What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Psyren]

A lot of classes have this issue. Rogue might have the highest rate of stinkers but they are far from alone.

I disagree, I think Rogue's stinkers are singularly bad (apart from monk's). Even a Champion/PDK Fighter or Battlerager/Berserker Barbarian can grab PAM/GWM/Sentinel and do a decent job on the frontline. Yeah they won't be that great at the other pillars but they're really not expected to be.

[Skrum]

I think they might be spread a bit too thin between the subclasses too.

This plagues martials in DND in general (it was way worse in 3e). "Non magical" abilities are only allowed to do so much, but with X amount of classes and Y subclasses, a ton of stuff just gets watered down. How many examples are there of "well this would be good, if you also got the abilities of this other subclass." That basically defines rogue and ranger in particular.

This dynamic is why I get so frustrated when people take a "can't give that ability, that's X's thing" attitude towards improving classes. Yes we want the classes to feel distinct, but big picture, they're all trying to hit stuff with sticks. Certain features, like attacking more, are extremely beneficial.

[KorvinStarmast]

PCs with Evasion, ideally, should be standing in front of their comrades without Evasion, to give a half cover bonus to their comrades on Dexterity Saving Throws, but in play, I've never seen a Rogue be willing to do this ....it seems to be a tactic that is not part of the zeitgeist of the player base.

Which tells you something about the players. (Not the class).

The devs could just as easily include a "Jumping into the line of fire" ability rider in Evasion or Uncanny Defense, in which like Clint Eastwood playing a Secret Service Agent, the Rogue launches themselves in front of an attack, and takes the damage, while giving their teammate the benefit of their damage reduction. That sort of design space is just not explored for Rogues.

nice idea, did you send that suggestion to the devs?

The Expert Sidekick in Tasha's has more party facing features, than a Mastermind Rogue.

Won't comment on Mastermind, sufficient "man, what a missed opportunity" posts exist. Such as points like this

- Their level 17 feature means you can now spoof a second level spell (if you make a successful check). Great, I would have liked this to get my conspiracy started about a dozen levels earlier, please.

Yeah.

The issue is just making these sweeping claims about how the rogue plays out, which can't be substantiated except in actual gameplay.

When I hear things like (paraphrasing) "there's little value in having Expertise in multiple skills" and "rogues can be tanks because of Uncanny Dodge and Warcaster" it immediately tells me I'm playing a different game than the people making these claims.

As Chris Rock might observe "they ignint" ... but each campaign will have different spots for rogues to shine in.

If you're being chased, than you're taking a -5 penalty to Perception anyways because you're moving at a Fast Pace, you're not really expected to be spotting stuff.
The rogue has been denigrated because it lacks Pass Without Trace, in this same thread. But in order to use Pass Without Trace, you have to be moving at a Slow Pace. But in the same thread, by the same people, we're told that Steady Eye is bad because you have to move slowly to benefit from it.

In the first five campaigns I played in this edition, four people chose a rogue.
I have played a half rogue in three campaigns: criminal / spy background in each case, thieves tools, made sure to take Stealth and Deception...
Ranger, Paladin (Dex based), and Monk.

I am heavily biased toward the rogue thief archetype based on the ridiculous number of thieves and rogues I played in OD&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2e. In the little 3e I played I wanted to be anything but a rogue, and anything but a DM.

A high elf rogue with the mage hand cantrip can handle a lot of interesting situations. Doesn't have to go arcane trickster. My high elf thief/rogue did pretty well, too bad the campaign ended so soon.

Rogue is a great addition to any party but I find myself gritting my teeth on the
delay in some of the higher level features,
and
how some of them are "uh, this is all I get?" ... and I felt that UMD for Thief in the PHB came on line way too late.

Not sure if 2024/D&Done will fix any of this.

[Kane0]

A high elf rogue with the mage hand cantrip can handle a lot of interesting situations. Doesn't have to go arcane trickster. My high elf thief/rogue did pretty well, too bad the campaign ended so soon.

Control Flames is also brilliant and is often slept on

[Dr.Samurai]

It would be a totally reasonable position to take that part of your elaborately crafted disguise includes the method acting to go along with the looks. Your surface thoughts should be totally controllable and if you're knowingly dealing with mind readers and mind reading magic, you should expect to have to "believe your own disguise" for the duration.

Even so, even if you disagree with the above, if you're playing an "infiltrator" type character, such as an Assassin Rogue, and you haven't bothered to pick up a Ring of Mind Shielding (Uncommon) by level 13+ then you deserve to get caught.

Bear in mind that what Ludic said is, again, not a guarantee for any game. There are plenty of modules, as an example, that go into tier 3 and where mundane disguises will still be useful and you're not running into at-will Detect Thoughts.

I mean... presumably if everyone is met with a Detect Thoughts, that'd be the part where you want to sneak in unnoticed, then rely on a disguise once you're inside. Unless everyone you bump into is casting Detect Thoughts at-will all the time, despite the fact that once inside your disguise should not be giving anyone any suspicion towards you.

It seems to me this would be a great example of how Rogues get devalued.

What I'm reading in a lot of the responses is that high level skill checks don't mean anything in some of these games, or after certain levels. Essentially, if it's not magic, don't bother.

I would say the ability would be (and should be) much better than an off-the-cuff skill roll. If one disagrees, that's fine, but the consequences of playing a game where a quick skill check or spell is equal to, or better than, a studied, practiced, perfected action will reverberate throughout said game.

