.

With regards to Rogue, I'm not convinced that they need to cover ALL matters in order to be a valuable member of the party. I'm perfectly fine with the Rogue excelling at most checks and the spellcaster having to cast a spell here and there to overcome a harder challenge. That's fine.

I'm not convinced that 1. the rogue can't beat Websense with a mundane Stealth check, that's totally within the purview of the DM. Just like it's in the purview of the DM to use mostly challenges that REQUIRE spells to overcome. This is a game/play style, not a RAW thing.

"High OP" games are fine, but they're not a standard. Tables that want to use all the supernatural and magical things at their disposal that require all spells to overcome are fine, but that's not every game. And we have to remember that some of these opinions are coming from exactly this style of play where if you're not optimized to the gills, you're not going to do well. Like... I play regularly weekly and in PBP. And I haven't come across websense. And it's not to say that it will never happen or doesn't happen in other games. But an exception to the Rogue's ability shouldn't be used to denigrate the rogue's abilities.

Waazraath

2024-04-25, 03:13 PM

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-04-25, 04:09 PM

It's not a rule, it's about what they bring to the party. Can they cast bless? Can they cast healing word? Can they cast silvery barbs? What about faerie fire? Can they use runic shield? Ancestral guardians? Aura of protection? Thunder gauntlets? Twilight Sanctuary? Balm of Peace? Web? Darkness? Plant Growth? Hold person? Bardic inspiration? Flash of insight? Can they run up to a pack of enemies and just soak hits for the team? Etc etc etc

Do they act as a force multiplier, or are they just kinda doing their thing? That's what I mean by selfish.

Not to say they have NO abilities like this, but not very many, and not very good ones.

EDIT: arcane trickster gets some of the spell goodies, so I'll admit that what I said doesn't apply to that particular subclass very well. But, ranger isn't a good class just because gloom stalker exists. Rogue isn't a good class just because arcane trickster exists.

And to piggyback -- often the things in the rogue class fantasy are individual actions. The whole party sometimes can't participate beyond waiting to see if the rogue gets caught or comes back safely. When the party needs to steal a letter, and the only way to get it is to get into the house, lift the letter from the safe, copy it, then return it to the safe and relock everything on the way out, sending the fighter along with the rogue is an active hindrance. A trickery domain cleric can help, but also a trickery domain cleric... maybe just doesn't need the rogue. It's like the reason the Flash has to be faster than Superman: if Superman's faster than the Flash, then you don't need the Flash.

Theodoxus

2024-04-25, 04:59 PM

Late to the party and not gonna go through all 7 pages of comments, so might address something that has been said before. The only thing I saw in my games what would justify a poor reputation is the higher dependency on the RNG. If you can only make one attack (especially in low op environments where there are no reaction attack shenanigans and without bonus action advantage) and the rolls are unlucky, lets say, 3 times in a row in combat, the combat can be over without the rogue contributed hardly anything.

I've seen this happen, and it seriously diminished the the fun the player can have. High damage single attack is all nice an well, but not when you miss too many of those.

I'd add that that high damage single attack is also more than likely massive overkill. There's no difference in the end between dropping something with 3 HP with a 15 point attack, and a 4 point attack, other than the opportunity cost lost to big attacks. Rogues don't have any (currently) ways of curtailing their SA damage other than not using SA. Nor do they have any decent ways to go toe to toe with giant meatbags that require high damage single attacks... so, all around they're pretty poorly designed for a combat role they'd otherwise excel at: kill stealing.

Ideally, I'd give Rogues an attack (called something like 'Camel Breaking Straw' - where if the attack drops a foe to 0 HP, the Rogue gains 15' of movement that doesn't provoke OAs, and can make a second attack against another foe. They can make as many attacks this way, provided the attack drops the foe to 0 HP, as they have PB (though it would be listed in their class features, gaining an additional attack at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels. (To curtail the 'then everyone would take a single level of Rogue' arguments.) CBS doesn't use a Bonus Action, so the Rogue would be free to use Cunning Action or an off-hand attack. What I'm not sure about is if the off-hand attack could trigger CBS; like you can have as many successful CBS attacks per turn equal to your PB (as listed on the class ability list). So, if your primary attack didn't drop the foe to 0, you could BA an offhand attack, and if that did, it triggers CBS. Or, if you're 9th level with 4 CBS strikes, and your first attack drops to 0, your second attack drops to 0, but your third attack doesn't. You could BA attack, dropping the foe to 0 for your third CBS, and move off to make a 4th attack.

I would swap out sneak attack for CBS, though I might keep the cunning strike dice as it opens up tactical options.

LudicSavant

2024-04-25, 05:03 PM

Late to the party and not gonna go through all 7 pages of comments, so might adress something that has been said before. The only thing I saw in my games what would justify a poor reputation is the higher dependency on the RNG. If you can only make one attack (especially in low op environments where there are no reaction attack shenenigans and without bonus action advantage) and the rolls are unlucky, lets say, 3 times in a row in combat, the combat can be over without the rogue contributed hardly anything.

I've seen this happen, and it seriously deminished the the fun the player can have. High damage single attack is all nice an well, but not when you miss too many of those.

Adding to this:

- Since it's dealing damage in fewer chunks, sneak attack wastes more damage to overflow than the competition.
- Sneak Attack is vulnerable to counterplay.
- A need to consistently qualify for sneak attack can limit tactical options, such as party positioning and the like.

What do I mean by that? Well, let's say for example, say you want to do some ranged kiting. Well, you still need to qualify for sneak attack. If you do it by using your bonus action, you are not mobile. If you do it by using an ally in melee, they are not kiting (and you need turn order to line up in your favor too, or use readied actions, which have their own downsides). And if the enemy is inflicting Disadvantage, you need both.

In exchange for dealing with such things, a Rogue deals merely decent damage.

And remember, the point of burst output isn't just to show off, it's to save party resources by reducing the amount that enemy actions cost the party.

stoutstien

2024-04-25, 06:00 PM

I mean if we're talking about making changes to the rogue I'd probably gut sneak attack all together as anything other than a nice little bonus based on what the enemy does rather than what you do. Cut the damage in half and only factor that it triggers 50% of the time and make it apply if you hit a Target that has not moved that round like a reverse booming blade.

Id knock reliable talents all the way down and make it scale with levels so it comes a line sooner to a lesser degree but also gets much more potent past level 11.

As for the rest of the filler damage it doesn't really matter how it's done and it's relatively easy to add damage. I probably give a short rest based resource that's applied depending on which cutting action option is used and add a specific option per subclass.

JellyPooga

2024-04-25, 06:26 PM

It's not a rule, it's about what they bring to the party. Can they [list of things] Etc etc etc

Do they act as a force multiplier, or are they just kinda doing their thing? That's what I mean by selfish.

Not to say they have NO abilities like this, but not very many, and not very good ones.[snipped for brevity]
So the Archery style Fighter just wailing away from range is less selfish? The Wizard who never casts buffs or control? The Cleric that spends all his slots buffing his own attacks? The Bard that uses all his BI dice on Cutting Words to save his own skin or Blade flourish to showboat his way through a melee? The Barbarian that charges recklessly into combat, regardless of whether it's conducive to the party? The Paladin that can't hold back that smite because "it's what his character would do"? I've seen far more selfishness from the stereotypical examples of other Classes "just kinda doing their thing" than I have from Rogues who, as I said before, actively desire and encourage good teamwork and party friendly tactics.

As for force multipliers, who better to cast Haste on than a Rogue? Who better to grant advantage on a single attack? Who better to grant a speed boost? Or one time, location based effect? Who better to carry the lantern to illuminate the enemy than the fastest and most able to reach a hard to get place? Who else is giving more pause for thought in regard to Opportunity Attacks (once the effect of one has been seen?) Give any other character "thing" and it remains "thing". Give a Rogue "thing" and they'll turn it into "more than thing". Give a Fighter an additional attack and he'll give you 2d6+15 damage; a figure that stays pretty much static for the entirety of the game. Give a Rogue that same additional attack and he'll give you (1+(lvl/2))d6+5 damage. Give a Rogue +10ft movement and he'll turn it into 20ft. Give a Rogue a crit and he'll give you a bucket full of dice that the party will talk about for the next three sessions. Let me put it another way; you're a Diviner Wizard and roll a nat 20 for one of your Portent dice. Who are you giving it to to give them that one clutch critical hit? Is it the Rogue? I think it might be the Rogue. It's that or the Paladin (assuming he has any spell slots left). In many regards, the Rogue is a strong contender for being the force that gets multiplied and that's not a selfish thing, it's an integral part of team play. After all, if everyone is multiplying the force, no-one is actually applying it; 2x2x2x0 is still zero.

