What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Psyren]

Oh please-- as Just to Browse indicated above some of us like creating OPEN ENDED scenarios, that give the PCs Carte Blanche to do what they will. Psyren, you are essentially stating a DM should have everything planned out, which is limiting, (and frankly not always possible), to say the least.

Yes, oh please. You can be open-ended, but if your obstacles have one and only one solution that's dependent on someone in the party picking a specific class, that's contrived. It's taking us back to the "what if we can't Plane Shift" thread all over again. If magical long-range communication is the only possible solution to the problem you've created and nobody can do that, you should stick an NPC, wand or scroll somewhere in the campaign to facilitate that, or come up with additional solutions, or have a different problem.

Allowing multiple paths for success and failure in Encounter design is great, but forcing design so that all classes at all times, have an equal chance of succeeding at a task, is a bit too much of an ask.

No one said anything about "equal chance." The alternatives can be harder or more costly or have additional drawbacks. But there should be alternatives.

Sending as a form of communication has certain absolute advantages over even modern satellite communication, because it is magic.

Okay? If you have access to neither satellites nor Sending then this is a pretty moot point.

[Skrum]

5.5e is making it so we can draw weapons during the attack action, that should help free up a lot of bandwidth for Object Interactions without totally trivializing item retrieval I'd say.

Pretty sure we can already do that? Draw a weapon as part of the action used to attack with it. It doesn't change the amount of interactions you get though (1). I'm in favor of straight-up removal of that restriction. If a fighter has 4 attacks, they can draw a bow, fire it, put it away, draw a crossbow, fire it once, put it away, draw a javelin, throw it, and then finally draw a sword and swing it. It is video-gamey to have that kind of "reach behind myself and an item suddenly appears in my hand?" Yes. But do I have fun telling the barb they can't both open a door and draw and throw a javelin? A much bigger "no." The classes that get burned by this are the classes that are trying to do the least overpowered, most basic stuff. It's not a worthwhile use of anyone's time to track.

For this one I think expensive spell components are necessary to help slow caster power progression a bit and limit particularly powerful spells, but certain spells indeed don't need them (like Stoneskin.) BG3 removing all of them completely was a bit much.

I agree on expensive components; in fact, if I were to run a long-form, immersive story I would emphasize the difficulty of getting certain components and enforce a scarcity of spells like revivify or animate dead.

But for spell components in general: what the heck are they even doing. They certainly don't constrain full casters in any meaningful way; the devs made sure of that. What they will do is create silly niche cases where a hexblade can't use a shield and a rod of the pact keeper at the same time. Spell components are in a terrible no-mans land of not mattering most of the time, but just popping up occasionally to mess with particular spells or builds with no connection whatsoever to how strong that option is. It's just not worth it.

Okay but like - maps with a bunch of terrain features are a dime a dozen online, including a bunch of free ones. And even if you play exclusively in meatspace, you aren't limited to D&D maps, Paizo and a bunch of other publishers sell them too.

Yes, sort of. I agree with others that this is a surprising weakness of VTT's - by bringing the map in to focus just enough, it wanders into needing to express everything territory. With theater of the mind, the rogue or whoever can ask "is there a bookcase or other heavy furniture around?" and the DM can be like "oo I like where this is going, yes there's an oaken chest of drawers in the corner." But VTT, well now we have a picture of the room. Maybe there's an oaken chest of drawers there, maybe there isn't. If it's not there, the player can't very well say "so, I know the room only has a bed in it, but suppose there was a bookcase..." Even if it is there, it's not its own asset it's on the map itself meaning it can't be visually moved which just discourages interacting with it.

On balance I love VTTs cause as an adult the reality is I just wouldn't play if it weren't for VTTs. But I agree that some things are lost compared to sitting around a table.

[Blatant Beast]

Yes, oh please. You can be open-ended, but if your obstacles have one and only one solution that's dependent on someone in the party picking a specific class, that's contrived.

Imagine in Tome of Annihilation, (an Adventure Path that harkens back to old school Hex-crawling), the 5th level+ party stumbles across a large, organized force of undead that haunt the jungles on the island, and is heading towards Port Nyanzaru. (Consider this a DM homebrew-ish element they are emphasizing in the module)

The players want to warn Port Nyanzaru.