Agreed. On the one hand, the fact that it requires a time and money investment is denigrated. On the other hand, they assume that time and money investment is meaningless and equal to a normal skill check, and complain about it further.

The set up always seems to be lose lose in these discussions.

I think they might be spread a bit too thin between the subclasses too. You could easily make a renaissance man of civil subterfuge and call it the operative or something, giving all the same boosts to infiltration, espionage and larceny. 'Spy' is a background, you're a professional

I agree. A lot of the martials run into this. As others have said in the thread, you can probably combine a bunch of subclasses together and be fine.

In the first five campaigns I played in this edition, four people chose a rogue.
I have played a half rogue in three campaigns: criminal / spy background in each case, thieves tools, made sure to take Stealth and Deception...
Ranger, Paladin (Dex based), and Monk.

I am heavily biased toward the rogue thief archetype based on the ridiculous number of thieves and rogues I played in OD&D, AD&D, and AD&D 2e. In the little 3e I played I wanted to be anything but a rogue, and anything but a DM.

A high elf rogue with the mage hand cantrip can handle a lot of interesting situations. Doesn't have to go arcane trickster. My high elf thief/rogue did pretty well, too bad the campaign ended so soon.

Rogue is a great addition to any party but I find myself gritting my teeth on the
delay in some of the higher level features,
and
how some of them are "uh, this is all I get?" ... and I felt that UMD for Thief in the PHB came on line way too late.

Agreed on all counts. The higher level features are lackluster, the subclass features come too far apart, especially between 1st and 2nd features, and I'd really want a second attack, maybe a strength based Extra Attack subclass.

Honestly, making a "skills" class was probably a mistake and this could just be part of the "fighting person". That said, there's a difference between the rogue having room for improvement, and the rogue not being a valuable addition to a party. I agree that the rogue is a valuable addition to the party.

Control Flames is also brilliant and is often slept on

Not quite the same but I think with the new Eldritch Knight in the revised PHB, once you get Extra Attack and use your first attack to grab your enemy and then your second attack to Create Bonfire beneath his feat. Pretty wicked

[Psyren]

Not sure if 2024/D&Done will fix any of this.

I've been touching on these piecemeal but here are all the buffs 2024 Rogue will be getting (including hidden ones I was able to notice.)

Spoiler

Show

1) Background / Level 1 feat - these range from generally useful (e.g. Any rogue can benefit from Lucky, while Skilled can bump your Rogue from 7 proficiencies to 10 if you need them to cover a lot of roles) to ones that have specific synergy with your subclass (Lightly Armored for shields on your Swashbuckler, Alert on your Assassin, Magic Initiate on your Arcane Trickster etc.)

2) Whip proficiency - this is now built in, giving them a melee option that is a little easier for delivering melee sneak attacks (also, see below.)

3) Weapon Mastery - Rogue doesn't exactly have a ton of viable options here given their SA restrictions, but there are a few standouts:

Nick (Dagger/Scimitar): this lets rogues TWF without giving up Cunning Action anymore, removing the need for them to choose between attacking twice and everything else.
Vex (Rapier/Shortsword/Shortbow/Dart): If you're relying on Hide or Steady Aim to get advantage, these weapon types will free up your bonus action for something else on those subsequent turns.
Slow (Sling/Whip/Light Xbow): This will help the rogue kite various enemies or keep them locked into difficult terrain or allied hazards/zones.

4) Steady Aim - Not a buff for those who are allowed Tasha's Optional Features, but this is now baseline to the core rogue.

5) Cunning Strike - Subtract Xd6 SA dice then apply an effect; some of them have a saving throw (DC: 8+PB +Dex.) Disarm can screw over many humanoid enemies, Poison is a great debuff but it's a Con save, Trip is Dex vs. Prone giving your party a viable alternative to Shove, and Withdraw is situationally useful unless you have a BA dash available or allies nearby.

6) Reliable Talent - This comes online a whopping 4 levels earlier than the 2014 rogue. Enjoy!

7) Improved Cunning Strike - You can double up on CS effects, e.g. Disarm + Withdraw.

8) Devious Strikes - You get three new CS effects, Daze, Unconscious and Blind. Blind is probably the easiest to land as it's a Dex save.

9) Slippery Mind - Now gives both Wis and Cha save proficiency instead of just Wis. Add in Resilient and rogues can cover 5/6 saving throws.

10) Stroke of Luck - you turn the reroll into a natural 20 and it applies to any kind of roll now, i.e. critical hit and saving throw too, not just ability check.

Short version is that I feel WM and CS go a long way to improving how rogues feel at lower levels with their ability to contribute to combat, especially in terms of control and team tactics.

I do think they should get access to fighting styles too though, even if only via their level 1 feat. Soulknife shouldn't be the only one that can actually TWF.

[Blatant Beast]

Thank you for posting the prospective 2024 changes Psyren.
I will say the changes are a start, but I do think a few more ambitious changes also would have been accepted by the community.

I wish WotC would design classes with Narrative Focus abilities, things like Contacts and Favors, built into the class chassis.

High level spell casters, receive big narrative influencing powers through spells. Any cleric, druid, or Sorcerer that has access to the Earthquake spell for example, is literally a big mover and shaker in the world.

The post 1960’s Ocean 11 movie series, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, The Usual Suspects, Mafia movies, Triad movies, Mission Impossible films, Indiana Jones films, etc, etc, all commonly depict roguish characters as having contacts they can call upon, or even organizational ties.

WM and CS, while a start, are not the boldest of features design wise, in my opinion.

