What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Skrum]

If the claim is "casters can do more than the rogue" yeah, I agree. And also the sky is blue. But we all know that this thread wouldn't be this many pages if the only claim being made was an innocent "spells let you do more".

There's a certain degree that any class that can't cast spells is...not good as it should be...but I agree with you that it's an entirely banal and well-known fact about 5e.

But I think rogue goes beyond that - they match up badly even among the classes that can't cast spells. I'd rather have a barb, fighter, or monk than a rogue. Those three classes, even with all of their own problems, offer more than rogue does.

Personal bias though, while I enjoy the Tasha's changes I think PHB ranger was fine, it just has a lot of unnecessary complexity because a lot of its good features are spells, and therefore moderately hidden and all its apparent features were either weak or read badly.

Did you know that ranger can't use TWF and cast spells? Yeah. Unlike paladin, they have no special workaround for their casting focus. They're stuck using what the druid uses. Which means unless one of their weapons is a quarterstaff, they have to drop a weapon to grab their casting focus. Also jacks up their ability to use a shield, which really stinks cause they only get medium armor.

The only good part is that rangers are best as archers, and since they can free one hand to cast when using a two-handed weapon (like a bow), this doesn't usually matter.

Rangers also suffer from concentration-jam, and not having Con save proficiency.

[Dr.Samurai]

There's a certain degree that any class that can't cast spells is...not good as it should be...but I agree with you that it's an entirely banal and well-known fact about 5e.

But I think rogue goes beyond that - they match up badly even among the classes that can't cast spells. I'd rather have a barb, fighter, or monk than a rogue. Those three classes, even with all of their own problems, offer more than rogue does.

To some degree I agree with you, as I've struggled to play a rogue myself (meaning I never finally do, I always choose something else). But there's a difference between the rogue not inspiring me, and making claims about the rogue not being able to perform at certain things, which is why I'm knee-deep in this thread (probably shoulder-deep at this point lol).

Did you know that ranger can't use TWF and cast spells? Yeah. Unlike paladin, they have no special workaround for their casting focus. They're stuck using what the druid uses. Which means unless one of their weapons is a quarterstaff, they have to drop a weapon to grab their casting focus. Also jacks up their ability to use a shield, which really stinks cause they only get medium armor.

The only good part is that rangers are best as archers, and since they can free one hand to cast when using a two-handed weapon (like a bow), this doesn't usually matter.

Rangers also suffer from concentration-jam, and not having Con save proficiency.

Ranger is another one that I struggle with as well. I wish it were easier to go Strength based.

[Skrum]

Ranger is another one that I struggle with as well. I wish it were easier to go Strength based.

They need an editor. As in, someone needs to re-read the whole class and clean up little things that make the class way less effective than they could (and were probably intended to) be. And if they're supposed to be anything but archers, they really need a notable defense feature.

[Just to Browse]

This reads to me like these things you've mentioned are not things that noncasters can figure out how to deal with, and the stuff you listed is extremely rudimentary. And then the example encounters you gave didn't strike me as terribly complex either, maybe because of brevity since you were just posting examples.

No, it's more that I figured I would have been wowed by some really pointed examples and instead I was sort of scratching my head at what all the fuss was about.

That sounds like mismatched expectations. What I expected to do with those examples was make you see "ah yes even this off-hand cleric actually has a lot of approaches, and by comparison most rogues have noticeably fewer options". I'm not trying to showcase anything complex or wow-worthy either, just showing the breadth of our example cleric to contrast with the narrowness of the average rogue. I honestly expected my comment to be a quick footnote; I'd prove my point quickly and we'd move on. If I knew we'd be litigating it down to the details of how many 4th-level spell slots a cleric has, I'd have spent more time on it lol.

I'm not particularly interested in defending anyone's point of view except my own, though so far ludic's arguments seem pretty salient. I'm going to leave them to argue about slippery mind, etc for themselves.

Following up with arguments here:

RE: I mentioned kiting, stealth, and survival. The rogue can do those things, why isn't it flexible? The rogue has kiting of a kind (the bA necessary for dash makes the damage mediocre so it's not really threatening), stealth usually in spades (if they spend expertise, which we seem to agree they probably will), and survival... ish... (the features don't keep the rogue alive aren't all that good tbh). But looking at our cleric example, the cleric is either providing or augmenting those traits and then doing other things. They have control effects, expendable minions, item creation, and so on. The rogue's portfolio involves high rolls on a select subset of skills, sneak attack when they can set it up, and mobility which is (usually) at the expense of DPR. That's... pretty narrow compared to the truly flexible classes like our example cleric.

To reiterate, the rogue isn't illegally turbo bad at kiting or stealth! It's just that some classes can contribute to the kiting & stealth strategies while also being able to do other stuff when kiting/stealth aren't on the table.

RE: Casting spells on the rogue. I'm not following here. You're telling me that I don't understand your point, but then you're writing stuff that makes me think "I rebutted exactly this point but he's telling me I didn't".

Maybe it's helpful to point out that guidance can be cast on people who are neither the rogue nor the cleric, while expertise cannot. I'm not sure how to make my point clearer, honestly.

RE: Spell slots are limited. I would urge you to re-read the bit you're quoting here, and the examples that precede them. Our example cleric will need to be hit from a very long distance (likely several times!) to lose concentration on their remote summon, will have to go through a veeeeery long adventure (likely past the point of the rogue running out of HP) before they empty their level 1 spell slots, and can go just as long as the rogue with their cantrips! That's a hell of a lot of staying power for how flexible those spell slots are!