And when you say that Rogues don't have many abilities such as the ones you describe...how many of the things you listed belong to a single class? How many are being stacked on to one character? The Swashbuckler using Panache to give a foe Disadvantage against everyone but himself has got to be just about the least selfish ability in the entire game and it's not on your list? I'd say it's pretty effective at espousing team player vibes and is one of a mere handful of actual aggro features in the game. Having the mobility to block a foe from getting to a party member or to achieve the party goal by grabbing the macguffin, pulling the lever, closing the door or whatever it is the party is actually doing there besides standing there hitting each other is a lvl.2 feature all Rogues get, but that's not on your list. Hit point efficiency is apparently non-selfish and yet despite Rogues being the second most HP efficient class in the game next to Barbarians (outside of really, really engineered circumstances), Rogues are selfish and Fighters and Paladins are not?

I keep reading phrases like "it's self evident" and "not very good" without any actual proof. I'd like some, please. Caveat; that isn't related to Sneak Attack (because, as previously stated and I think thoroughly proven already, outside of optimisation for off-turn attacks and/or crit-fishing, Sneak Attack is their Cantrip damage and I don't hear anyone comparing Wizard to Ranger based on Firebolt vs longbow damage and judging the Wizard, as a whole, poorly as a result).

And to piggyback -- often the things in the rogue class fantasy are individual actions. The whole party sometimes can't participate beyond waiting to see if the rogue gets caught or comes back safely. When the party needs to steal a letter, and the only way to get it is to get into the house, lift the letter from the safe, copy it, then return it to the safe and relock everything on the way out, sending the fighter along with the rogue is an active hindrance. A trickery domain cleric can help, but also a trickery domain cleric... maybe just doesn't need the rogue. It's like the reason the Flash has to be faster than Superman: if Superman's faster than the Flash, then you don't need the Flash.

This has nothing to do with the Rogue Class and everything to do with sending a character on a solo mission. That character could be a Druid in Wildshape, a Warlock with Gaseous Form and Invisibility, a Fighter with Stealth proficiency or a Barbarian with a death wish. Again, I'll ask for any actual proof that the Rogue is in any way more selfish a Class than any other. Not, I'll add, more selfish as an individual character, player, party playstyle, GM fiat or stereotyped expectation made of fairy dust and wishful thinking that suggests it to be so...I want a rule or actual feature that makes the Rogue, one of the only Classes in the game that actively benefits as an actual rule from being a team player, selfish.

Psyren

2024-04-25, 07:16 PM

Totally agree; an easy way to vastly improve barb would be to give them extra ASI's. They are feat AND attribute starved relative to fighter and even paladin.

Functionally, they have free Tough (which also stacks with Tough) due to being the only d12 HD class in the game.

I wouldn't have minded if their UD was Str+Con instead of Dex+Con though.

What do I mean by that? Well, let's say for example, say you want to do some ranged kiting. Well, you still need to qualify for sneak attack. If you do it by using your bonus action, you are not mobile. If you do it by using an ally in melee, they are not kiting (and you need turn order to line up in your favor too, or use readied actions, which have their own downsides). And if the enemy is inflicting Disadvantage, you need both.

^ Adding to this - even if turn order and the ally's own desired tactics line up with your own, the enemy they're standing next to might not be the optimal enemy for you to be targeting. If I'm up against an enemy necromancer, doing extra damage to his zombie ogre minions standing in the front isn't bad, but I'd rather be targeting the caster standing in the back, especially when a big burst of damage from me might break his concentration more easily.

LudicSavant

2024-04-25, 07:36 PM

^ Adding to this - even if turn order and the ally's own desired tactics line up with your own, the enemy they're standing next to might not be the optimal enemy for you to be targeting. If I'm up against an enemy necromancer, doing extra damage to his zombie ogre minions standing in the front isn't bad, but I'd rather be targeting the caster standing in the back, especially when a big burst of damage from me might break his concentration more easily.

Yep, you got it! :smallsmile:

The Swashbuckler using Panache to give a foe Disadvantage against everyone but himself has got to be just about the least selfish ability in the entire game

Panache takes a full Action, an all-or-nothing check, and breaks from distance (a la Witch Bolt) or... from an ally attacking or affecting the enemy with a spell.

Psyren

2024-04-25, 08:10 PM

That's what's awesome about the new Swashbuckler! Their Panache (a) uses your Dex to set the Goad DC instead of Cha, and (b) instead of requiring you to give up your entire action, you just give up 1d6 of your SA, so even if it fails you still did 90% of what you'd normally do that turn. And whether or not you successfully impose the disadvantage buff to your entire party, you can still walk away from them without burning your BA thanks to Fancy Footwork (or just impose it from range.)

It only lasts a round instead of a minute, but you can reapply it at-will and there is no early cancellation due to range or when your allies attack it.

(EDIT: Granted, the above all depends on the Swashbuckler not having gotten the axe from the PHB in favor of the Soulknife...)

Dork_Forge

2024-04-25, 08:34 PM

My overall point is shortbow is not the end of rogue options. And we should keep what we have in mind, before throwing a bunch of nonsense at problem.

Completely agree, I don't really understand why Rogue so regularly gets shafted into a shortbow only box.

Under ideal conditions, rogues can do solid damage. Basically, if they're able to maintain distance and consistently hide or use steady aim, their damage racks up quickly. But it tends to be conditionally fragile - Darkness? Fog Cloud? Invisible enemy? Damage drops to nearly negligible. The barb can always not use GWM and still be attacking at net neutral in those cases.

So I see two issues here then:

1) Your actual complaint seems to be the perceived fragility of Sneak Attack.
2) For some reason you have pigeonholed the Rogue into nothing but maintaining distance with a shortbow.

to address that:

1) Sneak Attack is not that fragile, you seem to be acting like they need Advantage, they don't they just need an ally next to the target. If there are mitigating circumstances to give disadvantage, they still have tools to negate that and still get their SA damage. No, Rogues won't always get their SA and that's fine, but I've never encountered a Rogue who fails it so often I would label it 'ideal conditions' nor are the actual conditions so narrow that it requires that label. Especially since this is being contrasted by the incredibly situational GWM.

On top of that multiple subclasses focus on making Sneat Attack more reliable.

2) I'm going to assume this is based off your experiences, but I don't know why you're pressing it at this point in the discussion. None of the examples I gave you for competitive damage were using a shortbow. Outside of my examples, the Swashbuckler wants to be in melee and it's incredibly trivial to upgrade the 1d6 crossbow to a 1d8 longbow or 1d10 heavy crossbow.

Saying a Rogue must use a shortbow and then 'stay mobile at all times' (which... doesn't make that much sense since they're already at range) is not a requirement of the Rogue, it's something you're pushing onto them.

Or if they're not given space - same deal. Fast enemies that a rogue can't stay away from, and they start having to make some very punishing choices in terms of their output. Swashbuckler can handle this the best, but that's just one subclass, and they don't have better defense than any other rogue so that kind of enemy still chews them up.

Any Dex based Rogue that was trying to play keep away and failed for some reason can just stay still, pull out a rapier, and fight whatever ran them down toe-toe, likely until it's dead. Their actual damage output won't just magically fall off a cliff unless they're in a particularly bad situation, at which point you can literally apply 'worst case scenario' to any class. Like oh no, the stereotypical Barbarian is stereotypically removed from combat by a single Wisdom save.

(Bonus! The Rogue, by class defaults, is one of the most mobile classes in the game. Getting chased down can literally be 'I run away from you and Uncanny the single OA then Attack when it makes sense.')

But even in the best of cases, rogue has no presence. To a quite high degree they rely on other members of the party keeping enemies off them so they can do their steady aim, hide, whathaveyou. And despite needing to jump through those hopes...rogue damage is at best competitive with straightforward melee builds. Basically, the melee guy is doing two jobs - being the distraction, and doing damage. The rogue is doing one thing, damage, but needing a distraction.

They don't rely on that and it's a leap to say that any class, or even character, has no presence never mind one doing consistent damage like a Rogue.

I'd also like to stop pretending that Sneak Attack is difficult to get or has a lot of hoops. In most actual parties some characters will want to be in melee because it's what their character does.