[LudicSavant]

What I'm reading in a lot of the responses is that high level skill checks don't mean anything in some of these games, or after certain levels.

You basically have it backwards. If high skill checks matter, that's more reason to take the Souknife instead, not less.

[Pex]

It would be a totally reasonable position to take that part of your elaborately crafted disguise includes the method acting to go along with the looks. Your surface thoughts should be totally controllable and if you're knowingly dealing with mind readers and mind reading magic, you should expect to have to "believe your own disguise" for the duration.

Even so, even if you disagree with the above, if you're playing an "infiltrator" type character, such as an Assassin Rogue, and you haven't bothered to pick up a Ring of Mind Shielding (Uncommon) by level 13+ then you deserve to get caught.

Any class/character who must have one specific magic item or else you're The Suck is a failed class/character. You can never guarantee any one specific magic item will exist in the campaign. It's nice to have. You may get it in loot. You may get it by searching for it. You may also never get it.

[Dr.Samurai]

You basically have it backwards. If high skill checks matter, that's more reason to take the Souknife instead, not less.

I don't have anything backwards, I just judge features by their actual merits in game. Case in point... I never mentioned the soulknife and find it quite irrelevant to the topic of the Assassin's features.

For all the talk about narrative powers granted to spellcasters, dismissing the ability to create unfailing false identities that people believe is actually you and thereafter gaining access to all strata of society and organizations is... well, par for the course of standard online optimization speech.

High Stealth doesn't matter because Websense.
High Disguise doesn't matter because Read Thoughts.
High Deception doesn't matter because Zone of Truth.
Etc etc etc

If people follow this advice, they'd think that their maximized skill checks will never work. And that's just not true. The commentary is not helpful, and is misleading, but does answer the question in the thread title.

Any class/character who must have one specific magic item or else you're The Suck is a failed class/character. You can never guarantee any one specific magic item will exist in the campaign. It's nice to have. You may get it in loot. You may get it by searching for it. You may also never get it.

Sure, but the original objection wasn't reasonable to begin with. The idea that your amazing disguise doesn't matter because you're going to be subject to Detect Thoughts all the time is only true if your game actually has everyone Detecting Thoughts all the time. Not to mention that the other creatures mentioned (Fiends/Celestials) might have Truesight, which actually DOESN'T foil a mundane disguise, but would see through a magic illusion like Disguise Self.

Again, the commentary is basically something like "it won't work 100% of the time, so it's a useless feature".

@BlatantBeast: Agreed on Narrative Focus class features.

[Pooky the Imp]

This plagues martials in DND in general (it was way worse in 3e). "Non magical" abilities are only allowed to do so much, but with X amount of classes and Y subclasses, a ton of stuff just gets watered down. How many examples are there of "well this would be good, if you also got the abilities of this other subclass." That basically defines rogue and ranger in particular.

This dynamic is why I get so frustrated when people take a "can't give that ability, that's X's thing" attitude towards improving classes. Yes we want the classes to feel distinct, but big picture, they're all trying to hit stuff with sticks. Certain features, like attacking more, are extremely beneficial.

There's also the aspect that feats and class abilities often eat into skills, which creates the issue of 'no, you can't use your skill that way - you need this specific feat/ability to do that'.


For example, look at an Assassin ability:

Infiltration Expertise
Starting at 9th level, you can unfailingly create false identities for yourself. You must spend seven days and 25 gp to establish the history, profession, and affiliations for an identity. You can't establish an identity that belongs to someone else. For example, you might acquire appropriate clothing, letters of introduction, and official- looking certification to establish yourself as a member of a trading house from a remote city so you can insinuate yourself into the company of other wealthy merchants.

Thereafter, if you adopt the new identity as a disguise, other creatures believe you to be that person until given an obvious reason not to.

Surely this should just be a standard use of the Disguise and Forgery Kits?

I despise this sort of design because 1) Assassins end up stuck with the astonishing ability to use a disguise kit to... disguise themselves! 2) The ability to create disguises/personas of this nature is removed from other rogues, "because otherwise what would be the point of this ability?".

[Pex]

Sure, but the original objection wasn't reasonable to begin with. The idea that your amazing disguise doesn't matter because you're going to be subject to Detect Thoughts all the time is only true if your game actually has everyone Detecting Thoughts all the time. Not to mention that the other creatures mentioned (Fiends/Celestials) might have Truesight, which actually DOESN'T foil a mundane disguise, but would see through a magic illusion like Disguise Self.

Again, the commentary is basically something like "it won't work 100% of the time, so it's a useless feature".

@BlatantBeast: Agreed on Narrative Focus class features.

This isn't new. Spellcasters are always assumed to have the perfect spell needed at the exact moment it's needed. Who needs a rogue to open locks when the wizard can just cast Knock? During 3E every wizard and their grandmother had a Wand of Knock available, easily purchased or they made it themselves. Don't use Diplomacy/Persuasion. The wizard will cast Charm Person. Don't look for a portal. The wizard will cast Plane Shift. Don't look for a bridge. The wizard will cast Fly or Dimension Door or Teleport. Wizard doesn't have the spell? Don't worry, he'll have it tomorrow. The game world will freeze and not change in any way just so the wizard can long rest and change his spells in the morning. Of course in combat monsters will always fail their saving throws.

Surely this should just be a standard use of the Disguise and Forgery Kits?

I despise this sort of design because 1) Assassins end up stuck with the astonishing ability to use a disguise kit to... disguise themselves! 2) The ability to create disguises/personas of this nature is removed from other rogues, "because otherwise what would be the point of this ability?".