As with point 5 previously, all I can say here is that this should be pretty clear in play when you stack up a flexible vs inflexible class. The supposed value of a non-caster class that can contribute when the casters are out of slots? It just never really materializes after level 3-5. Usually rogues, fighters, and whatnot are out of HP long before the caster's slots run dry.

RE: Skepticism. This gets played on a VTT with strong vision control, with players making choices knowing that there's a chance they will hurt their allies (e.g. paraphrasing, "I can't see, I want to place the wall separating the party & bad guys based on my last known vision of them, and if it locks the hexblade in with them then whatever"). All I can say is that (1) I am an unforgiving DM, and (2) we play with sightlines a ton, and blind AOE is consistently pretty accurate, because it's not that hard to deduce approximate position in D&Dland.

[ecarden]

Because, a big part of the core Rogue design and model is about being the scout/spy and unless the entire party is built to play that way, you've got a problem, because no one wants to be Roy and company sitting at the table while Haley goes and scouts the entire dungeon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0029.html), even putting aside questions of PVP/loot hoarding. Which means that a big part of the core conceit ends up being antithetical to a team game.

The rogue is built to go in and look around quietly, while most parties will be built to, well, either talk everything to death, burn everything to death, or stab everything to death, which means the sneaky times end up being solo adventures, which aren't fair, or fun, for the rest of the party.

[Witty Username]

Ranger is another one that I struggle with as well. I wish it were easier to go Strength based.

Just do it, your about in line with fighter or barbarian on the subject. Defensive style gets you AC on par with plate, and you still have d10 HD and extra attack.

[Dr.Samurai]

That sounds like mismatched expectations. What I expected to do with those examples was make you see "ah yes even this off-hand cleric actually has a lot of approaches, and by comparison most rogues have noticeably fewer options".

Correct. If I understood your original points correctly, you and Skrum were saying you don't have to worry about encounter design with casters but you do with non-casters, and I was expecting to see examples where non-casters would not be able to perform or keep up to demonstrate the point you were both making. Instead I got examples that show that a caster has AOE and debuffs and healing, etc. Which we all know already. And nothing I read seemed like particular attention would be needed to make sure the non-casters could deal with the encounter. Hence my comment about the torch; it's not that I don't recognize the value of a free hand, it just doesn't meet, to me, the standard of "when I build encounters for casters, I don't have to worry about anything, but I do for non-casters". I was looking for something that demonstrated that.

[LudicSavant]

No Ludic. You were given the chance pages ago to explain yourself and elaborate on your vague assertions. I'm not going to try and disprove a point that you refuse to explain.

I have already given you a few pages of explanation already, about the Bard and others. You are not entitled to an infinite amount of my time or attention, please respect that.

Regarding Bard, to reiterate in brief: They have just as much Expertise as a Rogue, and a larger-than-Expertise skill amp they can hand out to anyone in the party, beefy subclasses, and full spellcasting with a great noncombat list on top. This is more than sufficient to compete with (or indeed outcompete) the Rogue's noncombat kit.

You have just said in this very post that that saying casters can do more is "like saying the sky is blue," so I am not sure what exactly it is that you want me to elaborate on, other than that you continue to seem to keep confusing my position with others (for example, I'm not the one that said Rogues were selfish. I was the one saying that a Rogue, especially any that isn't an Arcane Trickster or Soulknife, could stand to get some buffs, and why I think so).

If the claim is "casters can do more than the rogue" yeah, I agree. And also the sky is blue.

Okay... so what are we arguing about?

distracting people with commentary on something unrelated.

All of my comments have been pursuant to the same topic: Namely, comparative efficacy of classes, and why I feel the Rogue could stand to get some buffs.

I expect it seems unrelated to you because you have fundamentally misconstrued what the topic of my posts is in the first place, and seem to have been doing so since your very first reply to me in this thread, where you basically mistranslated "Other classes aren't slouches in non-combat stuff. For example, take a Druid.. For example, they can do X by using A (Stars), or B (familiar), or C (keen senses)" to "So a Stars Druid is going to use both Wild Shapes for a familiar, and a +5 bonus to a Perception check. Very interesting use of resources there simply to 1-up the rogue." When of course I do not actually recommend using those things together.

The reason I brought that up was in response to the claim (from a different person, not you) that Rogues need to be underpowered in combat, because they're overpowered out of combat. My response to which is that Rogues are not overpowered out of combat -- they are better than the likes of a Barbarian, sure, but not necessarily better than the Ranger, Artificer, every full caster, etc. And I think the Barbarian needs their noncombat capabilities buffed.

[Dr.Samurai]

I have already given you a few pages of explanation already, about the Bard and others. You are not entitled to an infinite amount of my time or attention, please respect that.

You didn't, actually. You consistently dismiss expertise in Stealth because of "countermeasures", and you brought up certain types of monsters at "these levels" that would detect someone in a mundane disguise. And said the bard could do better. We all asked for elaboration, because we're curious how your super stealthy bard is going to get through the countermeasures that are available for magic disguises, etc. You vanished from the conversation.

So I'd ask that you respect everyone else and provide more detail to your claims so people don't have to beg you to explain your points to them. Now here you are asking me to explain how the bard isn't better, when you never went through the process to explain how they are. I can immediately think of countermeasures like Truesight, especially when YOU brought up liches, fiends, and celestials as a counterpoint to the assassin. So I want to know what it is you're envisioning with this magic stealth character.

