What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Blatant Beast]

No problem, at all.

[Sorinth]

It's a description of a thing a DM can do, there's no guidelines for when the DM should vs shouldn't, and nothing on how or the degree to which it happens. The quote is:



That's a possible outcome alluded to in a section buried deep within an overview, it's not particularly backed up by anything else. Does it exist somewhere? Sure. Is it definitive enough to consider Skrum's example "answered"? I very much doubt it.

Saying it's buried deep seems like an exaggeration, unless you also think that ability checks are resolved using a d20 and you add the ability modifier and potentially proficiency bonus to your roll is also something that is buried deep within an overview. And sure it's reasonable to say a newbie might miss failure=some progress + a setback because there's a ton of information in the books and it's not really well organized. That said I'm sure if I tried I could find a 100+ posts from Skrum and Pex complaining about skill checks being bad and somebody showing them where in the books it addresses that complaint and yet they still persist in the same complaints with skill checks. So it's clearly not a case of the guidelines are buried deep in the books and easily missed, it's that they simply don't like the advice/implementation, as the old saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[Skrum]

It is answered. Not liking the answer isn't the same as not getting one.

C'mon man. This is incredibly pedantic, and the skill rules being underbaked is literally the heart of my position

Pg 174 of the PHB is the section that outlines Ability and Skill checks. I legitimately don't know what you're referring to as pertaining to binary outcomes

Pg 242 of the DMG indeed introduces success at a cost and degrees of failure - but like, as just "things you can do." There's scant examples and no structure; it's just "hey you could totally make this up if you want to."

Pg 237 of the DMG outlines the absolute outer limits of ability checks. Would failure be silly, and would success be inappropriate. That's it. No mention of setting DCs, what should be possible with skills depending on level and game style; yah know, useful information.

The rules for skill checks DO exist - I must admit that, though I would note it really feels like a technicality. But they lack vision or cohesion, and are scattered across books. 5e has legitimately great rules for combat. I have quibbles, mostly to do with class balance, but the core combat rules are excellent. They're simple enough, focused, have plenty of room for improvised actions, and are tactically satisfying. Elegant comes to mind. There's clear thought and consideration that went into them. Skills by comparison are an afterthought. I want even a fraction of the attention that combat got to go to skills.

[stoutstien]

C'mon man. This is incredibly pedantic, and the skill rules being underbaked is literally the heart of my position

Pg 174 of the PHB is the section that outlines Ability and Skill checks. I legitimately don't know what you're referring to as pertaining to binary outcomes

Pg 242 of the DMG indeed introduces success at a cost and degrees of failure - but like, as just "things you can do." There's scant examples and no structure; it's just "hey you could totally make this up if you want to."

Pg 237 of the DMG outlines the absolute outer limits of ability checks. Would failure be silly, and would success be inappropriate. That's it. No mention of setting DCs, what should be possible with skills depending on level and game style; yah know, useful information.

The rules for skill checks DO exist - I must admit that, though I would note it really feels like a technicality. But they lack vision or cohesion, and are scattered across books. 5e has legitimately great rules for combat. I have quibbles, mostly to do with class balance, but the core combat rules are excellent. They're simple enough, focused, have plenty of room for improvised actions, and are tactically satisfying. Elegant comes to mind. There's clear thought and consideration that went into them. Skills by comparison are an afterthought. I want even a fraction of the attention that combat got to go to skills.

Funny I have the opposite view of being unified where the ability check system is extremely elegant because it cuts through all the noise and gets the heart of what it's meant to be where combat has too many super specific interaction and exceptions that you have to be aware of.

could use a re-edit for sure but I think you could put it in size 40 font on the front cover and people would still do the process out of order which is half the reason why it doesn't work.

But they really need is a section for them to learn how to manage or dice bags in other words stop touching it before you need to. Dice don't DM.

[Skrum]

Dice don't DM.