You're right, but sometimes an ability should be class/subclass exclusive. Only a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell should be able to cast a spell without being noticed. No Deception/Sleight of Hand checks from anyone. Only the Arcane Trickster should be able to manipulate maneuvers with Mage Hand, going beyond the spell description. The trouble is determining what should be class/subclass exclusive and what should be anyone can do. Where should the line be drawn?

[Psyren]

I don't have anything backwards, I just judge features by their actual merits in game. Case in point... I never mentioned the soulknife and find it quite irrelevant to the topic of the Assassin's features.

For all the talk about narrative powers granted to spellcasters, dismissing the ability to create unfailing false identities that people believe is actually you and thereafter gaining access to all strata of society and organizations is... well, par for the course of standard online optimization speech.

I get where you're coming from, but even on its own merits without considering other subclasses the ability just isn't good. Even with the "unfailing" language protecting you, the identities aren't infallible - picking an identity that belongs to someone else is an automatic fail, and the DM gets to determine what an "obvious reason" to disbelieve your identity is, so it's not at all hard for that 7 days of prep time you can't even be sure of getting in a given campaign (let alone leading into the specific session you need it) to be flushed down the drain in the space of a single interaction. And for that dubious privilege, you gave up an entire subclass feature. The whole thing is just poorly conceived; they tried to improve it in the UA by removing the prep time, but succeeded only in making it redundant. They need to go back to the lab and redesign the subclass from the ground up.

Sure, but the original objection wasn't reasonable to begin with. The idea that your amazing disguise doesn't matter because you're going to be subject to Detect Thoughts all the time is only true if your game actually has everyone Detecting Thoughts all the time. Not to mention that the other creatures mentioned (Fiends/Celestials) might have Truesight, which actually DOESN'T foil a mundane disguise, but would see through a magic illusion like Disguise Self.

Again, the commentary is basically something like "it won't work 100% of the time, so it's a useless feature".

The point isn't that campaigns will have enemy mind-reading or divinations all over the place though. The point is that in the campaigns that don't have those counters, you don't need a dedicated Infiltration subclass feature anyway, because without those things you can get by with a bog standard disguise kit and Deception Proficiency/Expertise anyway. You thus have no reason to pick Assassin over a subclass with features that will make it more likely you can both survive and contribute outside of that niche. Neither version of Assassin has anything that makes it special; as stated above, 2014's false identity is foolproof until it isn't (and even when it is, what benefit that specifically gets you is vague at best) and 2024's is rendered moot by the tool+skill=continual advantage rule. Assassin needs something different.

[Dr.Samurai]

For example, look at an Assassin ability:

Surely this should just be a standard use of the Disguise and Forgery Kits?

I despise this sort of design because 1) Assassins end up stuck with the astonishing ability to use a disguise kit to... disguise themselves! 2) The ability to create disguises/personas of this nature is removed from other rogues, "because otherwise what would be the point of this ability?".

You're right, but sometimes an ability should be class/subclass exclusive. Only a Sorcerer with Subtle Spell should be able to cast a spell without being noticed. No Deception/Sleight of Hand checks from anyone. Only the Arcane Trickster should be able to manipulate maneuvers with Mage Hand, going beyond the spell description. The trouble is determining what should be class/subclass exclusive and what should be anyone can do. Where should the line be drawn?

Yes, I agree to some extent, but we have to be careful to differentiate and not conflate. Because I actually don't agree that a regular use of Disguise Kit should result in the Assassin's Infiltration Expertise. The assassin's feature is like the montage in spy/heist movies where the heroes are pulling favors from their contacts, forging documents, bribing key people, creating the disguise, etc. The assassin does this with no checks and in a week's time and it results in a disguise that is unquestioned unless there is an obvious reason to question it.

If someone else wanted to do something similar, there would be a lot more involved. Carousing, bribing, forging, etc. We're talking about Persuasion/Deception/Intimidation checks, Forgery checks, and Disguise checks.

And at the end of all of this, you now have at the very least Forgery checks that can be foiled by someone's Investigation check, a Disguise check that can be foiled by someone else's Perception/Investigation check, and maybe you didn't even get it done because some of the other checks failed. As a reminder, the assassin is establishing the history and profession and affiliations of this identity, which is what lends to it being unquestioned. This is, in my opinion, beyond the scope of simply Disguising yourself with a wardrobe and makeup kit.

So I agree that there is a tension between features and feats and skills. But I also think we're glossing over what Infiltration Expertise is doing. And honestly, once you have this feature, there is no limit but time and money on the different identities you can craft, and that can provide you access to all sorts of organizations, groups, and levels of society, which is a very powerful out of combat narrative feature.

All to say that I think people are overestimating what a Disguise Kit can do, and underestimating what a flawless false identity can do.

This isn't new. Spellcasters are always assumed to have the perfect spell needed at the exact moment it's needed. Who needs a rogue to open locks when the wizard can just cast Knock? During 3E every wizard and their grandmother had a Wand of Knock available, easily purchased or they made it themselves. Don't use Diplomacy/Persuasion. The wizard will cast Charm Person. Don't look for a portal. The wizard will cast Plane Shift. Don't look for a bridge. The wizard will cast Fly or Dimension Door or Teleport. Wizard doesn't have the spell? Don't worry, he'll have it tomorrow. The game world will freeze and not change in any way just so the wizard can long rest and change his spells in the morning. Of course in combat monsters will always fail their saving throws.

Agreed.