Regarding Bard, to reiterate in brief: They have just as much Expertise as a Rogue, and a larger-than-Expertise skill amp they can hand out to anyone in the party, beefy subclasses, and full spellcasting with a great noncombat list on top. This is more than sufficient to compete with (or indeed outcompete) the Rogue's noncombat kit.

Is it? Does it stand up to your own standards? That's what we need to know.

Expertise and Reliable Talent have been called out, by you, as "winning more", so I'm not sure why it's good on a Bard (expertise+BI) but worthy of taking down a notch on the rogue.

You have just said in this very post that that saying casters can do more is "like saying the sky is blue," so I am not sure what exactly it is that you want me to elaborate on, other than that you continue to seem to keep confusing my position with others (for example, I'm not the one that said Rogues were selfish. I was the one saying that a Rogue, especially any that isn't an Arcane Trickster or Soulknife, could stand to get some buffs, and why I think so).

When did I say you said the rogue was selfish? I think you and others want me to be arguing against you and are reading my comments as a response to you. Strangebloke did this as well. I literally agreed with him in my first interaction with him and he took umbrage that I was mischaracterizing him and others lol. If you're going to come at me with "all I'm saying is that casters can cast spells and noncasters can't" don't bother; I agree with this. It is a nothing statement and no one in the world would argue against it.

Okay... so what are we arguing about?

You and I? No idea. I generally try not to quote you because I don't find comparison commentary that helpful. Like... I know what other classes and subclasses get, but that information doesn't inform how a rogue performs at the table. So someone's encyclopedic knowledge reciting other class features is like... ok, thank you for that. Anyways, about the rogue...

I expect it seems unrelated to you because you have fundamentally misconstrued what the topic of my posts is in the first place, and have been doing so since your very first reply to me in this thread, where you basically mistranslated "a Druid is no slouch at non-combat things. For example, they can do X by using A, or B, or C" to "So a Stars Druid is going to use both Wild Shapes for a familiar, and a +5 bonus to a Perception check. Very interesting use of resources there simply to 1-up the rogue."

I didn't mistranslate anything; your entire post was comparing what a rogue gets to what a druid gets. Very typical of your commentary. But, IMO, points 1 and 4 are in conflict with each other. Because a Stars druid has a combat form that draws on Wildshape, I don't think they would use Wildshape to pump up their Perception (either through turning into a bird or calling a familiar), especially if someone in the party already has Expertise in Perception. I am playing with a druid now and he is rather careful about how he uses his wildshape. So point 4, IMO, erodes point 1. We have a ranger and a monk in the party with passives in the low 20s. Why would the druid spend a wildshape use to compete with this or try to outdo it, when he can activate his Starry Form and gain other unique benefits that others don't have? Saying somebody CAN do something is not helpful on its own. Some druids make use of their wildshape for other things, and wouldn't use it just to boost Perception. A Land Druid might, but Spores, Stars, Wildfire, Moon have other considerations.

[LudicSavant]

I didn't mistranslate anything

You very much did. You translated an or statement (you can do A or B or C) to an and statement ("so you're going to use A and B and C?")

But, IMO, points 1 and 4 are in conflict with each other. Because a Stars druid has a combat form that draws on Wildshape, I don't think they would use Wildshape to pump up their Perception

There is no conflict, because it's an or statement, not an and statement.

A Druid can boost their Perception by being a Stars Druid, or they can use their Wildshape to pump up their Perception, or they can use their Wildshape to create a familiar.

They do not need to do all three at once. Nor should they, generally speaking.

[Dr.Samurai]

You very much did. You translated an or statement (you can do A or B or C) to an and statement ("so you're going to use A and B and C?")



There is no conflict, because it's an or statement, not an and statement.

A Druid can be a Stars Druid, or they can use their Wildshape to pump up their Perception, or they can use their Wildshape to create a familiar.

Ok sure. It's a weaker statement, in my opinion. Many druids will have stronger uses of their wildshape, especially if someone is specializing in perception.

But to clarify; it will be an AND statement, because every druid has a subclass. So insofar they have a subclass that has unique uses for Wildshape, it will be a conflict, IMO, to use it to "surpass" the rogue in Perception Expertise.

[Just to Browse]

Correct. If I understood your original points correctly, you and Skrum were saying you don't have to worry about encounter design with casters but you do with non-casters, and I was expecting to see examples where non-casters would not be able to perform or keep up to demonstrate the point you were both making. Instead I got examples that show that a caster has AOE and debuffs and healing, etc. Which we all know already. And nothing I read seemed like particular attention would be needed to make sure the non-casters could deal with the encounter. Hence my comment about the torch; it's not that I don't recognize the value of a free hand, it just doesn't meet, to me, the standard of "when I build encounters for casters, I don't have to worry about anything, but I do for non-casters". I was looking for something that demonstrated that.

Ah, so if I'm right, your thought when you saw my example encounters was, "the DM doesn't have to do any work to tailor these to the rogue"? Because that's something I can run down pretty quickly:

• Clear a 2-floor building filled with monsters that have one-shot potential but are scared of light, the stairs between floors is a chokepoint: The rogue's ability to do recon is okay, but doesn't let the players perform a targeted strike because they need to clear the building. Solo scouting is extremely dangerous because it runs the risk of getting one-shot. Chokepoints in the building will go both ways, protecting the rogue but potentially making sneak attacks on priority targets difficult. Dim light provides plenty of stealth opportunities. The rogue has more or less one good option: use stealth while staying 30-60' of the party & making sneak attacks for damage.
  