Heh, that I agree with -
As a DM though, I'm just always feeling like players aren't being properly rewarded for their skill selections. This matters the most for characters that get expertise, and the whole idea is They're Really Good At That Skill. Hitting a skill check, like it's just feels hollow, or unnoticeable.

[Psyren]

C'mon man. This is incredibly pedantic, and the skill rules being underbaked is literally the heart of my position

Yes, that would be what I'm disagreeing with / recommending you get over.

Pg 174 of the PHB is the section that outlines Ability and Skill checks. I legitimately don't know what you're referring to as pertaining to binary outcomes

"If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success - the creature overcomes the challenge at hand (1). Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective (2) or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM (3)."

1-2-3 = not binary.

Pg 242 of the DMG indeed introduces success at a cost and degrees of failure - but like, as just "things you can do."

Yeah, things you can do, kind of like... rules and guidelines.

Pg 237 of the DMG outlines the absolute outer limits of ability checks. Would failure be silly, and would success be inappropriate. That's it.

No, it also tells you what to do if it's neither of those things.

[Theodoxus]

Now the assertion that 5e lacks Social and Exploration mechanics that feels satisfying for a particular person, or for some people, is not a false statement.

[T]he skill rules being underbaked is literally the heart of my position

Regarding Social and Exploration, because let's be real, that's what the ability check system is all about outside of some very edge cases that are used in combat (and even then, not particularly well), underbaked is the word of the decade.

Sadly, I don't think baking the system longer is going to help in the long run. I've yet to encounter any RPG that has an ability check system that's more rigorous than 'DC easy: a relatively simple task that a PC might still fail at.' Not overly helpful in deciding what's an easy task, right? (Or a challenging one for a competent professional, or too difficult for anyone but a true expert to pass... etc.) So, if no other professional game theorist has done it, [arguably, I have not perused EVERY system] I suspect we're stuck with DMs (new, old, good, bad, and in-between) making it up as they go, and the points don't matter.

Maybe we have a subthread from the 'Simple RAW for 5E' where it's 'Ask the DMs what the DC should be...' and folks who need a bit of guidance they're not getting from the publishers, can get it from the community instead.

Doesn't fix the Rogue though. Even Nissan couldn't fix the Rogue.

[Skrum]

Regarding Social and Exploration, because let's be real, that's what the ability check system is all about outside of some very edge cases that are used in combat (and even then, not particularly well), underbaked is the word of the decade.

Sadly, I don't think baking the system longer is going to help in the long run. I've yet to encounter any RPG that has an ability check system that's more rigorous than 'DC easy: a relatively simple task that a PC might still fail at.' Not overly helpful in deciding what's an easy task, right? (Or a challenging one for a competent professional, or too difficult for anyone but a true expert to pass... etc.) So, if no other professional game theorist has done it, [arguably, I have not perused EVERY system] I suspect we're stuck with DMs (new, old, good, bad, and in-between) making it up as they go, and the points don't matter.

Maybe we have a subthread from the 'Simple RAW for 5E' where it's 'Ask the DMs what the DC should be...' and folks who need a bit of guidance they're not getting from the publishers, can get it from the community instead.

Doesn't fix the Rogue though. Even Nissan couldn't fix the Rogue.

Have you played World of Darkness? I haven't, but I've heard at least one person say it does skills pretty well.

[Pex]

Saying it's buried deep seems like an exaggeration, unless you also think that ability checks are resolved using a d20 and you add the ability modifier and potentially proficiency bonus to your roll is also something that is buried deep within an overview. And sure it's reasonable to say a newbie might miss failure=some progress + a setback because there's a ton of information in the books and it's not really well organized. That said I'm sure if I tried I could find a 100+ posts from Skrum and Pex complaining about skill checks being bad and somebody showing them where in the books it addresses that complaint and yet they still persist in the same complaints with skill checks. So it's clearly not a case of the guidelines are buried deep in the books and easily missed, it's that they simply don't like the advice/implementation, as the old saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Where have I said skill checks are bad? I've always been saying I don't like the advice and implementation, i.e. give DCs based on difficulty but doesn't give examples of various skill difficulties. A specific case - says an Athletics check can let you jump more than your ST score but no advice on how to do it. That is nothing new. This is not the profound gotcha you think it is.