[Psyren]

All to say that I think people are overestimating what a Disguise Kit can do, and underestimating what a flawless false identity can do.

Even if this is true it causes a different problem. If there is a narrative ceiling on what a Disguise Kit can do that only the Assassin is able to exceed, now you're limiting what kinds of infiltration stories get to be told when there isn't an Assassin in the party. That's not good for the game; it's exactly the issue I have with other plot coupon features like the 2014 Ranger's "cant become lost." And even if you're okay with that, there's still the issue of the Assassin's stories needing 7 days of prep time to set up. I'll be quite happy to see the back of this particular ability in a few months time.

[Schwann145]

There's also the aspect that feats and class abilities often eat into skills, which creates the issue of 'no, you can't use your skill that way - you need this specific feat/ability to do that'.

For example, look at an Assassin ability:

Infiltration Expertise
Starting at 9th level, you can unfailingly create false identities for yourself. You must spend seven days and 25 gp to establish the history, profession, and affiliations for an identity. You can't establish an identity that belongs to someone else. For example, you might acquire appropriate clothing, letters of introduction, and official- looking certification to establish yourself as a member of a trading house from a remote city so you can insinuate yourself into the company of other wealthy merchants.

Thereafter, if you adopt the new identity as a disguise, other creatures believe you to be that person until given an obvious reason not to.

Surely this should just be a standard use of the Disguise and Forgery Kits?

I despise this sort of design because 1) Assassins end up stuck with the astonishing ability to use a disguise kit to... disguise themselves! 2) The ability to create disguises/personas of this nature is removed from other rogues, "because otherwise what would be the point of this ability?".

These abilities don't allow you to use the Disguise Kit and/or make Charisma(Deception) rolls, they make you so good at them that, in the vast majority of the time, you get to bypass those rolls (and the drawbacks that go along with rolling, such as opposed and passive checks).

A non-Assassin wants to make a disguise? They roll, using their Disguise Kit proficiency (assuming they have it; otherwise just a flat Attribute roll), and set the DC of their disguise, which is used going forward until they either succeed at their objective or until their disguise fails. Even so, it's possible your disguise is flawless but fails through different scrutiny; you didn't forge a background, establish relations, etc. You may "look the part" but fail to "check out" when investigated.
An Assassin gets to skip all of that, because their disguise is that much better than the non-Assassin's, and they "brought the receipts" for the background, relations, etc as well.

The Assassin's ability doesn't prevent the former in any way.

Neither version of Assassin has anything that makes it special; as stated above, 2014's false identity is foolproof until it isn't (and even when it is, what benefit that specifically gets you is vague at best)

It makes you immune to Passive Investigation/Perception checks; you never have to worry about them. And against Active Investigation/Perception checks, you get advantage on your Charisma(Deception) roll.
It's pretty clear what the advantage is, IMO, even if it isn't literally spelled out as such.

While we're on the topic of what a DM might allow, Xanathar's has this to say: "Advantage. If the use of a tool and the use of a skill both apply to a check, and a character is proficient with the tool and the skill, consider allowing the character to make the check with advantage. This simple benefit can go a long way toward encouraging players to pick up tool proficiencies."

So if disguise kit and Deception both apply, a DM might be giving you advantage anyways.

...and 2024's is rendered moot by the tool+skill=continual advantage rule.

Except this isn't a rule, it's a rule suggestion. Contrast to the Assassin abilities, which aren't suggestions: they're the subclass rules.
Yes, utilizing this suggestion would absolutely devalue abilities like Imposter, no argument. Just like utilizing the DMG's rule suggestion for flanking would seriously devalue things like the Shove maneuver and the Barbarian's Reckless Attack.

[Psyren]

It makes you immune to Passive Investigation/Perception checks; you never have to worry about them. And against Active Investigation/Perception checks, you get advantage on your Charisma(Deception) roll.
It's pretty clear what the advantage is, IMO.

1) As mentioned, you're not immune - you have no way of knowing with absolute certainty that you chose a persona that doesn't belong to someone else in the world, unless you're secretly the DM, nor what actions/inactions might trigger the "obvious reason" failstate.

2) Even when those aren't a concern, a numerically high check (20+) functionally does the same thing by letting you defeat passive defenses, because they are fixed. The amount of times the place you're infiltrating has a bunch of folks with 25+ passive perception is probably as rare as the number of times you'll pick an identity that someone already has and fail outright.

*am I the only one who considers "passive investigation" to be an oxymoron?

Except this isn't a rule, it's a rule suggestion.

It's a rule in 2024 per the latest Rules Glossary - UA 8 pg. 30.

(And Flanking is a bad rule too, since you bring it up, so I wouldn't point to that as a defense.)

[LudicSavant]

These abilities don't allow you to use the Disguise Kit and/or make Charisma(Deception) rolls, they make you so good at them that, in the vast majority of the time, you get to bypass those rolls

This is my interpretation as well. It doesn't make the action possible, it makes it so you don't need to roll.

The question is how big a deal this is, and how it compares to what alternative builds have to offer.

A non-Assassin wants to make a disguise? They roll, using their Disguise Kit proficiency (assuming they have it; otherwise just a flat Attribute roll), and set the DC of their disguise, which is used going forward until they either succeed at their objective or until their disguise fails. Even so, it's possible your disguise is flawless but fails through different scrutiny; you didn't forge a background, establish relations, etc. You may "look the part" but fail to "check out" when investigated.

There are checks for forgery and the like too. It's the same thing as disguise; the assassin makes it so you don't need to roll those checks.