  • I was thankful we didn't have a rogue when we played this session, because it let me dial up the enemies and terrain. Our flexible characters were great here, with multiple instances of radiant damage, defensive spells aplenty, and short-range teleportation that turned the enemies' chokepoints back on themselves. If we had a rogue, I'd nerf all the enemies Recharge effects to reduce one-shot potential, and maybe add a hidden ladder somewhere so the rogue isn't totally screwed by the stairway chokepoint. The latter (pun intended) would be annoying because I was using a map off the internet.
• Survive an ambush in a magically sealed room full of heavy smoke and cover; multiple high-power enemies can apply mental conditions: Smoke does make stealth easy, but escape and kiting aren't especially possible given that the room is sealed, hitting with advantage is impossible because of the smoke, and hitting at all is unlikely because of cover. Despite that, the rogue's primary strategy is to repeatedly hide and make attacks. Hopefully there's a melee fighter or something in the party, or else sneak attack is completely off the table and this rogue becomes a mosquito.
  
  • I would never run this sort of scenario with a rogue in the party, because it just stomps on them. If I absolutely had to, I'd write up a new magic item that lets them see through smoke so they actually get to deal damage.
• Get an artifact from a small tomb full of mephits and regenerating skeletons. A rival party shows up later to steal it: A potential solo mission! High stealth is going to get them very deep into the dungeon, but then denizens all wake up and go stomping around the various tiny rooms here once the artifact has been taken, which is a notable risk that the rogue doesn't know about in advance. A smart/paranoid rogue will sneak out of the dungeon too, almost certainly avoiding the rival party, though an unscathed rogue mostly means the party gets mobbed by a bunch of dudes, possibly from both above and below, while down a player. The rogue's options are the high-risk solo op (sneaking down, stealing the artifact, sneaking out, stashing the artifact, joining their allies), or the usual: use stealth while staying 30-60' of the party & making sneak attacks for damage.
  
  • The party ran this with a fairly narrow character (a bard who doesn't fight ), so mid-session contrivances were already necessary to adapt and give them the spotlight: a previously uncommunicative monster just happened to speak common perfectly well and could be convinced not to sick her minions on the party. A rogue in this dungeon would do fine as an advance scout, and they'd have plenty of places to make sneak attacks. That said, it's worth noting they wouldn't be useful in the social situation even if they had expertise in a skill, because the bard already had a higher bonus (our hypothetical guidance-spamming cleric on the other hand...) so I might adjust another encounter to let the rogue shine more, like putting some loot inside a locked chest.
• Save a town from a dozen mooks with death throes and a fast melee boss in an open town square: Multiple walkpaths and fairly open terrain let them kite out the exploders. Walls & darkness (I didn't mention, but this was set at night) give them plenty of opportunity to hide. Only problem is they can't really help the townsfolk, or protect their allies. They'll likely be using stealth while running wherever they want & making sneak attacks against the boss.
  
  • Pretty straightforward IMO. I wouldn't have to make any changes as a DM, but it's clear that the rogue has only 1/4 of the cleric's options (just the kiting, no res, no high-value debuff, no control). The playtest 6 rogue would be a little more helpful here, though iirc the big boss was immune to poison and only used natural weapons, so maybe not so much.
• Rescue someone from an invisible death knight with spell-enchanted armor and his unintelligent stone defenders in a looping dungeon complex: The rogue's ability to do solo recon here is frankly phenomenal, and the victim they're trying to save is roughly at the rogue's carrying capacity (I think she was 100-120 lbs). The problem is that the death knight is also stealthy, and could be sitting in any particular room. One thing I didn't mention here was that the dungeon was patrolled by gelatinous cubes, so the rogue has multiple stealthy patrolling threats that they might accidentally run into, though none of those threats can one-shot the rogue and they don't act quickly, so solo recon (and even a solo rescue mission) is still a solid option. Alternatively or afterwards, the rogue will mostly use stealth while staying 30-60' of the party & making sneak attacks for damage.
  
  • We ran this scenario with a rogue, so if it looks perfect for a rogue... well, that's by design. Unfortunately I miscalculated with the gelatinous cubes; they caught the rogue in a hallway, so ironically the ranger did the solo op instead, using darkness to avoid detection in a brightly-lit room, and then rope trick to safely hide the target before joining the big fight that broke out when the death knight found the rest of the party. I'm glad someone got to do a solo op, but this session really left me scratching my head; "how the hell am I going to highlight the stealthy rogue when the ranger can do their job even more flexibly?" Never solved this one before the campaign fizzled out.

And I think that's it. Hopefully that shows what I'm thinking: it's not that the rogue is literally worthless or will always die, it's just that they have far fewer options than the more flexible classes, which means I (as a DM) have to do more work to accommodate them. Sometimes that's adding a locked chest so the rogue gets a chance to use their expertise, sometimes it means kitbashing a VTT map, sometimes it means throwing away encounter ideas entirely. By contrast, I rarely if ever even have to worry about highlighting a flexible character like a caster, because they show up in most situations with 2-4 decent options at their fingertips.

[JellyPooga]

I think a large part of the discussion and disparity being observed does come down to the difference between what the Rogue and other Classes can or can't do compared to what they will or actually do in play.

It's all well and good saying a Druid can cast Pass Without Trace to enhance the Stealth of the entire party, but that's not the same as a Rogue having Expertise and/or Reliable Talent to just have a good Stealth score. The Druid has to weigh the cost:benefit ratio every time Stealth is a concern, whilst the Rogue has already paid that cost (in the opportunity of their build) and the party doesn't always need everyone to be stealthy; some, if not most of the time, only one person need it. So while the Druid can, the Rogue does.