[LudicSavant]

Sorry it took me a while to get around to this, had to deal with a project that took priority.

Earlier, JellyPooga posted a Phantom Rogue build, pointing out that a 'resourceless' Rogue could make investments in specific races and feats in order to cover its holes and address the criticisms levied at it.

As a point of comparison, here's a simple Cleric build, comparing at level 11 as I said I would (so that they'd get Reliable Talent). Like the Rogue build, it's using its race to pick up Pass Without Trace.

Level 11 Mark of Shadow Elf Peace Cleric
Attributes: Wis 17 (20) / Con 16, Dex 14, Cha 10, 8, 8
Skills x6: Perception, Medicine, Insight, Stealth, Survival, Performance
ASIs: Skill Expert (Perception), +2 Wisdom
Resources:
6 cantrips and 26 leveled spells Prepared, 115 spells known
4/3/3/3/2/1 slots + Harness Divine Power, 2xSR Channel Divinity, 2x Harness Divine Power, 1x Invisibility, 4x Emboldening Bond on 4 party members

Cantrips known: Minor Illusion (race), Guidance, Toll the Dead, Sacred Flame, Word of Radiance, Thaumaturgy

Example spells prepared:
L1: Heroism, Sanctuary, Detect Magic (rit), Command, Healing Word
L2: Aid, Warding Bond, Pass Without Trace, Lesser Restoration, Spiritual Weapon, Silence (rit)
L3: Beacon of Hope, Sending, Spirit Guardians, Aura of Vitality, Dispel Magic, Revivify, Speak With Dead
L4: Aura of Purity, Otiluke's Resilient Sphere, Divination (rit)
L5: Greater Restoration, Rary's Telepathic Bond (rit), Summon Celestial, Greater Restoration
L6: Forbiddance (rit)
____

Stealth
Jellypooga's Rogue had +11 stealth in half-plate, Guidance (for a potential +1d4), Reliable Talent, and PWT 1/day from their race+feat.

This Cleric has a base ~+8.5 (including the +1d4 from Mark of Shadow), another potential +1d4 from Guidance, and another potential +1d4 from Emboldening Bond (to four creatures at a time!). But the big kicker is that they have the resources to spam Pass Without Trace as much as they want, rather than just once. This sets a clear advantage for this Cleric over that Phantom Rogue when it comes to filling the stealth role.

Jellypooga's wood elf Rogue has Mask of the Wild, so they (but not their party) can stealth past the well-staffed watchtower if the weather's so bad that it's 'heavily raining,' but not quite so bad that a non-Wood-Elf could hide in it.

However, the mark of shadow Cleric not only gets a free cast of invisibility every day (which can hide in plain sight almost anywhere) and minor illusion (which has no verbal component) added to their spell list, they also have access to a list of 115 spells they can custom tailor for a given stealth mission, like silence, greater invisibility, mislead, locate object, clairvoyance, tongues, sending, dispel magic, disguise self, detect magic, enhance ability, or whatever. It's just a broader, more adaptable toolkit.

Perception
This Cleric has passive perception 24 and can easily buff that higher. Rogue has 20, and considerably less buffing capacity. The Cleric could have just dropped their Expertise half-feat altogether and still had about the same as this MAD Rogue before buffs.

Other skills
The Wood Elf Phantom Rogue has +8 Arcana and +10 Athletics (plus guidance and RT), because they spread themselves so thin on attributes that they had only +3 Dex and +1 Con left after. They also have +0 Investigation (and in other mental skills, too), which means I might still want an Int-guy in the party anyways, despite the Rogue's solid Arcana check.