In my mind, if rogue is going to be a situational threat like that, they should be doing good damage. Like, burst damage, which is rewarded in the game WAY more than steady output.

Even when the situation is so broad they're doing their damage more often than the GWM Barbarian? Because, realistically, they're hitting their SA damage more consistently than a Barbarian is hitting a GWM hit, and if the table does several combats a day, more likely than they are Raging/using Reckless 'safely.'

Sorry, I know this is a couple pages back (I'm just getting caught up), but this jumped out at me a bit for a couple reasons:
•Would the Barbarian in question have survived without the DR from Rage? If not, that means no one else would have either, regardless of their "tanking" capability (such as a Fighter or Paladin or such).

I like Barbarians and they are incredibly hearty, but this is just not remotely true. But let's address that below >

Yes, it was due to his damage resistance; actual damage taken was 92. But - he's a barb with 17 AC. Because his AC was only 17, he took A LOT of hits that, say, 23 AC would've deflected.

I obviously don't have a list of all of the attacks that hit him and can't say for sure what the minimum AC would be to reduce the raw damage from 184 to something a 10th level fighter or paladin could survive. But to your point, that particular situation was pretty barb-specific. Like, I'm quite certain that a more pedestrian 20ish AC would still have led to 100+ damage, and it would take pretty special AC to AC-tank their way through that.

So, I don't have full details here but you said skeletons and 184 damage, so let's see what kind of tank would have been able to survive that otherwise. I'm pretty sure that you're playing in tier 3, and this is the kind of damage I'd expect from a higher level game, so I'll (most likely lowball) a level 11 character here as an example:

Fighter, Psi Warrior Str-based, sword-and-board plate. Fighting Style Dueling

20 10 16 14 10 8 ASIs: HAM, +2 Str, Telekinetic (Int)

HP: 91 AC: 20(21)

Itemwise I think you've mentioned before about how you picked up a Luck Stone, and this is tier 3, so let's just assume a +1 weapon and a +1 AC, X of Protection, +1 armor or shield, whatever.

So, you said different kinds of skeletons so the attacks are probably a mix of values, but for the sake of comparison let's say that the combat took 4 rounds and that 184 damage is reduced to 120 by the higher AC of the Fighter alone.

If we assume that there's at least 8 hits (conservative) then HAM is reducing the damage by 24, to 96.

So the damage taken is greater than the Fighter's HP by 5. Second Wind at this level is a minimum of 12, let's assume he gets unlucky and flubs the heal roll.

Combat lasts 4 rounds, let's be conservative and say he uses Protective Field 3 times. That's a minimum of 9 damage reduced, average of 22.5.

So a Psi Warrior with some inclination to tank, but not really built specifically for it, survives the encounter with ~25HP left assuming the worst on the Second Wind roll and the damage only coming from 8 hits.

The Barbarian is impressive, but surviving that scenario is by far not a case of only a Barbarian can do it.

I'm not saying "rogue isn't as tough as barbarian, there for rogue sucks." My point was that tanking isn't about being able to mitigate errant hits. To sell me on rogue being able to tank, they'd need to be able to survive some level of focused fire, multiple attacks for at least a few rounds against notable threats. I think it plainly obvious that rogue can't do that.

I don't think anyone has said the Rogue can be built to be a primarytank as well as a Barbarian, but they are certainly capable of tanking on occasion for 2-3 rounds, which is all you really need to ask of an off tank anyway.

I also think a situation where an entire encounter is attacking a single target is probably pretty niche. Even with tanks in place they're typically taking the brunt of the attacks, not 100% of them.

The highest damage rogue I could make at lvl 8 against AC17 was an EA arcane trickster Rogue (max stat) using shadowblade and booming blade (I assume 50% of the rider damage). That gives me 39.16 dpr (w advantage, which between shadowblade and ba should be relatively common). Without shadowblade and using booming blade, I get 34.8dpr with advantage (just booming blade and a +1 rapier) and 22 dpr without advantage (so no steady aim). Rogue gets 2 shadowblades per day.

The highest damage barbarian I could make at lvl 8 was a custom lineage Zealot PAM/GWM/ barbarian (18 str) with a +1 polearm (by assumption from above). While raging, the Zealot hits for 46.4 dpr (reckless) or 29.17 (non reckless). Without Rage it hits for 27.2 (no adv) and 42.9(adv). Barbarian gets 4 rages a day.

So this is actually decently close (order 10%), except that the Barbarian gets more (eg double) resources to hit his peaks. Note that assuming steady aim and reckless is usually a bit of a bad assumption in practice. At high op levels both will get you killed very fast.

A Rogue is going to be more consistent in doing what they do in general compared to a Barbarian dependent on Rage and GWM. Which is one of their Strengths.

If a particular Rogue build, in this case an AT, can only burst up for two encounters a day, then why isn't that okay? Their damage isn't falling of a cliff by not using SB and the majority of encounters should not require everyone going as hard as possible.

Skrum

2024-04-25, 08:37 PM

that isn't related to Sneak Attack (because, as previously stated and I think thoroughly proven already, outside of optimisation for off-turn attacks and/or crit-fishing, Sneak Attack is their Cantrip damage and I don't hear anyone comparing Wizard to Ranger based on Firebolt vs longbow damage and judging the Wizard, as a whole, poorly as a result).

We keep talking about sneak attack because its all that rogue gets damage-wise. If they can't apply sneak attack, they're doing weapon + dex. And a small weapon at that. With no extra attack. I don't think your point about sneak attack being a cantrip is a bad one - but in this analogy, rogues don't get any leveled spells. And that's exactly their problem.

This has nothing to do with the Rogue Class and everything to do with sending a character on a solo mission. That character could be a Druid in Wildshape, a Warlock with Gaseous Form and Invisibility, a Fighter with Stealth proficiency or a Barbarian with a death wish. Again, I'll ask for any actual proof that the Rogue is in any way more selfish a Class than any other. Not, I'll add, more selfish as an individual character, player, party playstyle, GM fiat or stereotyped expectation made of fairy dust and wishful thinking that suggests it to be so...I want a rule or actual feature that makes the Rogue, one of the only Classes in the game that actively benefits as an actual rule from being a team player, selfish.

A wizard who asks "selfishly" will
- cast large AoE effects, dealing quite a bit of damage to multiple targets
- summon powerful creatures that act as great meatshields and will also do quite a bit of damage themselves
- counter or dispel annoying enemy magic
- provide many out of combat benefits to the party to themselves via ritual magic (scouting for traps, comfortable resting places, reading obscure texts, etc)

Each of the things the wizard does, even if they're only acting out of self-aggrandizement, will be a large boon to the party because the things they do are highly effective and it is highly likely the other members of the party can't do those things. A swordsman that does a billion damage per hit is going to spend a lotta turns attacking 25 enemies one by one. The wizard might wipe them out in one go.

I can repeat this with cleric - by just being a cleric, the party is going to gain many powerful spells and abilities that can swing encounters.

Even another contender for worst class, the barbarian, can provide the underrated benefit of just being able to throw themselves into the thick of things. Let's say the enemy is super dangerous and cooks the barb in 2 turns. Well yah know what? That's two turns the super dangerous bad guy wasn't closing the distance on someone else and wrecking them.

At this point, I'm really not sure what else to say. If you don't buy the argument, you don't buy the argument. If you think Panache, a 9th level ability, is really as good or better than an artificer's thunder gauntlets or a barb's ancestral guardians (stuff that's been in use since level 3 and is a simple rider on stuff those classes would be doing anyway, not their entire action), and further than that can't even understand why I'd say "that's a weak ability with limited use," I seriously doubt I'm going to convince you of anything.

(btw, rogue is about the last martial class I'd put haste on. They're already faster than most, can't SA more than once a turn, and very likely hit less hard shot for shot than other martial classes. And the +2 AC is only going to bring them to even with the plate guys, at best).

KorvinStarmast

2024-04-25, 08:44 PM

Did someone say Monks plateau post-11? Has not been my experience.

Can you point me to where the Rogue has any rule that is more selfish than any other class? Nope. But they do have an archetype of Assassin that implies that they (the Assassins) like killing things.

It's baseless.