The same applies to the Bard and their Inspiration, the Wizard and Invisibility and so on and so forth. The value of not requiring resource expenditure is frequently being overlooked because magnitude is all that's being judged. On the flipside of this, the magnitude of the Rogues ability is also being downplayed as overcompensation with no concession to those expending resources to the same end.

Why cast Knock when you have a Rogue on hand to do it for free? Why expend a use of Rage when the Rogue can Uncanny Dodge that damage instead? Why use Bardic Inspiration when the Rogue has Reliable Talent? Every single time a Rogue does something whether it's "just well enough" or "total overkill", they're saving the rest of the party from having to spend a resource to do it. It's overlooked because it's understated and it's an oft entirely unsung benefit, but it is what makes the Rogue a team player and it's a shame that more selfish players do not see it because they're too wrapped up in "but I can do the same thing better if I just spend...X".

Is the Rogue better at things than other Classes? No, they're worse at just about everything than one Class or another; there will almost always be someone that can do it better than they can. What the Rogue does best is reliably facilitate the entire rest of the party to actually do what they do best instead of burning resources on doing what the Rogue could do for nothing. Every PWT saved is a Heat Metal or Hold Person cast later when it counts and that's no small thing.

Being able to hold ones own while allowing others to shine brighter is practically the definition of the unsung team player. A team made entirely of strikers fails compared to the team that has a midfield and defence (to use an unfamiliar sports analogy). Rogues might not have the spotlight, but they're probably the best "midfielder" on the pitch.

[Pex]

Correct. If I understood your original points correctly, you and Skrum were saying you don't have to worry about encounter design with casters but you do with non-casters, and I was expecting to see examples where non-casters would not be able to perform or keep up to demonstrate the point you were both making. Instead I got examples that show that a caster has AOE and debuffs and healing, etc. Which we all know already. And nothing I read seemed like particular attention would be needed to make sure the non-casters could deal with the encounter. Hence my comment about the torch; it's not that I don't recognize the value of a free hand, it just doesn't meet, to me, the standard of "when I build encounters for casters, I don't have to worry about anything, but I do for non-casters". I was looking for something that demonstrated that.

I'm with you, just playing devil's advocate.

Create an encounter with a flying monster with resistances/immunities, flying minions with resistances/immunities, and hazardous terrain.

The theory is spellcasters have no problem dealing with attacking at range, attack the monsters in ways their resistances/immunities won't matter, and be mobile enough the terrain is almost irrelevant. Non-casters may or may not be able to handle one of these problems but not all three and will have miserable combat play. That spellcasters will always have the right spells they need to cover this situation at the moment it happens is assumed by default because spellcasters.

[Just to Browse]

I think a large part of the discussion and disparity being observed does come down to the difference between what the Rogue and other Classes can or can't do compared to what they will or actually do in play.

This has actually come up in this thread at least a few times. See "4. These examples require the caster being at 100%" on p23 and "RE: Spell slots are limited" on p24.

IME this idea that resource-less-ness characters are good defaults or good once casters are out of slots? It's more theory than practice. In 5e land, the flexible, resource-laden characters rarely run out of resources before everyone needs to rest for other reasons (like the quest being complete, or the frontliners are on the edge of death). As ludic wrote in a discord server a few months ago: "by the time the (well piloted) wizards run dry, the resourceless guys would have died if they werent there".

The flexible classes more frequently can just have it all. They can spend a slot on PWT while still having several for heat metal and hold person later, they can play striker, midfield, and defense for as long as it matters. For examples, I'd point to CMCC's Gauntlet, including Ludic's own monk run: multiple encounters with extremely intensive resource costs, run back to back, running even high-level casters out of spell slots. And despite this, the classes that do the best are the ones with resources. Being resource-less is far less of an asset than theorycrafting would have you believe.

[Witty Username]

I am just going to toss some ideas out for rogue fixes.

I think rogue sould get more skills and expertise,
6 class skills, and 2 expertises at 1st, 2nd and 6th level.
That might not be enough though, a d6 or d8 dice to add on to skills at early levels since that is where expertise is a pain point.

Along with that blindsense is bad, Maybe just steal blind fighting's wording and increase the range for a high level effect. Cleric gets 300ft darkvision at first level, so that should be fine range for a 14th level ability.

Low damage is another thing, I am actually curious now if doubling sneak attack damage would be fair (so 2d6 at 1st, 4d6 at third etc.)

Might as well reproduce the Thieves Cant thought I had. In addition to its regular effect allies you can effectively communicate with it can Hide along with you when you take the hide action, they may use their stealth roll or yours, whichever is higher.

Stroke of luck I would add saves to its effect for simplicity, looks like one already did that.

Maybe up the number of reliable talent from 10 to 15, that would put it on the level of Glibness so it isn't unprecedented and would add some value to a good feeling but weak feature.

Drop Slippery Mind to 11th level. And keep the inclusion of Charisma saves since that feels good.

Elusive is boring, drop it to 5th level. And make it impose disadvantage rather than preventing advantage.

[LudicSavant]

You vanished from the conversation.

Dr. Samurai, this is a 24 page thread. I was gone briefly, after already posting quite a bit. During the brief time I was gone, you posted multiple walls of text saying that I was "refusing" to reply.

Again, you are not entitled to an infinite amount of my time and attention, please be respectful of that. Thank you.