Our Cleric has not given themselves a MAD statline, and thus has +5 Wis, +3 Con, and +2 Dex, and are getting +9 in skills like Insight and Survival, which they can further boost by 1d4 Guidance and another 1d4 Emboldening Bond if desired. They can boost higher with leveled spells if they want to but usually won't.

They also are better than the Rogue at boosting the skill checks of party members. Emboldening Bond is limited use, sure, but can be active quite a lot. It's 4 uses (and thus at least 4 encounters worth), lasts 10 minutes (so can be used for concurrent checks or encounters), and applies to any check (or save, or attack roll). And buffs four party members at a time!

Other utility features
The Phantom Rogue has an ability to speak with the dead, but it is, unfortunately, the worst version of speaking with the dead in the game. You have to be standing right there ready with a reaction when they die (e.g. in a situation where you could probably be asking them a question), and then you can ask them exactly one question, and they are under no obligation to give you a useful answer.

The Cleric has real Speak With Dead. They can roll up on a crime scene and just ask the murder victim some questions, something the Phantom Rogue very much cannot do. Sure, it takes a resource, but it's a resource the Phantom Rogue doesn't really have in the first place.

Healing
The Phantom Rogue has the Healer feat which can heal 18.5 per party member per SR as an Action each.

The Cleric has a true healer's suite including Aura of Vitality, status removals, resurrections, bonus action heals, AoE heals (that also let them free-disengage from their CD), and more. They also have very heavy proactive damage denial features which are often more efficient than their heals.

Combat
Jellypooga's Phantom Rogue appears to have made significant sacrifices to its combat presence in order to get the other things it has. It's sword and board with no fighting style, no scagtrip, and only a +3 dex and +1 con.

This means that they don't have the consistency of a bonus action attack, the range of a bow, or the damage and zone control of a Booming Blade, and they only have a +7 to hit at a point where a bog standard vanilla archer martial would have +11. All in all, they hit like a flumph. +7 to hit with a single melee attack at +7d6+3 (24.5) and chip damage to a secondary target is not good for level 11. They can get more with an off-turn sneak attack but have no native way to generate one (except OA).

They have an alternate single target option where they can drop their weapon and grapple with a reliable check (min roll 20), but they can't grow big, do grappleshove combos, do off-turn movement, or grab multiple enemies per turn.

They have the Healer feat but no particular synergies with it (like a Thief would have), so it's basically comparable in terms of action economy to an upcast Cure Wounds.

So what about the Cleric?

Well, it depends what they're using at the moment, but it's generally going to be more. They've got a +9 to hit / DC 17 save, and their basic cantrips will do 3d12+5 (24.5) to a single target, or 3d6+5 (15.5) in a 15-foot diameter AoE. Spiritual Weapon will add another +1d8+5 (9.5) damage with +9 to hit, or 2d8+5 (13) if it's upcast. And then there'll be any non-Concentration minionmancy they care to do, if any. And then there'll be whatever they're actually Concentrating on at the moment, such as Summon Celestial or Spirit Guardians or PWT. Summon Celestial will have +9 to hit and 4d6+14 (28) per round, or 6d6+24 (45) if it's upcast, and it lasts an hour per cast and leaves the rest of your action economy completely free. And then we can add in the Emboldening Bond buff too, and the output increase that lends.

_________

Now, the Peace Cleric's a bit of overkill here, but we can see that Emboldening Bond isn't actually the difference maker here, the Cleric was already winning this fight overall. They didn't need Peace Cleric to benefit more from their race choice than the Rogue was able to benefit from theirs, and thus get better PWT access. They didn't need Peace to get a broader support kit, or greater battlefield presence, or +9+1d4 to various skills before even looking at their resources. They just already had those things. I basically could have used any other subclass instead. For example, I could have made it a Knowledge Cleric so they'd have Expertise in Arcana (and another Int skill) too.

