What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[diplomancer]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Amnestic]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

---

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.

[Skrum]

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.

---



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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Vahnavoi]

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

[JNAProductions]

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]

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]

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 could probably dig up numbers for barbarian, warlock and monk. Fighter is very hard by 11 level to beat, ranger and paladin both have options in the kinda silly.

[Aimeryan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.