A non exhaustive list of solutions could include:

1. trekking back to Port Nyanzaru.
2. Using Carrier Pigeons.
3. Using Flying Friends made in the course of the adventure to act as couriers
4. Using Flaming Fist Friends made in the course of the adventure to act as couriers
5. Using Sending to relay the information. (if the PCs can't cast it, perhaps a Hag will)

Clearly, the Sending option is the easiest, presuming the PCs can cast it themselves.
Now there are a number of solutions indicated in the non exhaustive list above that a Rogue could help with, but the clear an obvious winner in terms of efficiency, is for the the PC's to cast Sending themselves and warn Port Nyanzaru.

To take away Sending's absolute advantage in the reasonable scenario above that could happen in Tomb of Annihilation, would require the addition of an element that removes a PC's ability to cast Sending. (Just to Browse, made this very point in a recent prior post).

Essentially, you have to rob Peter to pay Paul.

[Psyren]

Imagine in Tome of Annihilation, (an Adventure Path that harkens back to old school Hex-crawling), the 5th level+ party stumbles across a large, organized force of undead that haunt the jungles on the island, and is heading towards Port Nyanzaru. (Consider this a DM homebrew-ish element they are emphasizing in the module)

The players want to warn Port Nyanzaru.

A non exhaustive list of solutions could include:

1. trekking back to Port Nyanzaru.
2. Using Carrier Pigeons.
3. Using Flying Friends made in the course of the adventure to act as couriers
4. Using Flaming Fist Friends made in the course of the adventure to act as couriers
5. Using Sending to relay the information. (if the PCs can't cast it, perhaps a Hag will)

Clearly, the Sending option is the easiest, presuming the PCs can cast it themselves.
Now there are a number of solutions indicated in the non exhaustive list above that a Rogue could help with, but the clear an obvious winner in terms of efficiency, is for the the PC's to cast Sending themselves and warn Port Nyanzaru.

To take away Sending's absolute advantage in the reasonable scenario above that could happen in Tomb of Annihilation, would require the addition of an element that removes a PC's ability to cast Sending. (Just to Browse, made this very point in a recent prior post).

Essentially, you have to rob Peter to pay Paul.

I never said anything about "removing the PC's ability to cast Sending." I'm saying that if you don't have a PC that can cast Sending, and Sending is the only way to warn the Port in time of this contrived threat, then you need to give them another means of accessing Sending. Or not, and simply revel in their inevitable failure.

Pretty sure we can already do that?

In 5.0, drawing a weapon is an object interaction (PHB 190.) Not only does this mean you only get one before you need to use your Action, it conflicts with anything else you might want to use your OI on, like opening a door first. Even worse, its only one weapon in 2014, so if you're dual-wielding or drawing a bunch of thrown weapons you need to pay a fighting style tax too.

But for spell components in general: what the heck are they even doing. They certainly don't constrain full casters in any meaningful way; the devs made sure of that. What they will do is create silly niche cases where a hexblade can't use a shield and a rod of the pact keeper at the same time. Spell components are in a terrible no-mans land of not mattering most of the time, but just popping up occasionally to mess with particular spells or builds with no connection whatsoever to how strong that option is. It's just not worth it.

The hexblade thing is an easy fix - "you can perform S components even if your hand is occupied by F." Right now that only works for SM spells (clunky), when it should really just be all of them (simpler).

Yes, sort of. I agree with others that this is a surprising weakness of VTT's - by bringing the map in to focus just enough, it wanders into needing to express everything territory. With theater of the mind, the rogue or whoever can ask "is there a bookcase or other heavy furniture around?" and the DM can be like "oo I like where this is going, yes there's an oaken chest of drawers in the corner." But VTT, well now we have a picture of the room. Maybe there's an oaken chest of drawers there, maybe there isn't.

I think the reverse of that is more common. The player looks at the map you downloaded with a bunch of terrain features in it, sees a bookshelf there and says "can I knock this over?" And then when they successfully knock it over, the DM can draw a shape or slap a token down to show that the bookshelf is knocked over in {square(s)} now. That to me is a much more organic question than constantly asking "what's in the room?" and both sides needing to remember the previous answer.

[Skrum]

I never said anything about "removing the PC's ability to cast Sending." I'm saying that if you don't have a PC that can cast Sending, and Sending is the only way to warn the Port in time of this contrived threat, then you need to give them another means of accessing Sending. Or not, and simply revel in their inevitable failure.