Fighter: Stand back, I'll keep them from reaching you guys.
Wizard: No need Fighter, I have summoned a creature to do the fighting for you. That way, your hit points are protected, and I get the glory.
Bard: Okay, I'll make sure to provide any healing.
Wizard: At ease Bard, I dipped Life Cleric and grabbed Goodberry with Magic Initiate. Everyone can keep themselves topped off, thanks to me, and you don't have to do anything.
Rogue: Alright, well I'll scout ahead and make sure the way is clear of traps or hidden enemies.
Wizard: Master yourself Rogue, you are not needed here. I will make sure the way is clear with my familiar, or my Arcane Eye. That way you remain safe, and I once again beat the challenge for us.
Rogue: It's okay, I don't mind, this is what my expertise is in. Keep your familiar safe, and don't waste your spell slots.
Wizard: You selfish piece o--- !
Laughed, I did.

Why not climb the tree and avoid the attacks all together?
Please don't tell Pex about this thread. :smallbiggrin:

J-H

2024-04-25, 08:49 PM

I have a bit of an odd party in my BG2 campaign. We have an AC 21-22 storm cleric with about 50hp, and an AC 17 Arcane Trickster with over 70hp (16 con, an item with +5 hp, and I think the Tough feat). The cleric gets knocked to 0 a lot more often.

(btw, rogue is about the last martial class I'd put haste on. They're already faster than most, can't SA more than once a turn, and very likely hit less hard shot for shot than other martial classes. And the +2 AC is only going to bring them to even with the plate guys, at best).
Last game, rogue drank potion of haste. He could drop a healing potion on a downed party member AND sneak attack on the same turn. Also, while hasted: Hasted action attack once. Regular action ready an attack to attack the enemy when the enemy does anything. Result: Off-turn sneak attack.

Skrum

2024-04-25, 11:12 PM

Last game, rogue drank potion of haste. He could drop a healing potion on a downed party member AND sneak attack on the same turn. Also, while hasted: Hasted action attack once. Regular action ready an attack to attack the enemy when the enemy does anything. Result: Off-turn sneak attack.

Clever! I stand corrected

JellyPooga

2024-04-26, 02:18 AM

Clever! I stand corrected

Your not knowing this before now is a bit like me coming into a conversation about Fighters and going off about how bad Polearm Master is because the bonus action attack is "only a d4". I'd technically be entirely correct, but I'd also be completely missing the point and running my mouth about something I simply do not realise the significance of. Off-turn Sneak Attack is bread and butter for a Rogue. A basic assumption that you're trying to achieve. You cannot weigh in on a Rogue (DPR) argument without knowing this. I mean, for all the numbers that were being run upthread, was this not even considered? Was the Rogue being compared based on a single turn of damage instead of their damage per round? The Rogue does not engage the enemy in the same way that most other Classes do; Rogues are setting up, playing false, leaving opportunity open and staying flexible; that's their playstyle. A Fighter has to invest (Feats, ASI, etc.) in both melee and ranged to be effective at both; the Rogue just needs to exist to be nearly as good at both; do you see the difference that makes?

but in this analogy, rogues don't get any leveled spells. And that's exactly their problem.Not having on-demand nova options is not a drawback. It's a different playstyle and (from your statement I quoted above) one that you do not appear to understand, let alone appreciate. The Wizard doesn't have the Rogues on-demand mobility. The Fighter doesn't have the Rogues on-demand Expertise. The Barbarian actually cares about being caught in a Fireball, so ideally wants to get out of dodge before having it dropped on his head, thereby not doing his job of drawing aggro whilst he does it. The Rogue? Yeah he doesn't care that the Wizard threw a Lightning Bolt down the corridor he's currently engaging the enemy in because he takes half damage even when he fails his save. The "standard" of having buttons to push that have greater effect is predicated largely on having ideal circumstances. The Rogues entire schtick is being reactive to opportunity as it's presented, not to build specifically for a single specialised event (such as "I'm in melee with my favourite weapon to hand" or "I have a nice discreet package of enemy mooks in fireball formation as a target"). The only time a Rogue is caught unprepared is when they have zero equipment or they're finally out of HP; can the same be said for a Wizard? Cleric? Barbarian?. It's all well and good saying "the Wizard has a spell for that" but did the Wizard actually prepare that spell today or are we just assuming they have 100% foresight? About the closest competitor for the Rogues flexibility (and skill set) is the Druid and a lot of that comes from Wildshape which comes with its own, obvious drawbacks (opposable thumbs being a major one!).

the underrated benefit of just being able to throw themselves into the thick of things.Have you run the numbers on Uncanny Dodge? I've already given you a Rogue that has comparable AC to a Fighter (better, even, in some cases), so now add Uncanny Dodge. d10 HD provides 1+lvl additional HP compared to d8. Uncanny Dodge provides +(attack damage/2)HP per round. Assuming a combat encounter lasts 4 rounds and the Rogue is hit once per round for 10 damage per hit (which is a pretty reasonable amount of damage for a creature to deal with a single attack, across a range of CR), the Rogue already mitigated as many additional HP that a 20th level Fighter would have over the Rogue after a single encounter. And they can tank that amount of damage and still be standing at level 5 (assuming they have at least 21HP to start with...which they do, even with Con 8). And you say a Rogue can't throw themselves into the thick of things and tank a couple of hits for the party? :smallconfused: Yes, the Rogue can only do it against one attack per round. Yes, the Rogue has to give up the potential to deal off-turn Sneak Attack to do it. But the point is that they can do it and they have the option of doing it. Want to talk about underrated? Yeah. The Rogue is criminally (pun intended) underrated because they continue to be viewed through the lens of peoples expectations and assumptions rather than the actual rules as they are being presented. Please feel free to run you own numbers on what Uncanny Dodge actually does to the Rogue effective HP pool compared to the Fighter or even Barbarian (noting also that the Rogue only needs a Reaction to use Uncanny Dodge compared to the Barbarian requiring a Bonus Action and a resource to activate Rage) and come back to me about Rogues tanking.

Schwann145

2024-04-26, 03:12 AM

I think people are mistaking the term "selfish" for a pejorative when it's only meant to be a descriptor.
It's about class design and has nothing to do with player choice.

For example, I consider the Monk to be the "king" of the "selfish classes" because everything it's designed to do is to the benefit of itself only. How you're able to leverage those personal benefits to the overall benefit of the party has nothing to do with it.
Compare this to, say, a Paladin who provides benefit not only to themselves but their nearby allies as well; a "selfless" class.
The easy, direct, comparison here would be Diamond Soul vs Aura of Protection. Both classes get abilities that improve all their saves, but the Monk doesn't share. "Selfish."

Kane0

2024-04-26, 04:05 AM

For example, I consider the Monk to be the "king" of the "selfish classes" because everything it's designed to do is to the benefit of itself only.

I think Monks largely get a pass because of the omnipresent Stunning Strike. Once you land one of those its a chance for everyone in the party to dogpile the victim.

Coincicentally, that basically led my thought process on the devious strike concept.

LudicSavant

2024-04-26, 04:46 AM

Rogues can indeed be built as tanks. Grab an Arcane Trickster, get them a shield and some defensive spells, toss on features like Evasion an Uncanny Dodge, punish people who walk away from you with a Booming Sneak Attack, etc.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-04-26, 07:09 AM

This has nothing to do with the Rogue Class and everything to do with sending a character on a solo mission. That character could be a Druid in Wildshape, a Warlock with Gaseous Form and Invisibility, a Fighter with Stealth proficiency or a Barbarian with a death wish. Again, I'll ask for any actual proof that the Rogue is in any way more selfish a Class than any other. Not, I'll add, more selfish as an individual character, player, party playstyle, GM fiat or stereotyped expectation made of fairy dust and wishful thinking that suggests it to be so...I want a rule or actual feature that makes the Rogue, one of the only Classes in the game that actively benefits as an actual rule from being a team player, selfish.

The original question is about reputation. That's going to be driven by things that happen at the table more than what's written in the book. I have no interest in proving or indeed arguing that the rogue is selfish by rule.

JellyPooga

2024-04-26, 07:26 AM

The original question is about reputation. That's going to be driven by things that happen at the table more than what's written in the book. I have no interest in proving or indeed arguing that the rogue is selfish by rule.

Sooo...would it not benefit the game as a whole to rectify that groundless reputation by reinforcing what the actual rules are and the image they should garner, rather than proliferating a false perspective that might mislead even experienced players who are used to other Classes, let alone new players, into believing something that is, as you admit by being unwilling to argue the case, baseless?

Skrum

2024-04-26, 07:57 AM

You cannot weigh in on a Rogue (DPR) argument without knowing this. .