[Blatant Beast]

The Dragonmarked races are just on a different power level for caster classes, (great and small).
The Mark of Shadow Elf is fun, but damn, it is a S-tier race. Are you trying to break the backboard like Shaq?

The Mark of Shadow also adds the Mislead spell to the character's spell list.
The Mislead spell is an excellent scouting tool for a super hazardous place, such as Strahd's castle, Castle Ravenloft.

Even if the DM rules you cant use the Hide Action with the illusionary double, (which is a little suspect as a ruling since the Mislead spell specifies the double can behave in whatever way the caster elects), the spell lasts an hour. Hiding outside the castle, and sending in the hologram to aggro the castle and track the response is worth it.

Switching your senses to the separated and out of eye sight duplicate at the end of your turn, and leaving yourself blind is risky, but it is one tactic you can use to foil a Vampire's Charm ability.

[JellyPooga]

@Ludic

Thanks for the detailed response; I appreciate the consideration. In kind, I'll have a more detailed rebuttal of points made when I can, but a couple of immediate points spring to mind, that I'll share now and expand upon when I have time.

1) Setting Specific. Mark of Shadow Elf is only going to playing in an Eberron game, or with permissive GMs (which would bring the conversation back to the 'GM dependent'' criticism being leveled at the Rogue/ability check argument). You also use Tasha's loosey-goosey racial ASI rule (I forget what it's called!), which while perfectly rules legal, is also contentious and may limit the tables you can play at. I used Wood Elf with Wood Elf stats.

2) You fire a shot across my Rogue's bow for a lack of Int that your Cleric shares. If my Rogues party maybe wants an Int character, your Clerics party definitely does

[Tendril]

I'm saying that it's trivial to make skill checks matter, and therefore class abilities that make skill checks more consistent also matter.

Then maybe just say that instead of making some weird appeal to popularity while quoting statistics that don't even directly relate to skills?

[Psyren]

Then maybe just say that instead of making some weird appeal to popularity while quoting statistics that don't even directly relate to skills?

If you don't like statistics, maybe dont ask for them then?

Appeal to Popularity is only a fallacy if we're discussing quality. If the claim they're attempting to make is that something isn't fun or well-liked, obviously I'm going to respond with "Its the second-most popular class, clearly the problem is you."

[Tendril]

If you don't like statistics, maybe dont ask for them then?

Appeal to Popularity is only a fallacy if we're discussing quality. If the claim they're attempting to make is that something isn't fun or well-liked, obviously I'm going to respond with "Its the second-most popular class, clearly the problem is you."

I do like statistics, I just think you're using them wrong. You brought up those stats in the context of skills, which isn't what those stats are about.

And fun is a quality. Rogue being popular doesn't mean it couldn't be better, or that people who don't find it fun are a "problem".

[Psyren]

I do like statistics, I just think you're using them wrong. You brought up those stats in the context of skills, which isn't what those stats are about.

And fun is a quality. Rogue being popular doesn't mean it couldn't be better, or that people who don't find it fun are a "problem".

By "the problem is you" I meant their perception/perspective, not them personally.

And I never said "rogue couldn't be better." WotC themselves are applying improvements to it this year that got >80% survey satisfaction (oh look, another statistic.)

[Tendril]

By "the problem is you" I meant their perception/perspective, not them personally.

And I never said "rogue couldn't be better." WotC themselves are applying improvements to it this year that got >80% survey satisfaction (oh look, another statistic.)

Yeah, I'll admit I've maybe been a bit pedantic in my replies to you, I don't like the way you phrase some things (like when you told Skrum they're "clearly in the minority").

But yes, I'm aware of One DnD and I'm happy to see improvements are being made. Hopefully everyone will find the new version more to their liking, but it's hard to say before we actually see the final version in print. It looks good though.

[LudicSavant]

@Ludic

Thanks for the detailed response; I appreciate the consideration. In kind, I'll have a more detailed rebuttal of points made when I can, but a couple of immediate points spring to mind, that I'll share now and expand upon when I have time.

