Is rogue a single or multi/dip into class?

[Dienekes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ir0ns0ul]

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

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

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

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

[sayaijin]

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

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

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

So it would read something like this:

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

[micahaphone]

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

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

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jojosskul]

You seem to be forgetting extra attack(2)?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that is before reckless attack auto-advantage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dienekes]

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

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

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

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

I sort of see the martial classes divided as:

Barbarian: Damage
Fighter: Tank
Rogue: Control

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

But that’s just my own musing.

[Morty]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[sayaijin]

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

Here's take two:

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

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

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

[Hytheter]

Here's take two:

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

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

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

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

[Yakk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Stangler]

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

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

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

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

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

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

OR

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

[Mr Adventurer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Adventurer]

Barbarian (Reckless gives advantage)

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

[sayaijin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Snails]

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

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

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

[Corran]

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Morty]

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

[bendking]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

[bendking]

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

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

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

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

[bendking]

I cannot fathom the appeal of a game like you describe, because if all characters are able to contribute equally at all times, then by necessity there is no discernable distinction between playing one character and another.Imbalances between characters in different scenarios is one of the things that makes a game like D&D. Take that away and you're not left with much except a really swingy RNG and some arbitrary numbers.

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

[Telwar]

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

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

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

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

[JellyPooga]

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

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

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

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

[Corran]

I would argue that a class depending on support from his team to match or even surpass the other martials on his team is bad game design, because then if you have a team that doesn't help you capitalize on your strengths, you just have a weak character, and that's no fun. Balancing a class around the possibility that your team will help bring the best out of it is just plain wrong-headed.

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

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

Besides, it's not as if the things that help the Rogue don't help other martial classes. Yes, Haste is better on a Rogue than other classes, but it's pretty great on everyone. And honestly, I would prefer casting Greater Invisibility on an ally than Haste, since it's less risky, provides more value for Extra Attack classes and keeps them safer than Haste would.

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

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

You might see a DM ruling that since you cast invisibility you automatically pass all stealth checks, and you might see another DM ruling that succeeding at your stealth check is treated like you are invisible. I tend to see skills negating spells a little more often in general (another example, insight that works as an improved version of zone of truth). I like rulings that happen (not purposefully) to have spells support skills in geneal, either by directly buffing them or by enabling the roll in the first place. Yes, there will be the odd case here and there when some spell completely overlaps with a skill, but even when I played my Grimma Wormtongue inspired sorcerer, I did get a lot of use out of my persuasion checks even though I had a subtle suggestion in my pocket.

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

[sayaijin]

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

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

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