I am happy to talk about options the Bard has for dealing with divinations and the like. A few tools I make regular use of at such levels include Nondetection (yes, it counters True Seeing and the like), and Mind Blank (This was getting used pretty much every day in my last tier 4 campaign). Incidentally, such tools were mentioned upthread, but whatever.

[Rerem115]

It's all well and good saying a Druid can cast Pass Without Trace to enhance the Stealth of the entire party, but that's not the same as a Rogue having Expertise and/or Reliable Talent to just have a good Stealth score. The Druid has to weigh the cost:benefit ratio every time Stealth is a concern, whilst the Rogue has already paid that cost (in the opportunity of their build) and the party doesn't always need everyone to be stealthy; some, if not most of the time, only one person need it. So while the Druid can, the Rogue does.

...

Being able to hold ones own while allowing others to shine brighter is practically the definition of the unsung team player. A team made entirely of strikers fails compared to the team that has a midfield and defense (to use an unfamiliar sports analogy). Rogues might not have the spotlight, but they're probably the best "midfielder" on the pitch.

This maps uncannily cleanly to my experience; get out of my head! Jokes aside, this is especially true in the early levels, T1 through early T2. Some situations—such as pick-pocketing the keys off the museum curator during a crowded party, to use a module we played last week as an example—may render the use of magic socially unpalatable, or you might not have the spell at all! Not all parties are going to have a Druid or a Wizard, and not all DMs allow lineages/backgrounds with expanded spell lists. Half-Casters won't have access to those critical 2nd level spells until 5th level. Third-Casters won't have them until 7th!

But the Rogue, with their expertise in Sleight of Hand and Stealth, and the rest of the party keeping lookout and playing distraction? They're able to get the job done, and do it starting at level 1. Someone else might, theoretically, be able to do it better, but you're not always gonna have someone else.

[LudicSavant]

This has actually come up in this thread at least a few times. See "4. These examples require the caster being at 100%" on p23 and "RE: Spell slots are limited" on p24.

IME this idea that resource-less-ness characters are good defaults or good once casters are out of slots? It's more theory than practice. In 5e land, the flexible, resource-laden characters rarely run out of resources before everyone needs to rest for other reasons (like the quest being complete, or the frontliners are on the edge of death). As ludic wrote in a discord server a few months ago: "by the time the (well piloted) wizards run dry, the resourceless guys would have died if they werent there".

The flexible classes more frequently can just have it all. They can spend a slot on PWT while still having several for heat metal and hold person later, they can play striker, midfield, and defense for as long as it matters. For examples, I'd point to CMCC's Gauntlet, including Ludic's own monk run: multiple encounters with extremely intensive resource costs, run back to back, running even high-level casters out of spell slots. And despite this, the classes that do the best are the ones with resources. Being resource-less is far less of an asset than theorycrafting would have you believe.

Indeed!

So a common assumption that some folks have is that so-called 'resourceless' characters will, by virtue of not spending slots, enable a party to go longer without needing to rest. But this isn't actually true, as anyone who actually plays endurance-style challenges will be able to tell you! If you replace a Rune Knight with a Champion, odds are you're going to go fewer encounters before the party needs to rest or die, rather than going more.

This is because being slotless does not exempt you from attrition. You may not be spending spell slots, but you are spending action economy, windows of opportunity, hit points, the resources of your party members, or quite possibly lives.

Basically, even if you're 'resourceless,' you still need to do resource efficiency math, you cannot simply assume that you're more resource-efficient. Something like giving the Mind Flayer an extra round to act, for instance, costs me resources. Sometimes a metric @#$% of them.

Indeed, counterintuitive as it may seem, the purpose of burst (at least, for tactical players) is not like, to show off, it's to save resources, because the player anticipates that it will cost them more to not solve that problem.

[JNAProductions]

I am just going to toss some ideas out for rogue fixes.

1) I think rogue sould get more skills and expertise,
6 class skills, and 2 expertises at 1st, 2nd and 6th level.
That might not be enough though, a d6 or d8 dice to add on to skills at early levels since that is where expertise is a pain point.

2) Along with that blindsense is bad, Maybe just steal blind fighting's wording and increase the range for a high level effect. Cleric gets 300ft darkvision at first level, so that should be fine range for a 14th level ability.

3) Low damage is another thing, I am actually curious now if doubling sneak attack damage would be fair (so 2d6 at 1st, 4d6 at third etc.)

4) Might as well reproduce the Thieves Cant thought I had. In addition to its regular effect allies you can effectively communicate with it can Hide along with you when you take the hide action, they may use their stealth roll or yours, whichever is higher.

5) Stroke of luck I would add saves to its effect for simplicity, looks like one already did that.

6) Maybe up the number of reliable talent from 10 to 15, that would put it on the level of Glibness so it isn't unprecedented and would add some value to a good feeling but weak feature.

7) Drop Slippery Mind to 11th level. And keep the inclusion of Charisma saves since that feels good.

8) Elusive is boring, drop it to 5th level. And make it impose disadvantage rather than preventing advantage.

Okay, in order...

1) That'd be fine, because skills aren't overpowering, but also boring.

2) 100% on board with this!

3) Rogue damage is competitive, if using TWF and getting Sneak Attack, with most other martials. They can't nova like others can, but doubling their SA damage... At level 5, they'd be about 6 points of damage behind a GWM PAM Fighter with 16 Strength against something with an AC of 3. They're 5 points of damage ABOVE said Fighter when targeting AC 13.
If you want to address Rogue's damage, add capabilities to nova like other martials can-do NOT up their baseline.