1) Setting Specific. Mark of Shadow Elf is only going to playing in an Eberron game

Eberron happens to be my favorite official setting, but it's far from the only one where a Cleric can pick up Pass Without Trace more economically than a Phantom Rogue can. For example it can be gained as a spell known from Earth Genasi, or Trickery Cleric, or the Dimir background.

If my Rogues party maybe wants an Int character, your Clerics party definitely does

Correct. That is intentional.

which would bring the conversation back to the 'GM dependent'' criticism being leveled at the Rogue/ability check argument).

Just a note/reminder: These are different criticisms from the ones that I have made.

The Mark of Shadow Elf is fun, but damn, it is a S-tier race. Are you trying to break the backboard like Shaq?

Yeah, the dragonmarked races are better for casters than noncasters in general.

In fact, a lot of powerhouse races don't play especially nice with Rogue. Bugbear, hobgoblin, goblin, earth genasi, githzerai, goliath, shifter, gem dragonborn...

The combination of not being a caster, being single-attack-based, and already continuously using their bonus actions and reactions on other stuff, means that the list of Races that really up the Rogue's ante isn't quite as long.

[Theodoxus]

Have you played World of Darkness? I haven't, but I've heard at least one person say it does skills pretty well.

It's been 30 years, and it was oWoD. I have some nWoD books somewhere, I'll look into it. From what my very sketchy memory provides, the skill system is more akin to what I had proposed, using a base DC15 with partial success on a 11-14, and a critical success on a 20+. Though, for WoD, it's based on the number of successes on a pool of d10s (6+ is a success), where the DC is the number of successes needed. TBF, I don't recall if there was guidance on how to generate the DC. I never was a Storyteller, though I read the books.

But yes, I'm aware of One DnD and I'm happy to see improvements are being made. Hopefully everyone will find the new version more to their liking, but it's hard to say before we actually see the final version in print. It looks good though.

If they don't provide any clarity on how to generate a DC, it won't change this thread subtopic though...

[Psyren]

Yeah, I'll admit I've maybe been a bit pedantic in my replies to you, I don't like the way you phrase some things (like when you told Skrum they're "clearly in the minority").

I do genuinely think that they are. But I understand where you're coming from.

If they don't provide any clarity on how to generate a DC, it won't change this thread subtopic though...

Several of the people in this thread won't settle for anything less than overt 3.5 skill tables, so I don't think preventing threads is a reasonable goal for them to have. They should design the game the way they think makes sense and let the market decide, not revert to 3.5 skills because of a few vocal complaints.

[Witty Username]

"If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success - the creature overcomes the challenge at hand (1). Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective (2) or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM (3)."

1-2-3 = not binary.

While true, success at a cost only appling when a DC is missed by 1 or 2 points or hit exactly limits its utility.
There is also that most DM will use a binary setup for individual rolls, success at a cost being the 'Fail' state of the Pass/Fail, rather than having planned for all three.

I personally like degrees of failure and success but they are only tentatively supported in the DMG and not really supported elsewhere (that being said my knowledge of modules is not significant-read the tomb of horrors, some of the Van Ritchen's adventure hooks, and Rime of The Frostmaiden)

[Sorinth]

Where have I said skill checks are bad? I've always been saying I don't like the advice and implementation, i.e. give DCs based on difficulty but doesn't give examples of various skill difficulties. A specific case - says an Athletics check can let you jump more than your ST score but no advice on how to do it. That is nothing new. This is not the profound gotcha you think it is.

It's not meant to be gotcha. Is it not fair to say you do not like the skill check system, which need I remind you is designed to be the DM arbitrarily decides the difficulty, and what success/failure should look like?

[Tendril]

If they don't provide any clarity on how to generate a DC, it won't change this thread subtopic though...