I am of course aware that rogue benefits uniquely from off turn attacks - I had just never considered the particular interaction between rogues and haste.

Their off turn attacks conflict directly with them defending themselves of course. As does Steady Aim with anything else they want to do. I will grant - and have granted, since the beginning of this thread - that rogue is perfectly functional. Truenamer or 3e Samurai they are not. But you playing Schrodinger's Rogue and giving them credit for EVERYTHING they can do, all at once, does not convince me they are better than last place among 5e classes. That indeed is a huge problem for them: they can do some stuff. But not at the frequency they need to. If they dash, they can't disengage. If they disengage, they can't hide. If they give themselves advantage (a large factor in their DPR), they can't do ANY of those things cause they can't move. If they're tough, they also lose a ton of DPR. Unfortunately for rogue, there's class options that are not so burdened by the action economy.

QuickLyRaiNbow

2024-04-26, 08:04 AM

Sooo...would it not benefit the game as a whole to rectify that groundless reputation by reinforcing what the actual rules are and the image they should garner, rather than proliferating a false perspective that might mislead even experienced players who are used to other Classes, let alone new players, into believing something that is, as you admit by being unwilling to argue the case, baseless?

Are you going to go table-to-table evangelizing about it? A discussion of the rules in a vacuum on a dying hobbyist forum isn't going to change the reputation of the class when behavior at individual tables is what drives that reputation.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-26, 09:47 AM

Blatant Beast

2024-04-26, 10:23 AM

Can you point me to where the Rogue has any rule that is more selfish than any other class? I've already noted several specific abilities the Rogue has that are explicitly the opposite, geared specifically toward team play. So far, the only evidence that the Rogue is selfish I've seen is based on individual playstyle (which is a player issue, not a class one) or baseless expectation.

I only contest the claim because it is obviously part of the Rogues poor reputation, but I've yet to be convinced it's based on anything but stereotypes rather than rules.

When I used the phrase "selfish class" to describe the 5e Rogue class, I was not making any reference to normative judgments on morality, I certainly was not thinking about D&D PvP or stealing from the party or other such actions.

I described the Rogue class as "selfish" because the base class abilities, (and most of the subclass abilities as well), are focused on the Rogue PC and not their friends.

The common Rogue play pattern of Hide, Pop out and Sneak Attack, go back and Hide, is "selfish", in the sense that often-times, the Rogue is not an available target for the opposition.

A Rogue, (or any PC), that is not taking their share of damage, can become problematic, as balancing incoming damage across a Party, is an important resource management tool.

Hide N' Sneak-Attack, as a tactic, places a larger burden of the incoming damage share on the remaining party members.

Evasion, as an ability, also plays into this disparity. Quite a bit of damage in 5e, calls for Dexterity Saving Throws for half damage. The Rogue and Monk have taken no damage, but the rest of the party is bedraggled from loss, is something I see quite a bit in play. The Fighter and Bard want to take a Short Rest, and the Rogue wants to keep on going, because Rogues only Short Rest for Hit Points....which is yet another point in which the Rogue is not on the same resource use path as some other classes, and a potential source of conflict.

Tactical habits also become ingrained. The Arcane Trickster/Bladesinger in my 20th level game, almost never will tank a creature, despite the fact that when their Bladesong is active, they have the highest AC in the party, and have the Shield spell and Uncanny Dodge to boot.

In the player's mind, their Rogue circles around the combat, waiting for a chance to strike, even though, their actual abilities make them an excellent choice for wading into the thick of things, and thriving.

Rogues, as a class, also generally lack control abilities, which in part explains why Arcane Trickster is as effective as it is; spells allow control. Other Rogue subclasses can throw nets, but let's face it, most players are not playing a Rogue, to throw nets. Grapple and lack of Extra Attack has been discussed enough, earlier.

Bardic Inspiration, is for me, the gold standard of a simple, yet flavorful ability, that subtly boosts the survivability of an Adventuring Group.

An Arcane Trickster with Silvery Barbs, can certainly aid their friends, and bring woe to their foes, just as a Thief with Healer Feat can be an excellent healer, but a player has to work at it. Paladins and Bards on the opposite end of the spectrum, have to work hard to not help their friends.

Rogues are great as the "fifth man" of an Adventuring Group, but I would likely prefer someone to play another class in a 4 person Adventuring Group, as it would open up other options.

JellyPooga

2024-04-26, 10:34 AM

But you playing Schrodinger's Rogue and giving them credit for EVERYTHING they can do, all at once, does not convince me they are better than last place among 5e classes. That indeed is a huge problem for them: they can do some stuff. But not at the frequency they need to. If they dash, they can't disengage. If they disengage, they can't hide. If they give themselves advantage (a large factor in their DPR), they can't do ANY of those things cause they can't move. If they're tough, they also lose a ton of DPR. Unfortunately for rogue, there's class options that are not so burdened by the action economy.

There's where we differ. Where you see competition for action resource, I see opportunity. Can the Rogue use Uncanny Dodge and off-turn Sneak Attack on the same turn? No. But they can Dash or Disengage to be in a position where they're able to take advantage of one or the other and still get to use their Action to attack, grapple or whatever else they're doing on their own turn. If the Rogue has a problem of competing action economy, it's because unlike most other Classes, the Rogue has the option of or are encouraged to play for actively taking more actions both on and off their turn. A Fighter is not incentivised to take an Opportunity or Readied attack in the same way a Rogue is, so they don't. A Rogue actively benefits from doing so. A Rogue that isn't using their Bonus Action and Reaction in as many rounds as possible is definitely missing out in a way that other classes either aren't or can't even begin to appreciate. A Wizard using Bonus Action or Reaction spells is burning twice as bright but half as long and that's a problem. Not so for the Rogue; it's expected that they just...do more. Just less effectively. 1+1+1+1 is the same as 2+2 or 3+1, but you're looking at the 1's and comparing them to the 3's rather than comparing the sum.

Schrodinger's Rogue is one that does everything all on the same turn, yes. What I'm advocating is the Rogue that does a lot in one round, yes, but they do it consistently from one round to the next, as appropriate to the situation at hand. In a hall of infinite (and varied) encounters, just about every Class but the Rogue runs out of spells and other resources before the Rogue finally says "I'm beat" because again, the Rogue's only limited resource is HP and they're really really good at reserving those when they need to. In addition to that, the Rogues breadth of abilities means that he is useful across more of those encounters than just about anyone else; melee, ranged, skills, exploration, social; it's not even a thought exercise to build a Rogue that participates across the board because that's just a baseline, run-of-the-mill Rogue before adding any specialisation or further versatility.

Schrodingers Spellcaster, on the other hand, appears to have infinite spell slots and perfect foresight, despite actual Classes and individual characters in actual play being far more limited. Far more of a problematic argument than the Rogue I present, IMO.

When I used the phrase "selfish class" to describe the 5e Rogue class, I was not making any reference to normative judgments on morality, I certainly was not thinking about D&D PvP or stealing from the party or other such actions.And yet those very things have been brought up in this thread to denigrate the Class, despite that being a player problem.

The common Rogue play pattern of Hide, Pop out and Sneak Attack, go back and Hide, is "selfish", in the sense that often-times, the Rogue is not an available target for the opposition.

A Rogue, (or any PC), that is not taking their share of damage, can become problematic, as balancing incoming damage across a Party, is an important resource management tool.

Hide N' Sneak-Attack, as a tactic, places a larger burden of the incoming damage share on the remaining party members.

Evasion, as an ability, also plays into this disparity. Quite a bit of damage in 5e, calls for Dexterity Saving Throws for half damage. The Rogue and Monk have taken no damage, but the rest of the party is bedraggled from loss, is something I see quite a bit in play. The Fighter and Bard want to take a Short Rest, and the Rogue wants to keep on going, because Rogues only Short Rest for Hit Points....which is yet another point in which the Rogue is not on the same resource use path as some other classes, and a potential source of conflict.

Tactical habits also become ingrained. The Arcane Trickster/Bladesinger in my 20th level game, almost never will tank a creature, despite the fact that when their Bladesong is active, they have the highest AC in the party, and have the Shield spell and Uncanny Dodge to boot.