It makes you immune to Passive Investigation/Perception checks; you never have to worry about them.

This, however, it does not necessarily do. Per the PHB, passive checks are used when the DM might not want to reveal the result of the roll, or they want to represent the result of a task done repeatedly. It's called passive because the player doesn't roll, it doesn't mean that the character is being casual or passive.

[Dr.Samurai]

I get where you're coming from, but even on its own merits without considering other subclasses the ability just isn't good. Even with the "unfailing" language protecting you, the identities aren't infallible - picking an identity that belongs to someone else is an automatic fail, and the DM gets to determine what an "obvious reason" to disbelieve your identity is, so it's not at all hard for that 7 days of prep time you can't even be sure of getting in a given campaign (let alone leading into the specific session you need it) to be flushed down the drain in the space of a single interaction. And for that dubious privilege, you gave up an entire subclass feature. The whole thing is just poorly conceived; they tried to improve it in the UA by removing the prep time, but succeeded only in making it redundant. They need to go back to the lab and redesign the subclass from the ground up.

I don't find the "an identity that belongs to somebody else" argument compelling unless your DM is the type of person to say "So sorry, but in your 7 days of work and with all the money you spent, you failed to uncover that Mr. Sneaky Infiltrator the Third is actually a real life person and so your efforts totally fail.

"Obvious reasons" are in fact up to the DM. But what we know for sure is that there is no reflexive contested roll. People just assume you are who you say you are, which is quite different from a regular Disguise check. Drawing on DM fiat here is going to open a huge can of worms with skill checks in general, and with spell resolution, so let's agree that things depend on the DM and move on from this argument.

The point isn't that campaigns will have enemy mind-reading or divinations all over the place though. The point is that in the campaigns that don't have those counters, you don't need a dedicated Infiltration subclass feature anyway, because without those things you can get by with a bog standard disguise kit and Deception Proficiency/Expertise anyway.

Again though, you're not just making a disguise. You're creating a person that other people believe actually exists. This is way more than fooling someone for a scene and moving on. This can lead to a tremendous amount of information gathering, and facilitate other party member abilities, such as obtaining items for the wizard to scry with, letting the wizard know what day and time to scry on the person so it's not just a crap shoot that you're going to scry on anything useful.

2014's false identity is foolproof until it isn't (and even when it is, what benefit that specifically gets you is vague at best)

It is essentially foolproof until you do something obvious to potentially blow your cover, then I'd imagine it's a series of checks. But having an all but foolproof identity can go a long way before something like that might happen.

A failure of imagination on what you can do with false identities is not "vague at best".

Assassin needs something different.

Like with most martial subclasses, they just need something more. But it would be in addition to this ability, which does actually provide benefits to the assassin.

Even if this is true it causes a different problem. If there is a narrative ceiling on what a Disguise Kit can do that only the Assassin is able to exceed, now you're limiting what kinds of infiltration stories get to be told when there isn't an Assassin in the party.

Not at all. As I mentioned, you'd need to carouse to make contacts, call on those favors to help spin the fiction that this identity is in fact a real person, forge documents to support the identity, and there's probably going to be social interactions above and beyond the carousing to do this. Then make the disguise, then deal with the skill checks when you execute and use the identity. And gold spent. As an example, it costs 250gp to carouse with the upper class.

The assassin just gets to do this and do it better as a feature and people just believe it until you give them an obvious reason not to.

there's still the issue of the Assassin's stories needing 7 days of prep time to set up.

Many games have downtime. An assassin with downtime can craft as many identities as they have time and gold for, after which they can assume that identity in later adventures that might not allow the time for new identities to be crafted.

I'll be quite happy to see the back of this particular ability in a few months time.

I can see it now.

"Your years of being a killer have gifted you with supernatural powers that make you better at your craft. At level 3 you can summon spectral knives with spectral poison on them. A successful attack deals 1d6+your class level in spectral poison damage, and the target is poisoned... spectrally. At level 9, you have honed your craft to near perfection. You can cast Disguise Self, Darkness, Darkvision, Charm Person, Knock, Levitate, and Shadow Blade each a number of times per day equal to your proficiency bonus. At level 13, your reputation proceeds you. You can cast the Fear spell 1/day. At level 17, your touch is literal death. As an action, you can touch a creature and deal a number of necrotic damage equal to three rolls of your Sneak Attack damage."

1) As mentioned, you're not immune - you have no way of knowing with absolute certainty that you chose a persona that doesn't belong to someone else in the world, unless you're secretly the DM, nor what actions/inactions might trigger the "obvious reason" failstate.

This is a supremely weak argument, but I do find it hilarious to imagine the assassin with his false identity walking into a room and bumping into the real life version of his exact identity that he didn't even know existed. Comedy gold.

2) Even when those aren't a concern, a numerically high check (20+) functionally does the same thing by letting you defeat passive defenses, because they are fixed.

I think the only time Passive skills are mentioned is with Perception vs Stealth. It's not obvious to me that someone's Disguise check is vs a Passive Perception/Investigation, or that their Deception checks to keep the bit going are vs Passive Insight checks.

Secondly, the DM decides what checks are necessary and if they are possible. Someone that is an established identity in a merchant guild, thieves' guild, religious cult, high society, etc. may go much further in conversation without a check being required than a person that has a nice disguise but that nobody actually recognizes as an already known entity with ties to their organization/group.