BlatentBeast's point, I think, is that martials generally take additional planning considerations on the DM's part. I need to make the encounter, and then make sure there's a way for the martial classes to contribute/solve the encounter. Whereas with casters - personally I just throw stuff at them, at least once they get to level 8 or so. I don't concern myself with "ways to approach this" or even any particular "will this absolutely checkmate the party." I'm just gonna make a scenario, knowing that the players are game enough and their classes equipped with enough spells/options to handle it. That's the difference.

The hexblade thing is an easy fix - "you can perform S components even if your hand is occupied by F." Right now that only works for SM spells (clunky), when it should really just be all of them (simpler).

Well part of the problem is Rod of the Pact Keeper isn't a spell focus (lol). It boosts spell DC's, but it's not a focus. And it proves exactly the point I'm making - components usually never matter because they've been watered down to the point where full casters can comfortably use a shield and as long as they have a free hand to hold a focus, there's no spell they can't cast. But try being a ranger that uses a shield, or fights with two weapons.....no spells for you.

[Just to Browse]

BlatentBeast's point, I think, is that martials generally take additional planning considerations on the DM's part. I need to make the encounter, and then make sure there's a way for the martial classes to contribute/solve the encounter. Whereas with casters - personally I just throw stuff at them, at least once they get to level 8 or so. I don't concern myself with "ways to approach this" or even any particular "will this absolutely checkmate the party." I'm just gonna make a scenario, knowing that the players are game enough and their classes equipped with enough spells/options to handle it. That's the difference.

To back this up, an example of arbitrary restrictions in 5e is in Dungeon of the Mad Mage. It's a giant dungeon where the ostensible goal is to get the bottom and defeat Halastar, but to prevent the more flexible space-bending classes from trivially skipping floors, the whole dungeon has powerful anti-teleportation magic that can't be futzed with in any way. It's not even that there are teleportation restrictions (several gates between levels use teleportation), or that there's an enchantment for the PCs to break, the dungeon just has a You May Only Travel Via Approved Portals rule and you can't touch it.

Now to be clear, I'm not saying DotMM's solution here is bad! You simply can't run a 1-20 linear dungeoncrawl in 5e without this kind of rule. If you handed a random wizard an objective (kill halastar) and a few tools (the dungeon and its denizens), they'd probably start popping all over the dungeon levels, ignoring most of the carefully-placed hazards and enemies. Maybe they'd find a way to go to the Far Realm so they can get in through the basement, maybe they'd scry & die halastar, maybe they'd wait a century for a chance to tail one of those crazy death knights back downstairs, maybe they'd assemble the Avengers out of people trapped here like that one dragon on the forest floor. But those aren't the strategies the designers want hypothetical wizard players to pursue. To get the desired behavior, the designers chose to restrain the flexible characters.

[Psyren]

Well part of the problem is Rod of the Pact Keeper isn't a spell focus (lol).

No, but your pact weapon would be, so what a Hexblade has in their other hand shouldn't matter.

BlatentBeast's point, I think, is that martials generally take additional planning considerations on the DM's part. I need to make the encounter, and then make sure there's a way for the martial classes to contribute/solve the encounter. Whereas with casters - personally I just throw stuff at them, at least once they get to level 8 or so. I don't concern myself with "ways to approach this" or even any particular "will this absolutely checkmate the party." I'm just gonna make a scenario, knowing that the players are game enough and their classes equipped with enough spells/options to handle it. That's the difference.

And there's nothing wrong with that, but if you see your players are clearly stuck because they lack some capability, what do you do then? Cackle at their misfortune? Punish them? End the campaign? No, you keep the action moving, that's your job.

Like, if I set up "army of undead heading to Port Nyanzaru, no way to physically get a message ahead of them without Sending" and the players reply with "well, we don't have Sending, so I guess there's nothing we can do, shrug" then at that point I'm going to evaluate whether a shrug is the feeling I wanted to evoke from them with my design. Because ultimately that's what game design is all about, evoking particular feelings from the players - and that usually means striving for memorable ones like triumph or terror, rather than weaksauce ones like apathy, indifference, and resignation.

[Blatant Beast]

Like, if I set up "army of undead heading to Port Nyanzaru, no way to physically get a message ahead of them without Sending" and the players reply with "well, we don't have Sending, so I guess there's nothing we can do, shrug" then at that point I'm going to evaluate whether a shrug is the feeling I wanted to evoke from them with my design.