In the player's mind, their Rogue circles around the combat, waiting for a chance to strike, even though, their actual abilities make them an excellent choice for wading into the thick of things, and thriving.Do you not see how this is not an issue of the Class, but the player? You point out yourself that the AT/Bladesinger player would be better placed in the thick of things according to the numbers on their character sheet and yet somehow it's a fault of or encouraged by features of the Class? Likewise, Rogues can certainly benefit from peek-a-boo tactics, but are by no means limited to them and there's a strong argument that they are better served as a switch hitter, using both ranged and melee depending on which is the most beneficial in the moment. Again, it's a player choice not to engage and take themselves out of the target pool; after all, no-one is forcing any Rogue to even take Stealth proficiency, let alone Expertise.

Rogues, as a class, also generally lack control abilities, which in part explains why Arcane Trickster is as effective as it is; spells allow control. Other Rogue subclasses can throw nets, but let's face it, most players are not playing a Rogue, to throw nets. Grapple and lack of Extra Attack has been discussed enough, earlier.Most Rogue subclasses offer some degree of control, whether it's the Arcane Trickster using "traditional" spell control, the Swashbuckler drawing aggro or the Thief manipulating terrain elements with Fast Hands. It might not look like the nice discreet function of a spell, but there's far more than just nets (really, nets? I didn't think anyone used those :smalltongue:) for less-than-magical control elements. That said, I do tend to agree that Rogues in general do not have much in the way of control elements in the traditional sense.

Bardic Inspiration, is for me, the gold standard of a simple, yet flavorful ability, that subtly boosts the survivability of an Adventuring Group.I agree. I think the Bard is a strong contender for best designed Class in the game (that and Paladin).

An Arcane Trickster with Silvery Barbs, can certainly aid their friends, and bring woe to their foes, just as a Thief with Healer Feat can be an excellent healer, but a player has to work at it. Paladins and Bards on the opposite end of the spectrum, have to work hard to not help their friends.Rogue is an advanced Class, yes. They're hard to "get right" precisely because they come with a whole heap of undeserved baggage (Thief. PvP. Lone Wolf. Squishy) on top of a playstyle that is really quite different to that of other Classes and their "push button, do thing until you run out of buttons" dynamic.

Sorinth

2024-04-26, 11:28 AM

When I used the phrase "selfish class" to describe the 5e Rogue class, I was not making any reference to normative judgments on morality, I certainly was not thinking about D&D PvP or stealing from the party or other such actions.

I described the Rogue class as "selfish" because the base class abilities, (and most of the subclass abilities as well), are focused on the Rogue PC and not their friends.

The common Rogue play pattern of Hide, Pop out and Sneak Attack, go back and Hide, is "selfish", in the sense that often-times, the Rogue is not an available target for the opposition.

A Rogue, (or any PC), that is not taking their share of damage, can become problematic, as balancing incoming damage across a Party, is an important resource management tool.

Hide N' Sneak-Attack, as a tactic, places a larger burden of the incoming damage share on the remaining party members.

Evasion, as an ability, also plays into this disparity. Quite a bit of damage in 5e, calls for Dexterity Saving Throws for half damage. The Rogue and Monk have taken no damage, but the rest of the party is bedraggled from loss, is something I see quite a bit in play. The Fighter and Bard want to take a Short Rest, and the Rogue wants to keep on going, because Rogues only Short Rest for Hit Points....which is yet another point in which the Rogue is not on the same resource use path as some other classes, and a potential source of conflict.

Tactical habits also become ingrained. The Arcane Trickster/Bladesinger in my 20th level game, almost never will tank a creature, despite the fact that when their Bladesong is active, they have the highest AC in the party, and have the Shield spell and Uncanny Dodge to boot.

In the player's mind, their Rogue circles around the combat, waiting for a chance to strike, even though, their actual abilities make them an excellent choice for wading into the thick of things, and thriving.

Rogues, as a class, also generally lack control abilities, which in part explains why Arcane Trickster is as effective as it is; spells allow control. Other Rogue subclasses can throw nets, but let's face it, most players are not playing a Rogue, to throw nets. Grapple and lack of Extra Attack has been discussed enough, earlier.

Bardic Inspiration, is for me, the gold standard of a simple, yet flavorful ability, that subtly boosts the survivability of an Adventuring Group.

An Arcane Trickster with Silvery Barbs, can certainly aid their friends, and bring woe to their foes, just as a Thief with Healer Feat can be an excellent healer, but a player has to work at it. Paladins and Bards on the opposite end of the spectrum, have to work hard to not help their friends.

Rogues are great as the "fifth man" of an Adventuring Group, but I would likely prefer someone to play another class in a 4 person Adventuring Group, as it would open up other options.

Not sure how Evasion is selfish because they don't take damage, like I can understand your point about hiding and therefore not being targettable can lead to more damage dealt to the rest of the team which could be selfish but mitigating sorry but no. They were still targeted by the spell/trap/effect the fact that they mitigate the damage just means the healer doesn't have to cast spells on them and can help others instead which if anything is the opposite of being selfish.

And speaking of the hide every round tactic, just because the Rogue hid doesn't mean an enemy won't chase after them to try attack them. Like a Rogue hiding behind a tree and popping out every round to attack the orc war party doesn't prevent an orc from running up to that tree and attacking the Rogue.

Yeah the rogue doesn't have much in the way of directly buffing allies but that's true for quite a few classes and doesn't make any of them selfish.

Witty Username

2024-04-26, 11:48 AM

Wizard: Dude, why did you let that monster run right past you? You didn't even hit him with your l33t Booming Blade Sneak Attack Opportunity Attack!
Rogue: Yeah well, I have to keep using Uncanny Dodge to protect myself. But it would have been pretty sick if I was able to make that attack right?
Wizard: *rolls death save* Yeah, real sick...

That definitely can happen, although if they pop uncanny dodge that does mean they used an attack, monster runs up to wizard and says boogah boogah is also a thing that happens.

Kinda like how every time I am saving rage on the easy combat is the combat I take a crit from the great Lady Doom.

Pex

2024-04-26, 12:09 PM

And yet those very things have been brought up in this thread to denigrate the Class, despite that being a player problem.

Because it was and is a problem. In the past disruptive players played rogues. Thieves in 2E. Not all rogue players, but players who played rogues. Nowadays it's not limited to rogues. It can be wizards who cast Fireball not caring party members are in the area. Druids who wildshape to play a separate Lone Wolf game with the DM passing notes. Bards who charm party members. Barbarians who attack during the middle of negotiations. There are still rogue players who steal from the party.

I agree it's a player thing, but that does not take away the poor reputation rogues get. The class inherited the stigma from how they were played in previous editions.

stoutstien

2024-04-26, 12:32 PM

Rogues could definitely use better counterplay options but all the notably good ones were unintentional IMO.

Blatant Beast

2024-04-26, 12:38 PM

5e is the only edition of D&D, in which I can remember heated arguments between players about when to take a Rest...(Short Rests, to be precise)....and the Evasion quotient of damage resistance furthers the disparity that fuels the argument.

Fizban's Platinum Shield, the Interception Fighting Style, a Redemption Paladin's Aura of the Guardian, are a sample of examples of Damage Reduction that help others.

PCs with Evasion, ideally, should be standing in front of their comrades without Evasion, to give a half cover bonus to their comrades on Dexterity Saving Throws, but in play, I've never seen a Rogue be willing to do this ....it seems to be a tactic that is not part of the zeitgeist of the player base.

The devs could just as easily include a "Jumping into the line of fire" ability rider in Evasion or Uncanny Defense, in which like Clint Eastwood playing a Secret Service Agent, the Rogue launches themselves in front of an attack, and takes the damage, while giving their teammate the benefit of their damage reduction. That sort of design space is just not explored for Rogues.

The Expert Sidekick in Tasha's has more party facing features, than a Mastermind Rogue.

LudicSavant

2024-04-26, 01:17 PM

The Expert Sidekick in Tasha's has more party facing features, than a Mastermind Rogue.

Ugh, the Mastermind is such a wasted opportunity. :smallfrown:

- Help as a short range bonus action is only a sidegrade to Cunning Action (if we're being optimistic) and only gets less relevant with levels.
- Their level 9 feature is a reprise of the Battle Master's infamously dysfunctional level 7 ribbon. Most ribbon features are bigger than this, and it's the Mastermind's whole feature.
- Their level 13 feature requires a creature within 5 feet of you, and for them to be granting you cover against an attack, and then for your to use your Reaction on it for modest gains over Uncanny Dodge. It actually does something (albeit a situational something), but it's sure not much.
- Their level 17 feature means you can now spoof a second level spell (if you make a successful check). Great, I would have liked this to get my conspiracy started about a dozen levels earlier, please.