Several of the people in this thread won't settle for anything less than overt 3.5 skill tables, so I don't think preventing threads is a reasonable goal for them to have. They should design the game the way they think makes sense and let the market decide, not revert to 3.5 skills because of a few vocal complaints.

I think having sample DC's would be a good thing, but there doesn't need to be a ton of them. Just a couple examples per skill to show a reasonable starting point, with a note that the DM should change the DC based on the situation and intended feel of the game. The examples could be straight up lifted from modules, with maybe a short explanation on why the DC was set as it was. I'd rather have a few well-explained examples than a bunch of massive tables. Teach people how to set DC's, not what DC's to set.

[stoutstien]

While true, success at a cost only appling when a DC is missed by 1 or 2 points or hit exactly limits its utility.
There is also that most DM will use a binary setup for individual rolls, success at a cost being the 'Fail' state of the Pass/Fail, rather than having planned for all three.

I personally like degrees of failure and success but they are only tentatively supported in the DMG and not really supported elsewhere (that being said my knowledge of modules is not significant-read the tomb of horrors, some of the Van Ritchen's adventure hooks, and Rime of The Frostmaiden)

That's not true because the GM should have a pretty clear idea on what a failure looks like before the dice hit and it could be a 'success at a cost' as the default. It's just a poor description rather than an issue with the mechanic

It's not degrees of success as much as the cost of failure which doesn't automatically mean you don't make headway.

[Psyren]

I personally like degrees of failure and success but they are only tentatively supported in the DMG and not really supported elsewhere

The passage I quoted is from the PHB, not the DMG.

While true, success at a cost only appling when a DC is missed by 1 or 2 points or hit exactly limits its utility.

That's a suggested variant "flourish." The base rule in the PHB does not place any hard threshold on applying progress + setback, you're not limited to a 2-point miss. (I mean, you're the DM, you wouldn't be limited regardless; try running your game )

There is also that most DM will use a binary setup for individual rolls, success at a cost being the 'Fail' state of the Pass/Fail, rather than having planned for all three.

Even assuming 'most DMs' actually behave the way you believe they do (data?) - them not reading the PHB and DMG, or attempting to apply their guidance in the most myopic way possible, is not the books' fault.

[Sorinth]

I think having sample DC's would be a good thing, but there doesn't need to be a ton of them. Just a couple examples per skill to show a reasonable starting point, with a note that the DM should change the DC based on the situation and intended feel of the game. The examples could be straight up lifted from modules, with maybe a short explanation on why the DC was set as it was. I'd rather have a few well-explained examples than a bunch of massive tables. Teach people how to set DC's, not what DC's to set.

My preference is definitely a few "examples of play" scenarios where they show the thought process used by the DM to come up with a given DC rather then some generic DCs that are supposed to provide starting points or references to what Easy/Moderate/Hard is supposed to be. Ideally they would even take the exact same example but use different reasoning to come up with a different DC to highlight that there isn't a right/wrong DC and it's more a case of how setting DCs will influence the style of game.

[Blatant Beast]

In fact, a lot of powerhouse races don't play especially nice with Rogue. Bugbear, hobgoblin, goblin, earth genasi, githzerai, goliath, shifter, gem dragonborn...

The combination of not being a caster, being single-attack-based, and already continuously using their bonus actions and reactions on other stuff, means that the list of Races that really up the Rogue's ante isn't quite as long.

Yeah, that was my conclusion as well. MPMotM Hobgoblins and Earth Genasi, are not bad options, as a Rogue may not always be using Cunning Action, but they are nowhere near as effective as a Dragonmarked Race is for a spellcaster.

MPMotM Earth Genasi might be an interesting option for a Tanky Rogue build that wanted to use their Reaction for things other than Uncanny Dodge.

The Cleric class, is a "tough" matchup for a Rogue to be compared to, as many of the cleric's subclasses offer really good Channel Divinity powers, and the Harness Divinity optional power is a great boost for spell slot recovery. It is hard to go wrong with Free casts of Prayer of Healing.