So asking for the time and location of a meeting and to join that meeting may not even be possible to succeed at just because you have a disguise. But if you have a false identity that everyone believes, maybe they will tell you just for asking. Or maybe it still requires some finessing and the DM asks for a roll. But it might be possible whereas just having a costume doesn't making it possible.

[Schwann145]

*am I the only one who considers "passive investigation" to be an oxymoron?

No, you are definitely not alone!

It's a rule in 2024 per the latest Rules Glossary - UA 8 pg. 30.

Fair enough. Pretty awkward that the UA version of the Assassin still grants advantage on Deception checks for disguises, which becomes actually useless instead of just potentially useless like it is now.

This, however, it does not necessarily do. Per the PHB, passive checks are used when the DM might not want to reveal the result of the roll, or they want to represent the result of a task done repeatedly. It's called passive because the player doesn't roll, it doesn't mean that the character is being casual or passive.

This definition is certainly not an exclusive definition for what "passive" means, and it definitely can include meaning the character is "being casual or passive." The only "hard rule" here is that Passive checks are checks done without a dice roll.
Going with the understanding that a Passive check would trigger when you may notice something you aren't necessarily looking for, as compared to an Active check in which you are intentionally searching/investigating/etc.
With such an understanding, you would not have to worry about Passive checks because your disguise is good enough to foil them every time.

[Psyren]

The question is how big a deal this is, and how it compares to what alternative builds have to offer.

Exactly - wow, I succeeded without rolling, at a thing that I wasn't going to fail the roll at anyway (hello Reliable Talent + Expertise + perma-Advantage, all of which I'll get before 9 now.) Sure wish I had a subclass feature instead...

A failure of imagination on what you can do with false identities is not "vague at best".

I have plenty of imagination thanks. The issue is not "derp, what do with false identity?" but rather "what makes the Assassin's false identity so much better than one I can craft with my base class that it's worth an entire subclass feature?" As above, "you don't need to roll" isn't good enough, especially with the 7-day price tag tacked on. The only thing I can think you're advocating that makes this beneficial, is that other rogues aren't allowed to use their Disguise kits and Deception expertise or something.

Fair enough. Pretty awkward that the UA version of the Assassin still grants advantage on Deception checks for disguises, which becomes actually useless instead of just potentially useless like it is now.

Spot on, and I did point that out in my feedback survey at the time. I expect we'll find out what they did with that when we see who got bumped for the Soulknife and why.

[LudicSavant]

This definition is certainly not an exclusive definition for what "passive" means, and it definitely can include meaning the character is "being casual or passive." The only "hard rule" here is that Passive checks are checks done without a dice roll.
Going with the understanding that a Passive check would trigger when you may notice something you aren't necessarily looking for, as compared to an Active check in which you are intentionally searching/investigating/etc.

Per the definition of a passive check: 'A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.'

There is nothing whatsoever in the books about being casual or 'not really looking.' Indeed, the very first example of what a passive check is is searching for secret doors over and over again.

This is, incidentally, precisely why passive investigation is not an oxymoron. Per the PHB, passive checks represent the average result of a task done repeatedly, or if the DM wants to secretly determine the outcome. The player is being passive (by not rolling dice), not the character.

[Schwann145]

Per the definition of a passive check: 'A passive check is a special kind of ability check that doesn't involve any die rolls. Such a check can represent the average result for a task done repeatedly, such as searching for secret doors over and over again, or can be used when the DM wants to secretly determine whether the characters succeed at something without rolling dice, such as noticing a hidden monster.'

There is nothing whatsoever in the books about being casual or 'not really looking.' Indeed, the very first example of what a passive check is is searching for secret doors over and over again.

"Can" is the key word in "can represent."
Your post was speaking with an authority on what Passive checks aren't that is unwarranted.

[LudicSavant]

"Can" is the key word in "can represent."
Your post was speaking with an authority on what Passive checks aren't that is unwarranted.

Incorrect. Recall your own claim:
"It makes you immune to Passive Investigation/Perception checks; you never have to worry about them." And my reply: "This, however, it does not necessarily do."

If passive investigation and perception can represent those things, then you are not immune to passive investigation/perception.

[Dr.Samurai]

Exactly - wow, I succeeded without rolling, at a thing that I wasn't going to fail the roll at anyway (hello Reliable Talent + Expertise + perma-Advantage, all of which I'll get before 9 now.) Sure wish I had a subclass feature instead...

I think one of the issues here is perhaps expecting that everything is going to be solved with a single die roll. Maybe that's because of the overabundance of "I have a spell for that" going around.

But again... show me where in the Disguise Kit it says you are able to establish a nearly flawless false identity with a single roll.

I have plenty of imagination thanks. The issue is not "derp, what do with false identity?" but rather "what makes the Assassin's false identity so much better than one I can craft with my base class that it's worth an entire subclass feature?" As above, "you don't need to roll" isn't good enough, especially with the 7-day price tag tacked on.

It's in the feature.

You don't think it's better because you seem to think that simply making a Disguise/Deception check will convince people that you are Aldarius, of Blue Haven, scholar and sage, and member of the Eyes of Boccob, with an established background, including profession, affiliations, and history. Things that people can sink their teeth into and know about the character. As opposed to trying to pass off as Aldarius the sage, and no one ever having heard of him, or these affiliations, and not being able to corroborate any of the deception at all.

A Disguise Kit lets you wear a costume. A Deception check lets you tell a lie. These things don't manifest a believable false identity as in Infiltration Expertise with a simple check.

The only thing I can think you're advocating that makes this beneficial, is that other rogues aren't allowed to use their Disguise kits and Deception expertise or something.