Skrum

2024-04-26, 01:50 PM

Re: mastermind

I've never been more underwhelmed by a subclass before. My current character, a level 6 wild magic barb level 4 soul knife, originally had mastermind. He's more built for toughness/tanking than damage, and since wild magic has some support elements, I thought mastermind would be perfect.

I used the ability maybe 3 times in 5-6 games. It was so weak. Taking my bonus action and thus an attack to give advantage on one thing. Just did not have the sauce I expected. By the last 2ish games, I started to forget I even had that ability.

The thought of spending by bonus action for that on a pure rogue.... Oh heck no

Witty Username

2024-04-26, 02:10 PM

I agree it's a player thing, but that does not take away the poor reputation rogues get. The class inherited the stigma from how they were played in previous editions.

Kinda like how Paladins have the reputation of being party police.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-26, 02:39 PM

That definitely can happen, although if they pop uncanny dodge that does mean they used an attack, monster runs up to wizard and says boogah boogah is also a thing that happens.
The issue is just making these sweeping claims about how the rogue plays out, which can't be substantiated except in actual gameplay.

When I hear things like (paraphrasing) "there's little value in having Expertise in multiple skills" and "rogues can be tanks because of Uncanny Dodge and Warcaster" it immediately tells me I'm playing a different game than the people making these claims. So it becomes obvious to me that their opinion is limited to their playstyle, as mine are to mine, and we can't go around making these claims about a class.

I would much rather have a rogue that can perform consistently well at the out of combat challenges the party faces, and still contribute to damage/kills in combat, than someone tricked out to the gills with spells/features/multiclassing because they have some weird need to prove to... someone? that they can excel at every role as good or better than anyone else.

At least with the former I know what I'm getting. With the latter, it's whatever their whim is, and inevitably they're going to be checking in on everyone's turn "Well, actually, I can do that, so maybe you can do something else with your turn..."

Thanks, but I'd rather not every turn be a negotiation with Captain Do-It-All. I prefer distinct party roles with some minor overlap, instead of people trying to be Superman asking why Flash is on the team.

LudicSavant

2024-04-26, 03:21 PM

Inquisitive is better off than the Mastermind, but still underwhelming. As a big fan of the detective archetype, I feel like this was another big missed opportunity in Xanathar's.

Ear for Deceit goes obsolete at level 11, doing literally nothing after that point. Before then, it only applies to Insight checks to detect if a creature is lying (rather than insight checks in general), and the bonus is paltry -- if it even applies at all, since it doesn't benefit passive insight, which the book suggests using for checks where the DM wouldn't want to reveal if you passed or failed.

You know, like whether a creature is lying.

Eye for Detail lets you use a worse version of the Search action as a bonus action. This is very situationally useful for when you need to find a hidden creature mid-combat and your passive perception failed you, but it's still a pretty small feature.

Insightful Fighting is the main draw of their level 3 kit, making it somewhat easier to qualify for sneak attack. But even here it's finnicky: it requires a successful all-or-nothing check from a non-primary stat as a bonus action, still doesn't counter disadvantage, and needs to be used again every time you switch targets. And on turns that you use it, you're not generating actual advantage with Steady Aim or Hide or the like.

Their level 9 feature gives you Advantage on Perception and Investigation checks if you move at half speed.

If used for trapfinding, this is... well, it's asking the entire party to cut their rate of progress in half. But if you're in a situation where speed is no object, it's a useful bonus to good skills, albeit ones that use two different non-primary stats. This is the best non-combat feature that Inquisitives get.

Their level 13 feature, Unerring Eye, is mostly limited to non-combat use by its Action requirement, and moreover... doesn't actually do much. See, you need to already suspect something is up if you're going to use the very limited-use action in the first place (it's only wis/day, and wis is not your main stat), and all the action tells you on a success is that something is up, but not what. Yeah thanks for that, Sherlock.

For an ability that bills itself flavorwise as "your senses are almost impossible to foil" it... makes your senses pretty easy to foil, especially for a tier 3 character that's supposed to be dedicated to detection. Compare this 2/day effect to the sort of things that level 13+ Diviners are spamming out of Matryoshka Doll spell slots. Yeah, this is... not a good feature. It would be a ribbon if you got it at level 1. You know, like Divine Sense.

Their level 17 feature, Eye for Weakness, just gives you +10.5 average damage against a creature that's afflicted by your Insightful Fighting. I mean, sure, I'll take a little extra sneak attack damage, but it's just a little. Not enough to actually catch you up to the Rogue subclasses that do better damage.

___

Inquisitive is basically an entire subclass for Advantage on two skills while moving slowly, and sometimes qualifying for sneak attack when you otherwise wouldn't. Given how deep the well is for high fantasy detectives, they sure didn't draw much from it.

Blatant Beast

2024-04-26, 04:41 PM

I do mostly agree regarding the Inquisitive being a missed opportunity.
It might be fun to go through all the Rogue Subclasses on the Playground, sometime.
I will say, that I think the Inquisitive in Tier 1 is a decent Rogue option, because Insightful Fighting is an effective solution to Kitting issues with Rogues.

I am ok with Ear for Deceit sunsetting at 11th level with Reliable Talent coming online, but that should be accounted for in the overall power budget.

Steady Eye, in actual play, is not too bad, because often times one is not exploring in combat. In effect, the moving at half speed, can get handwaved away. Now that said, Advantage on Perception/Investigation checks for a half speed penalty at 9th level is a bad rate.

Unerring Eye is just bad. You spend you action to confirm that your suspicion that stuff might be messing with you is correct, without receiving confirmation of what exactly is messing with you, and what it is doing.
No **** Sherlock, this is D&D, everything is messing with you...paranoid players ask questions, any Rogue can get the same result, by just asking questions.

Eye for Detail is worded in a way, that a RAW style DM might rule the ability does not work on Invisible creatures, because the wording of the ability specifies only "hidden" creatures and objects. Epic Fail..thankfully most DMs allow the ability to detect invisible things as well, in my experience.

Theodoxus

2024-04-26, 04:43 PM

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-26, 04:57 PM

I've never been more underwhelmed by the commentary on D&D features.

Optimizers: You're not playing D&D unless you're using Pass Without Trace to Stealth everywhere and get Surprise on all your enemies yo!
Optimizers: Steady Eye sucks because it makes you move slow.
Actual Real Life D&D: You have to move at a Slow Pace in order to make use of Stealth.

As I said above... people are playing their games differently, including ignoring parts of them, and drawing conclusions on various classes and mechanics. Take it all with a grain of salt, it may not apply at your table.

Blatant Beast

2024-04-26, 04:58 PM

Inquisitive is the epitome of lone wolf subclasses though. "Ok, Jimmy is going to play detective for the next 20 minutes, Tom and I are going to go play X-Box, let us know when something our characters can do turns up."

Seriously, detective plots are great to watch on video, but no one I know wants to be Watson or Alfred at the table top.

Lol.....
My spouse absolutely leapt at the chance to play Sherlock Holmes at the Table Top.
3/4 of the players were brand new to Roleplaying, so essentially outsourcing the dice rolling to the Inquisitive with Help from my Cleric of Trickery, sped the process along....though it was very much an opportunity to take a break for the rest of the group.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-26, 05:01 PM

If anyone in my group is moving ahead to do something alone, two of us remain engaged with what is going on and talking with the player if they're trying to figure something out (though that knowledge remains OOC, up to him to figure out how his character might discover it). The fourth player definitely zones out. But that player zones out no matter what and is definitely the least vested in the game in general. Like... if it's not his turn in combat he's on another planet.

Blatant Beast

2024-04-26, 05:14 PM

Optimizers: You're not playing D&D unless you're using Pass Without Trace to Stealth everywhere and get Surprise on all your enemies yo!
Optimizers: Steady Eye sucks because it makes you move slow.
Actual Real Life D&D: You have to move at a Slow Pace in order to make use of Stealth.

Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Strahd, are both modules that feature some very rough traps/choices in confined dungeons, where it is very likely that things might possibly be chasing you.

Moving at Half Speed Can Get you Killed, as can opening the wrong door into the closet of ultimate destruction in Tomb of Annihilation. You might as well skip the Inquisitive subclass, and expect to use Enhance Abilities for Advantage on Perception checks.