I received the opportunity to play a Death Domain Cleric a few years back, for thematic reasons for a PC. I had not really considered a Death Cleric's Touch of Death CD, but damn, talk about a great feature for Spike Damage!

I was playing a Mola Ram inspired cleric, (villain from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom), and every time I used Touch of Death, all I could think of was Mola Ram Chanting "Kali-Ma!" when he ripped people's hearts from their chest. Touch of Death is seriously good, no wonder the Death Cleric is presented as NPC only.

[LudicSavant]

Yeah, that was my conclusion as well. MPMotM Hobgoblins and Earth Genasi, are not bad options, as a Rogue may not always be using Cunning Action, but they are nowhere near as effective as a Dragonmarked Race is for a spellcaster.

Not to mention that casters benefit more from hobgoblins and earth genasi, too!

The Cleric class, is a "tough" matchup for a Rogue to be compared to, as many of the cleric's subclasses offer really good Channel Divinity powers, and the Harness Divinity optional power is a great boost for spell slot recovery. It is hard to go wrong with Free casts of Prayer of Healing.

I received the opportunity to play a Death Domain Cleric a few years back, for thematic reasons for a PC. I had not really considered a Death Cleric's Touch of Death CD, but damn, talk about a great feature for Spike Damage!

I was playing a Mola Ram inspired cleric, (villain from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom), and every time I used Touch of Death, all I could think of was Mola Ram Chanting "Kali-Ma!" when he ripped people's hearts from their chest. Touch of Death is seriously good, no wonder the Death Cleric is presented as NPC only.

Touch of Death is really good, yeah.

In a 2 short rest day, it can contribute more bonus damage than if a Paladin ground up all of their spell slots into (non-critical) smites. Since the features work in such a similar manner, they're easy to compare. Like so:

Spoiler

Show

Level 2:
27 extra damage (Death Cleric over a 2-short-rest day) vs 18 extra damage (Paladin using all of their slots on non-crit smites)

Level 6:
102 extra damage (Channel Divinity over a 2-short-rest day) vs 63 extra damage (Paladin using all of their slots on non-crit smites)

Level 20:
405 extra damage (Channel Divinity over a 2-short-rest day) vs 243 extra damage (Paladin using all of their slots on non-crit smites)

[Psyren]

Now I'm curious about which races are especially good/synergistic with Rogue.

Ignoring the PHB races for now since they're changing soon, here are some that come to mind:

Thri-Kreen: These are just phenomenal. Darkvision, can be Small size, better AC than Studded Leather, constant Advantage to hide (it's an action to activate but you can do so out of combat, or even in combat + CA), silent communication, can wield a dagger and a bow simultaneously, and can keep watch all night.)

Autognome: Small, AC bonus again, universal skill bonuses, can't drown or suffocate, two bonus tools, and can keep watch all night.

Owlin: Darkvision, Flight, Small Size, and free Stealth proficiency.

Tabaxi: Naturally fast, and the speed burst they get on top of that combos great with both Cunning Action and Steady Aim once you've repositioned. Two proficiencies you'd have taken anyway and darkvision round this one out.

Shifter: Both Beasthide and Wildhunt help you survive in melee, while Swiftstride basically makes you a Scout for free. Also bonus proficiency and darkvision.

Changeling: I don't need to explain this one do I?

Kenku: 2 bonus skills, advantage on any of them, and super-forgery.

Fairy: Constant flight and can become Tiny 1/day (more if you're an AT.)

[LudicSavant]

Now I'm curious about which races are especially good/synergistic with Rogue.

Some examples include scagtrip-granting races (like high elf and MPMM kobold), flying races that require light armor (like aarakocra and fairy), Ravenite Dragonborn (lets you off-turn SA), Svirfneblin, skill amp races (like Reborn), Tabaxi, anything that helps them hide in plain sight, etc.