Nah, you are misrepresenting the scenario, by presuming a physical limitation on the PC's ability to communicate. Remember all options are open to the PCs in the aforementioned scenario. Some of them, like the Player Characters cutting a deal with Granny Pu'Pu to cast Sending, are great setups.

The essential quandary is one that economics describes well: in terms of all the other options, the Sending spell, (roughly), has an Absolute Advantage in regards to communication.

In the Port Nyanzaru scenario, which is designed for maximal PC freedom to approach the issue as they see fit, (sort of the point of Hex-crawling, as opposed to a linear railroad or bypass of travel that leads you directly to the adventuring site), if the PCs can cast the Sending spell on their own, that is likely the simplest, most direct route to accomplish that goal.

If left to their own devices, the players are likely to select the most effective stratagem to solve the dilemmas they chose to solve. Spells are pretty damn effective and generally have low costs in regards to time spent compared to more mundane choices.

In order for a DM to alleviate the Absolute Advantage some options have, they have to put fingers on the scale, to give other options a Competitive Advantage boost.

DM's, of course, can add elements that keep a campaign going if it hits a roadblock; that, however is not the question being asked, nor is it relevant to the discussion of why the Rogue class has the reputation it does. Yes, Psyren, the point is true, but alas that point is also not germane to the conversation at hand.

[Skrum]

No, but your pact weapon would be, so what a Hexblade has in their other hand shouldn't matter.

A shield can't be a pact weapon. Hexblades get shield proficiency, and it behooves them to use it at they only get medium armor. But that means they can't use the warlock item rod of the pact keeper, as it's not a focus. Shield and sword, fine; warlocks pay the invocation tax so their sword is a focus. But that means they can't use the rod. And this is what I mean by "almost never matters, except when it shows up to mess with particular builds." Does anyone actually think this is a necessary balance point for hexblades? Of course not. It's just a random nonsense rules interaction.

And there's nothing wrong with that, but if you see your players are clearly stuck because they lack some capability, what do you do then? Cackle at their misfortune? Punish them? End the campaign? No, you keep the action moving, that's your job.

Like, if I set up "army of undead heading to Port Nyanzaru, no way to physically get a message ahead of them without Sending" and the players reply with "well, we don't have Sending, so I guess there's nothing we can do, shrug" then at that point I'm going to evaluate whether a shrug is the feeling I wanted to evoke from them with my design. Because ultimately that's what game design is all about, evoking particular feelings from the players - and that usually means striving for memorable ones like triumph or terror, rather than weaksauce ones like apathy, indifference, and resignation.

Of course - but that's the point being made. The powerful, flexible classes can just...do stuff. And the DM can count on them being able to do stuff. The DM mostly doesn't need to think about "have I left a few ways for this to be solved" (or at least, think about it less). They can just make an scenario based on what would most fitting for the NPCs involved, and turn the players loose. That to me is a true sandbox.

[Psyren]

Nah, you are misrepresenting the scenario. Remember all options are open to the PCs in the aforementioned scenario. Some of them, like the Player Characters cutting a deal with Granny Pu'Pu to cast Sending, are great setups.

Then we're aligned, because Granny Pu'Pu (who I assume is an NPC) is exactly what I said was acceptable to me as an alternative - "give the PCs another means of accessing Sending." And needing to add Granny Pu'Pu to your campaign because your martial party otherwise doesn't have Sending does not mean the martial party is badly designed - because not every class is intended to have Sending. You're the one who created a scenario where Sending is the only viable answer (theirs or someone else's.)

A shield can't be a pact weapon. Hexblades get shield proficiency, and it behooves them to use it at they only get medium armor. But that means they can't use the warlock item rod of the pact keeper, as it's not a focus. Shield and sword, fine; warlocks pay the invocation tax so their sword is a focus. But that means they can't use the rod. And this is what I mean by "almost never matters, except when it shows up to mess with particular builds." Does anyone actually think this is a necessary balance point for hexblades? Of course not. It's just a random nonsense rules interaction.

Ah, I understand you now, I was thinking sword and rod. But yes, if you want sword, shield, and rod, that does appear to be an intended weakness.

Of course - but that's the point being made. The powerful, flexible classes can just...do stuff. And the DM can count on them being able to do stuff. The DM mostly doesn't need to think about "have I left a few ways for this to be solved" (or at least, think about it less). They can just make an scenario based on what would most fitting for the NPCs involved, and turn the players loose. That to me is a true sandbox.