The great value in Cunning Action, is the modular flexibility in the ability. Steady Eye, takes away some of Cunning Action's modularity, because it creates a penalty that greatly encourages the player to use their Cunning Action to Dash, and not do the other things that the Inquisitive subclass allows like Eye for Detail. Ideally, Steady Eye and Eye for Detail should be used in conjunction, but in play, that does not happen, due to the excessive, and unnecessary speed penalty.

It is just bad design.

Dr.Samurai

2024-04-26, 05:22 PM

Tomb of Annihilation and Curse of Strahd, are both modules that feature some very rough traps/choices in confined dungeons, where it is very likely that things might possibly be chasing you.

Moving at Half Speed Can Get you Killed, as can opening the wrong door into the closet of ultimate destruction in Tomb of Annihilation. You might as well skip the Inquisitive subclass, and expect to use Enhance Abilities for Advantage.

A Fighter does not need a potion of Haste to get the most out of their Action Surge. Action Surge, just works, and works with most Fighter Archtypes.

The great value in Cunning Action, is the modular flexibility in the ability. Steady Eye, takes away some of Cunning Action's modularity, because it creates a penalty that greatly encourages the player to use their Cunning Action to Dash, and not do the other things that the Inquisitive subclass allows like Eye for Detail.

It is just bad design.
If you're being chased, than you're taking a -5 penalty to Perception anyways because you're moving at a Fast Pace, you're not really expected to be spotting stuff.

I didn't make the claim that the feature is always useful.

I'm not trying to weaponize differing viewpoints. The thread is about reputation, and I'm pointing out that some of these claims are based on specific assumptions. The rogue has been denigrated because it lacks Pass Without Trace, in this same thread. But in order to use Pass Without Trace, you have to be moving at a Slow Pace. But in the same thread, by the same people, we're told that Steady Eye is bad because you have to move slowly to benefit from it.

A rogue sneaking, even with a party and even with Pass Without Trace, will have a +5 to their Passive Perception/Investigation checks while doing so with Steady Eye. That's a bump up in tier of difficulty. For doing what they were already doing, which is moving slowly. It also addresses a criticism, ALSO FIELDED IN THIS THREAD, about Reliable Talent not playing nice with passive perception/investigation.

So apologies if it comes across as "weaponizing" anything, but some of the commentary in this thread about the rogue is incoherent. And that matters, if people are going to listen to it and judge the class on it.

LudicSavant

2024-04-26, 05:29 PM

I've never been more underwhelmed by the commentary on D&D features.

Optimizers: You're not playing D&D unless you're using Pass Without Trace to Stealth everywhere and get Surprise on all your enemies yo!
Optimizers: Steady Eye sucks because it makes you move slow.
Actual Real Life D&D: You have to move at a Slow Pace in order to make use of Stealth.

That's quite a translation of "This is the best non-combat feature that Inquisitives get." :smallconfused:

The words you typed bear no resemblance to what optimizers actually told you.

Kane0

2024-04-26, 05:46 PM

*madly scribbling notes*

Okay so that's Assassin, Mastermind and Inquisitive that all need work done, any others? What if we just smooshed some of these together? If Rogue gets a more stabdard 3, 6, 10, 14 subclass spread courtesy of PHB 2024 what changes there?

Psyren

2024-04-26, 05:59 PM

If Rogue gets a more stabdard 3, 6, 10, 14 subclass spread courtesy of PHB 2024 what changes there?

FYI that got reverted, the subclass spread in 2024 = the one from 2014. They pointed to Cunning Strike as the compensation for that; it gave them a reason to design something to fill in 2014 Rogue's massive feature deadzone* from 3->9.

*This isn't to say that they got nothing between those levels, but Evasion/UD/a couple more expertises weren't exactly earth-shattering either.

While you're looking at subclasses to buff though, I think Scout could use some work. I had made a suggestion for that one over on the DnDBeyond forums, I'll see if I can dig it up.

LudicSavant

2024-04-26, 06:01 PM

*madly scribbling notes*

Okay so that's Assassin, Mastermind and Inquisitive that all need work done, any others? What if we just smooshed some of these together?

You could probably smoosh all of the noncombat features of Assassin, Mastermind, and Inquisitive together and still have less than the Soulknife gets.

stoutstien

2024-04-26, 06:04 PM

LudicSavant

2024-04-26, 06:19 PM

You could probably smoosh all of the noncombat features of Assassin, Mastermind, and Inquisitive together and still have less than the Soulknife gets.

Assassin's level 9 and 13 features are the sort of things that you could arguably have done with regular skill checks even if the feature never existed. What's more, these identities that take you, a high level adventurer, a very long time to craft can fall apart to low level divinations. This is at a level where you're running up against the courts of mighty otherworldly beings and the like.

Mastermind's level 17 feature is useful for spoofing low level divinations, it's just a shame that they get it at, well, level 17.

Inquisitive has basically one non-combat feature that matters more than a ribbon and it's Steady Eye.

___

By comparison, a Soulknife has a larger-than-Expertise bonus that can be applied to checks a spammable number of times per day (that stacks with Advantage, Expertise, etc, and doesn't even use a resource unless it converts failure into success), telepathy, invisibility, teleportation, and an inability to leave all their weapons at the door :smalltongue:

Skrum

2024-04-26, 07:05 PM

By comparison, a Soulknife has a larger-than-Expertise bonus that can be applied to checks a spammable number of times per day (that stacks with Advantage, Expertise, etc, and doesn't even use a resource unless it converts failure into success), telepathy, invisibility, teleportation, and an inability to leave all their weapons at the door :smalltongue:

I really do enjoy soulknife's boosted knack.

Fun story of failing a wisdom save, my barb/rogue got dominated and the bad guy sent him after the party's rune knight. They had a BADA** wrestling match where the rune knight lost a grapple for perhaps the first time ever, and it was because I said "nope, I win anyway" with an extra d6.

Spammable is indeed the word. I've never even used half of my dice before getting a rest. And it is immensely satisfying to dig a failure out.

===========

Is there any rogue subclass where it would be imbalanced to just push their abilities to 6th, 10th, and 14th? Like that might be the place to start. Give them their stuff 3 levels earlier.

Witty Username

2024-04-26, 07:22 PM

You could probably smoosh all of the noncombat features of Assassin, Mastermind, and Inquisitive together and still have less than the Soulknife gets.

Doesn't that just add up to Assassin?

Psyren

2024-04-26, 07:26 PM

Found my Scout recommendations:

Skirmisher: The big problem with this is the enemy has to end their turn next to you before you can move away, meaning they probably already poured all their attacks into you, so it doesn't actually protect you. My recommendation was that you can also activate this whenever you activate Uncanny Dodge (once you get that), meaning you no-sell their first hit and then move half your speed away before they can fire off any more. As a ranged rogue, most enemies should need their whole movement to reach you, so getting only one hit off that does half-damage will make you a lot tougher in practice.

Survivalist: This is a ribbon but that's fine since it's concurrent with Skirmisher. It has the usual problem of specific-proficiency ribbons in that it forces you to start without the thematic proficiencies in order not to waste them - so your outdoorsy rogue goes from sucking at being outdoorsy (no Nature/Survival at level 1) to being a pro overnight. This should either give you two proficiencies of your choice from the rogue list if you already have Nature and Survival. or give you Expertise in both of them once you hit 3 - either approach would encourage you to grab them at level 1, and play into your fantasy of being the spell-less Ranger Rogue.

Superior Mobility: This should actually give you climb and swim speeds; again, "spell-less ranger" is the fantasy for this subclass. +10ft is also weak for a 9th-level feature, I'd go for +20, allowing your Scout to easily get to sniper perches (rooftops, treetops, across streams etc.)

Ambush Master: I'd change this one from the first enemy you hit to the first enemy you attack. That way you benefit from the advantage too, without needing Steady Aim that first round so you get to position easily. That's fine for a T3 ability.

Sudden Strike: I would allow your SA to work on the same target twice, but if you do that the second one only does half damage. That makes it useful even for big boss fights with no minions.

LudicSavant

2024-04-26, 07:32 PM

Is there any rogue subclass where it would be imbalanced to just push their abilities to 6th, 10th, and 14th? Like that might be the place to start. Give them their stuff 3 levels earlier.

The biggest beneficiaries would likely be Thief (because of their level 17 feature) and Phantom (because of Ghost Walk and Death's Friend).

Dork_Forge

2024-04-26, 07:37 PM