What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Trask]

What's so bad about that? It's a feat to get 1 expertise, while the rogue gets 4 of them for free as well as a bonus feat (and Reliable Talent/Stroke of Luck to boot.) They're still king.

And yes, there are multiple feats that grant it now - but frankly, if a player wants to burn their ASIs on Skill Expert + Prodigy + Keen Mind I say let them.

When I think back to the original design notes for D&D Next and how Expertise was this feature that was supposed to, in a limited way, break bounded accuracy and how that was a Big Deal to the class it makes me think that letting feats provide Expertise is bad power creep at the expense of another class. Yes even with these feats Rogue is still the best and Rogue can benefit from them too. but there are only so many skills worth having Expertise in. I think I could be convinced on this issue but for now I still think it should've been a class-exclusive feature.

Flexible...how? Because they can bonus action dash and disengage? Because they switch from melee to range fairly easily? IME rogues are incredibly limited. Can they tank? Can they heal? Can they CC? Can they buff? Can they debuff? Can they AoE? Basically, no. They can't do any of that.

If skills were better developed, I'd be far more likely to believe that rogues are "completely fine." But I'm really not understanding how rogue skills are this amazing skeleton key of untapped power.

I'm not sure if you and I want the same things out of a skill system so I'm not going to "go there", but I think rogues are flexible and versatile. They have the ability to deal damage from melee or ranged, as you mentioned (which is worth mentioning not every class can do optimally at the same time). They have good mobility, solid resilience, they CAN heal actually if you play a Thief for Healer shenanigans. They get an extra feat not being so dependent on the power feats (though they still benefit from them) lets them branch into stuff like Lucky, Resilient, even Inspiring Leader, Observant, Ritual Caster, etc. These things aren't going to get anyone to make a clickbait Youtube thumbnail but they will make a solid and well-rounded character with a lot to offer.

Also I would quibble with your language. Can they "tank"? What class "tanks"? Don't we spend a good chunk of time on this forum chiding newcomers that "tanking" doesn't exist in D&D? If you want to "tank" as a Rogue go for high Con with your Dex and pick up Sentinel, and because you get 1 more free ASI than non-fighters its easier to do that. I DM'ed for a character once, a Fairy Barbarian/Rogue that filled the "tank" role pretty well. Can they "CC?" Sure, if you go for grappling which Rogues can actually do. Sure, it isn't "You send out spectral chains that completely lock down everyone and turn them into meat pinatas" but I didn't claim that Rogues have uber gimmicks, I said they are very versatile and can do a lot of things. In my experience this is true, and in my experience also it is enough, and with some of the stronger subclasses its more than enough.

You can check out Person_Man's Rogue guide, came out almost when Next was first released, he largely agrees and makes a good case, a lot still applies even in a post-Tasha's world.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...5E-Rogue-Guide