What I'm saying is that you don't have to think about it in my scenario either. You just have to be able to pivot and react when they get stuck, assuming you care about their fun that is.

[JNAProductions]

Then we're aligned, because Granny Pu'Pu (who I assume is an NPC) is exactly what I said was acceptable to me as an alternative - "give the PCs another means of accessing Sending." And needing to add Granny Pu'Pu to your campaign because your martial party otherwise doesn't have Sending does not mean the martial party is badly designed - because not every class is intended to have Sending. You're the one who created a scenario where Sending is the only viable answer (theirs or someone else's.)

They did not do that.

They presented a situation where Sending is the BEST answer. Not the only answer.

[Psyren]

They did not do that.

They presented a situation where Sending is the BEST answer. Not the only answer.

If the other answers are viable, i.e. capable of warning the town before the horde gets there with enough time to make a difference, that's fine too. It didn't read that way to me.

[Blatant Beast]

Then we're aligned, because Granny Pu'Pu (who I assume is an NPC) is exactly what I said was acceptable to me as an alternative - "give the PCs another means of accessing Sending." And needing to add Granny Pu'Pu to your campaign because your martial party otherwise doesn't have Sending does not mean the martial party is badly designed - because not every class is intended to have Sending.

The pitfall inherent to the approach, is one that 5e struggles with in general, the game does not natively handle Degrees of Success very well. If all available options all work, and all options work equally well, then you have removed a critical element that many people enjoy: mainly discerning, and working towards achieving the best result of the available options.

You have also potentially removed key elements in life, which is there are better and worse results and Cause and Effect.

Try to Imagine Game of Thrones, when all options work equally well......Ned's still alive, Robb is still alive, everyone succeeds...which is hard to reconcile when the world of Game of Thrones has a strong narrative vein of zero sum game.

You're the one who created a scenario where Sending is the only viable answer (theirs or someone else's.)

Again, Nahh. If the Players have freedom to control their characters, their own choices might have forestalled certain actions. If the PCs killed Granny Pu'Pu, (an evil hag), that option might not be available. If the Players elect to be rude to an NPC Individual or Faction, then using those groups to carry a message likewise might not be available. This is all part and parcel of a Sandbox Adventure.

Freedom of Choice, does not equate to freedom of consequences. If the DM constantly uses Deus Machina to provide new options to eliminate the consequences of player actions, then you might have just created a game that as a matter of Drama, would not appeal to some people.

Stories, in general, in my opinion are compelling because of actions and consequences, cause and effect.

That is why works of fiction like the Song of Fire and Ice or the show Barry thrill so many people, the creators do not shy away from logically following the consequences. Plenty of D&D games run off the same principle, I imagine.

[Psyren]

The pitfall inherent to the approach, is one that 5e struggles with in general, the game does not natively handle Degrees of Success very well. If all available options all work, and all options work equally well, then you have removed a critical element that many people enjoy: mainly discerning, and working towards achieving the best result of the available options.

You have also potentially removed key elements in life, which is there are better and worse results and Cause and Effect.

Try to Imagine Game of Thrones, when all options work equally well......Ned's still alive, Robb is still alive, everyone succeeds...which is hard to reconcile when the world of Game of Thrones has a strong narrative vein of zero sum game.

I never said anything about "working equally well" though; just viable.

Getting Granny Pu'Pu to help you with her Sending is an acceptable alternative because it's still fast enough that the town has time to prepare. You can attach a hefty cost to that for the party that they wouldn't have to pay if they could cast Sending themselves, and now the party with Sending is being rewarded rather than the party without Sending being overly punished.

Meanwhile, sending a pigeon or messenger that will either arrive after the town is destroyed, just before the horde arrives and therefore too late for them to do anything meaningful with the information, or even not at all, is functionally identical to no warning, and thus not a viable alternative. "You can technically do this other option, but you're guaranteed to fail, lol" is not actually an option, it's the illusion of one.

Again, Nahh. If the Players have freedom to control their characters, their own choices might have forestalled certain actions. If the PCs killed Granny Pu'Pu, (an evil hag), that option might not be available. If the Players elect to be rude to an NPC Individual or Faction, then using those groups to carry a message likewise might not be available. This is all part and parcel of a Sandbox Adventure.

Freedom of Choice, does not equate to freedom of consequences. If the DM constantly uses Deus Machina to provide new options to eliminate the consequences of player actions, then you might have just created a game that dramatically, would not appeal to some people.