4) I'd limit it to a certain number, but yeah, that feels neat.

5) Yup, that's fine. I'd also make it so, if you use it for an attack, it counts as a 20.

6) If Reliable Talent sets the floor to 15, you only have a 1/4 chance of rolling mattering ever. (Well, when proficiency applies.) This would up its current boost from +2.25 to +5.25. I am not in favor of this change.

7) Sounds good to me.

8) That'd be insane. You know how, five times per short rest at level five, Monks can Dodge as a bonus action? If they spend their Ki on nothing else? What if, instead, they had it active all the time, for no action cost, and can't even be **** down by grappling or otherwise setting speed to 0'?

[LudicSavant]

I am just going to toss some ideas out for rogue fixes.

I think rogue sould get more skills and expertise,
6 class skills, and 2 expertises at 1st, 2nd and 6th level.
That might not be enough though, a d6 or d8 dice to add on to skills at early levels since that is where expertise is a pain point.

Along with that blindsense is bad, Maybe just steal blind fighting's wording and increase the range for a high level effect. Cleric gets 300ft darkvision at first level, so that should be fine range for a 14th level ability.

Low damage is another thing, I am actually curious now if doubling sneak attack damage would be fair (so 2d6 at 1st, 4d6 at third etc.)

Might as well reproduce the Thieves Cant thought I had. In addition to its regular effect allies you can effectively communicate with it can Hide along with you when you take the hide action, they may use their stealth roll or yours, whichever is higher.

Stroke of luck I would add saves to its effect for simplicity, looks like one already did that.

Maybe up the number of reliable talent from 10 to 15, that would put it on the level of Glibness so it isn't unprecedented and would add some value to a good feeling but weak feature.

Drop Slippery Mind to 11th level. And keep the inclusion of Charisma saves since that feels good.

Elusive is boring, drop it to 5th level. And make it impose disadvantage rather than preventing advantage.

Some suggestions of my own:
- Give them more offensive combat options that aren't sneak attack. Either Rogues should be a bit more difficult to shut down, or they should get a bit more payoff for not being shut down. This is a bigger deal at later levels than earlier ones, because at later levels a larger proportion of their damage is sneak attack (whereas at low levels your weapon damage might still be a good chunk of your damage).
- Don't worry as much about their defenses, they're not exactly glass cannons.
- Make sure every subclass is at least as strong as Arcane Trickster. Incidentally, one of the things that's nice about Arcane Trickster is that they have more fallback plans when Sneak Attack doesn't apply.
- The backend features (like Elusive and Blindsense) basically should be replaced with considerably stronger features. Like, don't move them, cut them entirely and replace them.
- The Rogue should be less toploaded. For instance, I feel like I get most of the benefits of being a Soulknife from a 3 level dip, after which I can jump off into Rune Knight or whatever. Like, I've already got cunning action, 2x Expertise, and prof scaling psi-die.
- Give the Rogue more features that acknowledge that they live in a magical world. Like... there are a few of these (the Mastermind's level 17 feature, for instance), but it's too little, too late. If I'm going to be starting a conspiracy in Eberron, I want to be spoofing mindreading like a dozen levels earlier.

Note that this is not me saying that you need to give Rogues magic. Maybe you can method-act so well that you can spoof your surface thoughts, maybe you can switch to thinking in another language for language-dependent effects (this was actually a thing a badass normal character would do in one superhero show I watched way back when). Maybe they just synergize with magic items better somehow (for example, Fighters synergize with a lot of magic weapons better than most martials because 5e magic weapons tend to scale better the more attacks you have). Maybe give them better versions of UMD (like they had in earlier editions). Maybe make them better at lobbing alchemicals or using consumables (another thing they had in other editions). Who better to carry around a sack full of tricks than a Rogue?

[Saelethil]

I am just going to toss some ideas out for rogue fixes.

I think rogue sould get more skills and expertise,
6 class skills, and 2 expertises at 1st, 2nd and 6th level.
That might not be enough though, a d6 or d8 dice to add on to skills at early levels since that is where expertise is a pain point.

I know that skills aren’t always appreciated around here but my table gets a lot of use out of them. My preference would probably be to give every subclass a couple more proficiencies & expertise like the scout does (allowing for different picks if you already have them). Maybe a couple choices from a thematic list.

With the dice, I’m not sure what level it should come online but something like:

Skill Dice (or a better name)
You have a number of d6s equal to your dexterity modifier. They can be expended in the following ways and you regain expended uses when you complete a short or long rest.
1) Whenever an ally that can see or hear you makes an ability check using one of your proficient skills you can gesture, mumble, or in some other way communicate how to improve, allowing them to add one of your dice to the roll.
2) Whenever you make an ability check you can spend a die to add it to the total.

[Witty Username]

So a common assumption that some folks have is that so-called 'resourceless' characters will, by virtue of not spending slots, enable a party to go longer without needing to rest. But this isn't actually true, as anyone who actually plays endurance-style challenges will be able to tell you! If you replace a Rune Knight with a Champion, odds are you're going to go fewer encounters before the party needs to rest or die, rather than going more.

Is that because the champion has no resources, or becuase it has no meaningful features?

Like champion off the top of my head, has crit range that barely comes up, a fighting you don't actually want to use or you would have taken it earlier and remarkable athlete?

Rune Knight also gets a bunch of abilities that don't require limited uses that are more than enough to put them above champion as each rune comes with a passive benefit.

Why I say this is that it is the strength of the feature that is the issue. Fighter gets resources to improve their saves, but no one says they are good at saves in comparison to the monk.