No, I think you understand that I've said multiple times now, including in direct response to you, that anyone can do something like this, but it would require more checks and therefore set DCs that others can beat with their Perception/Investigation/Insight. And it would likely require as much time, or more, and more money.

[Psyren]

It's in the feature.

You don't think it's better because you seem to think that simply making a Disguise/Deception check will convince people that you are Aldarius, of Blue Haven, scholar and sage, and member of the Eyes of Boccob, with an established background, including profession, affiliations, and history. Things that people can sink their teeth into and know about the character. As opposed to trying to pass off as Aldarius the sage, and no one ever having heard of him, or these affiliations, and not being able to corroborate any of the deception at all.

A Disguise Kit lets you wear a costume. A Deception check lets you tell a lie. These things don't manifest a believable false identity as in Infiltration Expertise with a simple check.
...
No, I think you understand that I've said multiple times now, including in direct response to you, that anyone can do something like this, but it would require more checks and therefore set DCs that others can beat with their Perception/Investigation/Insight. And it would likely require as much time, or more, and more money.

Exactly - anyone can do something like this, so in order to try and preserve Assassin's dubious niche, you're now houseruling in unwritten handicaps like "require more checks, as much time or more, and more money." Either that, or rogues who don't have this feature merely get the lesser ability to "wear costumes." It's exactly the kind of artificial ceiling I'm glad is getting tossed out of the game.

Yes, if you houserule in a handicap that every other subclass needs at least 7 days like they do, likely more, and maybe throw in a monetary cost too, the Assassin looks better by comparison. And if I break Nancy Kerrigan's kneecaps before the Olympics I'll be the figure-skating champion too. It's not a great argument for Infiltration Expertise being the entirety of a subclass feature.

But again... show me where in the Disguise Kit it says you are able to establish a nearly flawless false identity with a single roll.

It doesn't have to be a "single roll", Reliable Talent and Expertise work on all of them. Unless, again, you're stopping me from rolling in the first place, or setting the DC for non-Assassins so high that you might as well skip the pretense and just ban them from the infiltration scene altogether.

[Keltest]

I mean, theres a difference between lying about your name and having a false identity. A fake identity, people are greeting you down at the pub, merchants will take your credit, maybe you can get yourself an invite to a fancy/private party. Stuff like that.

Also worth pointing out, a false identity doesn't mean you are disguised. You might still look like you, which can be advantageous because people can't see through your real face, or expose your beard as fake if its your real beard. Wear a disguise, commit your crime, then take off your fake beard and turn back into Brice Lane, mild mannered playboy and new money in town, who everyone in town will vouch for being an upstanding chap.

[Psyren]

I mean, theres a difference between lying about your name and having a false identity. A fake identity, people are greeting you down at the pub, merchants will take your credit, maybe you can get yourself an invite to a fancy/private party. Stuff like that.

Also worth pointing out, a false identity doesn't mean you are disguised. You might still look like you, which can be advantageous because people can't see through your real face, or expose your beard as fake if its your real beard. Wear a disguise, commit your crime, then take off your fake beard and turn back into Brice Lane, mild mannered playboy and new money in town, who everyone in town will vouch for being an upstanding chap.

I know there's a difference, that isn't the question. The question is whether non-Assassins can make one, not whether they're different.

If they can't, that one feature is arbitrarily limiting every other rogue (not to mention every other skill-based character - you want to tell me a Bard can't make a false identity??) and should be thrown out.

If they can, then the rogue has every feature they need to make failing at making one a statistical anomaly already, meaning the feature isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and should be thrown out.

Ergo, conclusion - throw it out. Evidently a conclusion WotC themselves came to as well, even if they don't quite know what to replace it with yet.

[Keltest]

I know there's a difference, that isn't the question. The question is whether non-Assassins can make one, not whether they're different.

If they can't, that one feature is arbitrarily limiting every other rogue (not to mention every other skill-based character - you want to tell me a Bard can't make a false identity??) and should be thrown out.

If they can, then the rogue has every feature they need to make failing at making one a statistical anomaly already, meaning the feature isn't worth the paper it's printed on, and should be thrown out.

Ergo, conclusion - throw it out. Evidently a conclusion WotC themselves came to as well, even if they don't quite know what to replace it with yet.

Sure, its the difference between spending a week on it because you know what the important parts about it are versus spending a year actually living in town so people know who you are.

[LudicSavant]

I mean, theres a difference between lying about your name and having a false identity. A fake identity, people are greeting you down at the pub, merchants will take your credit, maybe you can get yourself an invite to a fancy/private party. Stuff like that.

Also worth pointing out, a false identity doesn't mean you are disguised. You might still look like you, which can be advantageous because people can't see through your real face, or expose your beard as fake if its your real beard. Wear a disguise, commit your crime, then take off your fake beard and turn back into Brice Lane, mild mannered playboy and new money in town, who everyone in town will vouch for being an upstanding chap.

There is a PHB background that has you start with a false identity including acquaintances, documentation, official letters, etc at level one.

And if they possessed the skills to do it once, it's reasonable to assume they're capable of doing it again somehow, especially since one of the character traits you can put on that background is "I put on new identities like clothes." Another is "I insinuate myself into people's lives to prey on their weakness and secure their fortunes."

The XGtE description of tool proficiencies says it "allows its owner to adopt a false identity." Heck, it even mentions you can use a disguise kit proficiency check to spot whether someone else is in disguise. The proficiency can represent more than just putting on clothes.