Oh sure, I'm not saying the players can't make mistakes or unheroic choices. If I put Granny Pu'pu there as an option to cover their Sending gap and the players kill her, then the town is screwed and that's fine, just like it would be screwed if the players chose not to warn it at all. But I'm also going to make sure I telegraph to them that she might be a solution to their problem - rather than hide that fact until she's dead, then point and laugh.

[Blatant Beast]

I never said anything about "working equally well" though; just viable.

This circles back to the point that was made before, if sending a carrier pigeon is a viable option, but using Sending is the better option, then most groups if capable of selecting the better option will do so.

Which in turns informs the zeitgeist opinion of the class.

Skrum and Just to Browse made that very point when they stated that design-wise they can just drop a goal in front of spellcasters, and assume they can reach the goal the without special design considerations they have to give to accommodate more mundane characters. It also supports the point the Stoutstein was making about perhaps spells being too effective in many cases.

Skrum, seemingly has a lower opinion of skills compared to spells, because skills are often just "ok" (aka merely viable), or in the games they play in, skills are given realistic challenges to overcome, while spells just work. (If any of that is incorrect Skrum, feel free to correct me).

On the side point of expensive material components having limited numbers, or expensive components having an identity beyond being a spell component, I completely agree. If the only known 25,000gp gem is the campaign world's equivalent of the Star of India, and it is fixed to crown of the most powerful kingdom in the world, that is going to make casting True Resurrection a real adventure!

[Skrum]

Skrum, seemingly has a lower opinion of skills compared to spells, because skills are often just "ok" (aka merely viable), or in the games they play in, skills are given realistic challenges to overcome, while spells just work. (If any of that is incorrect Skrum, feel free to correct me).

Nope, that's correct. Skills were clearly an afterthought in the design room, and while I lament them being an afterthought at the table, I certainly don't blame DMs for treating them as such. They're simply not a supported aspect of the game - certainly not up to the task of being the "mundane solution" that could/should be comparable to out of combat spell options.

I'm in the process of trying to fix that, but all it really amounts to is homebrew at one table.

[stoutstien]

Nope, that's correct. Skills were clearly an afterthought in the design room, and while I lament them being an afterthought at the table, I certainly don't blame DMs for treating them as such. They're simply not a supported aspect of the game - certainly not up to the task of being the "mundane solution" that could/should be comparable to out of combat spell options.

I'm in the process of trying to fix that, but all it really amounts to is homebrew at one table.

The ability check system were actually very well received during the next play test. The how to play packet shattered the treadmill mindset.

It's worth the read if you can get a hold of it. The GM support packet had a wonderful section in there about how you can memorize the rules and execute them flawlessly and still miss the point of playing DND. The goal is to incentivize clever and inventive problem solving and supplement that with dice not the other way around.

[Skrum]

The ability check system were actually very well received during the next play test. The how to play packet shattered the treadmill mindset.

It's worth the read if you can get a hold of it.

It's at least partially a function of me being a literally-minded person that isn't interested in (and frankly has no patience for) a rules-lite systems, but skills are not defined enough. Think about it: what does expertise (adding a flat number as a bonus to your skill check) even mean when DC's are as poorly defined as they are?? Is +4 meant to be a good skill check? Is +7 meant to be a good skill check? Is +10? Is +13? By the time a rogue gets reliable talent, that means they likely have 4 different skills that they can't get lower than a ~23 in. What does that get them? Sure, they're essentially undetectable to creatures that don't have line of sight or extra senses (which auto-beat their stealth check btw). But can they...take a sword from a soldier's sheath without being noticed? Can they grab the key from the warden's necklace while dueling the warden? Can they run across a 1" wide pipe that's wet and slippery? Can they pick a lock that's binding their hands behind their back using only the tine of a fork?

Rogue in particular is supposed to be the skills class, and some notable percentage of their design space is devoted to hitting high DCs. But all that amounts to is "ask your DM!" In comparison, the wizard gets wide-ranging, flexible, and most of all well-enumerated powers that say exactly how powerful they are. These two classes shouldn't be in the same game.

[Psyren]

This circles back to the point that was made before, if sending a carrier pigeon is a viable option, but using Sending is the better option, then most groups if capable of selecting the better option will do so.

Which in turns informs the zeitgeist opinion of the class.

I think you and I approach class selection very differently then. It seems to me like you start from "I want something that can use Sending" and therefore Rogue is inadequate. Whereas I start from "I want to play a Rogue" and therefore don't care that I can't use Sending, because I want to play a Rogue, and using Sending is not something Rogues do (barring a Thief with a wand or an AT or something.)

Skrum and Just to Browse made that very point when they stated that design-wise they can just drop a goal in front of spellcasters, and assume they can reach the goal the without special design considerations they have to give to accommodate more mundane characters.

"Spellcasters" aren't a monolith though, spell lists exist. If the goal is to raise a dead NPC and all you have is a wizard. they can't do that until Wish. If the goal is to use Sending to warn a town about an oncoming army, your Sorcerer and Warlock don't get that one without a specific subclass. You can't contrive any old challenge and just expect any old caster to be able to do it, alternatives and party capabilities are things you need to be considering anyway.

[stoutstien]

It's at least partially a function of me being a literally-minded person that isn't interested in (and frankly has no patience for) a rules-lite systems, but skills are not defined enough. Think about it: what does expertise (adding a flat number as a bonus to your skill check) even mean when DC's are as poorly defined as they are?? Is +4 meant to be a good skill check? Is +7 meant to be a good skill check? Is +10? Is +13? By the time a rogue gets reliable talent, that means they likely have 4 different skills that they can't get lower than a ~23 in. What does that get them? Sure, they're essentially undetectable to creatures that don't have line of sight or extra senses (which auto-beat their stealth check btw). But can they...take a sword from a soldier's sheath without being noticed? Can they grab the key from the warden's necklace while dueling the warden? Can they run across a 1" wide pipe that's wet and slippery? Can they pick a lock that's binding their hands behind their back using only the tine of a fork?

Rogue in particular is supposed to be the skills class, and some notable percentage of their design space is devoted to hitting high DCs. But all that amounts to is "ask your DM!" In comparison, the wizard gets wide-ranging, flexible, and most of all well-enumerated powers that say exactly how powerful they are. These two classes shouldn't be in the same game.

DND boils down to "ask the GM" so I don't know how you'd expect to have a different result even if you codified DC and reinvent a worse 3e.

You're right about one thing the wizard as it is design has no business being in 5e because it has nothing that really limits it besides slightly less HP which is a laughably forgettable issue.

It a 50/50 split of the blame on spells being the #1 form of creep while also maintaining the highest modular factor and wizards having no real governors on spell selection.

Splats make it worse because at least at first they can't heal or raise the dead but the *fixed* that as well.

Just scrubbing wizards make half the issues with ability checks disappear because now you don't have a single PC that can fill nearly every possible hole in a party's tool set alone.

[Skrum]

DND boils down to "ask the GM" so I don't know how you'd expect to have a different result even if you codified DC and reinvent a worse 3e.

Paladin, artificer, and bard are all good classes that 1) have distinct strengths, weaknesses, and roles to play thus aren't overpowered and 2) don't rely on the DM making favorable rulings to do their thing. So, I disagree. I think this is a writing and balance problem. Even if we're being very uncharitable and say it was by accident, it is clearly possible to make balanced, fun classes that still have defined powers.

Does the DM have ultimate authority over what happens in the game? Yes, of course, that's how the game is structured. But that shouldn't excuse a class being written that the DM has to ad-lib into functioning "as intended."

[Dr.Samurai]

It would be nice to see an actual spell list one of these times that someone is claiming casters are incredibly versatile and do different things all the time.

I suspect if we see the spell list, we're going to wind up wondering:

1. Who really prepares these spells, and how often? (Like I can count on my amputated hand how many of the wizards in our group learn Sending...)
2. How often do the opportunity to use these spells come up?
3. Is it really that big of a deal compared to other options? (None of the things that Just To Browse originally listed strike me as things only spellcasters can manage.)
4. What is the opportunity cost to learn these spells instead of other options?

I mean... we all know once a spell list gets posted we're going to dissect it, and the claims being made are going to get narrower and narrower. I suspect that "spellcasters can solve any encounter I throw at the party, I don't even have to think about it" is only true in the theater of the mind, and at a table where everyone is an optimizer, including the DM, and it's basically like group-think, where everything works well because everyone is thinking the same thing. Also, I know there's a lot of talk about adjudicating skills, but I have a sneaking suspicion that when spells are solving all these problems all the time, there's probably a fair bit of adjudicating going on with spell effects as well. Feel free to correct me but I'd be shocked if this wasn't the case.