Giving rogue say, increased movement speed, and extra attack would dramatically reduce percieved issues with rogue but not involve giving them increased resource tracking. And arguably attacks the more pressing issue of the class not performing its intended function.

--
Here is a thought:
Rogue feature, 5th
"Play Pazzak"*
At 5th level, a rogue's mind it a mess of mental games, meaningless tasks, and esoteric knowledge. The rogue gains resistance to psychic damage, their mind cannot be read even by magical means, and they have advantage on all Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma saving throws.

*I like Atton Rand, sue me.

- Give them more offensive combat options that aren't sneak attack. Either Rogues should be a bit more difficult to shut down, or they should get a bit more payoff for not being shut down. This is a bigger deal at later levels than earlier ones, because at later levels a larger proportion of their damage is sneak attack (whereas at low levels your weapon damage might still be a good chunk of your damage).

I figured it would be the other way around, sneak attack is pretty weak at the main portion of the game (5th to about 9th level) since it gets beaten out by extra attack pretty comfortably. At later levels, disadvantage is a higher potential concern but they are sneak attack grows in damage in a way few other classes actually replicate (barbarian, monk and ranger for example all cap out damage wise about 5th level).

[LudicSavant]

Is that because the champion has no resources, or becuase it has no meaningful features?

It's because the Champion is not as resource-efficient as the Rune Knight. The Champion may not be spending spell slots, but they are, in fact, spending resources that I have a limited amount of, and they don't tend to do so at an efficient rate.

The way I view it is: I am spending resources (like hp, time, windows of opportunity, action economy, etc) by default. I need to take action to slow the rate at which those resources are going out the window, and I have limited opportunity to do so. I'm not losing resources because just because I'm spending abilities, I'm losing resources already, and spending abilities (if I have them) to slow the descent towards annihilation at the hands of the omnipotent Mister Cavern.

Now if I'm a Champion, I might get to press a certain button every time the opportunity arises, but that's still limited use in practice: I have limited opportunities to act to arrest the plane's descent before it crashes and burns. I do not have infinite time to throw normal attacks. I do not have infinite chances to try to sneak past the archmage's wards. And so on.

A 'resourceless' character can be efficient or inefficient. The mistake is that some people automatically assume that 'resourceless = efficient.' It's more complex and interesting than that.

[Witty Username]

The way I view it is: I am spending resources by default. Especially if I am playing in a campaign that is sufficient to challenge an optimizer, the default state of my resources (like HP, etc) is "in complete freefall, brace for crash landing" and I need to take action to slow the rate at which those resources are going out the window, and I have limited opportunity to do so. I'm not losing resources because I'm spending abilities, I'm losing resources already, and spending abilities (if I have them) to slow the inevitable descent towards annihilation at the hands of the omnipotent Mister Cavern.

The issue this reads to me is one of impact, not about being able to spend resources.

Like say Shield vs Acance Deflection, shield isn't better because it allows spending spell slots. It is because 5 is more than 2, and sometimes you need 5.

Part of why I frame it like this, is the implication that features with costs are stronger, like say step of the wind vs cunning action, when that isn't how that works in practice.

I.E. champion isn't bad becuase it can use its limited in its abilities by prof bonus per long rest or something, it would be worse. It is bad because its abilities don't appreably change outcomes of combats.

Like say if champion had the capacity instead of improved critical to make an additional attack as a bonus action, or make a second attack with their offhand weapon if they use two-weapon fighting. That would generally improve its impact. But limiting it in uses wouldn't improve the feature (berkserker is a case study in that).

Overall, this reads to me that the issue is design is too timid with at will features

[LudicSavant]

The issue this reads to me is one of impact, not about being able to spend resources.

Exactly! Impact relative to opportunity cost.

Overall, this reads to me that the issue is design is too timid with at will features

Agreed; I feel early 5e designers overestimated how much impact should be lost in exchange for something being at-will.

[Kane0]

1
I think rogue sould get more skills and expertise,
6 class skills, and 2 expertises at 1st, 2nd and 6th level.
That might not be enough though, a d6 or d8 dice to add on to skills at early levels since that is where expertise is a pain point.

2
Along with that blindsense is bad, Maybe just steal blind fighting's wording and increase the range for a high level effect. Cleric gets 300ft darkvision at first level, so that should be fine range for a 14th level ability.

3
Low damage is another thing, I am actually curious now if doubling sneak attack damage would be fair (so 2d6 at 1st, 4d6 at third etc.)

4
Might as well reproduce the Thieves Cant thought I had. In addition to its regular effect allies you can effectively communicate with it can Hide along with you when you take the hide action, they may use their stealth roll or yours, whichever is higher.

5
Stroke of luck I would add saves to its effect for simplicity, looks like one already did that.

6
Maybe up the number of reliable talent from 10 to 15, that would put it on the level of Glibness so it isn't unprecedented and would add some value to a good feeling but weak feature.

7
Drop Slippery Mind to 11th level. And keep the inclusion of Charisma saves since that feels good.

8
Elusive is boring, drop it to 5th level. And make it impose disadvantage rather than preventing advantage.

1) Expertise is alright, I think two pairs is fine (however I trim the skill list a touch). This does dovetail into my idea to bring forward reliable talent and apply it to all ability checks, between those two features we can probably say skill checks are covered and we can focus on other stuff.
2) I did propose giving rogues a choice of fighting style, sink two stones with one bird and let them pick blind-fighting style.
3) Maybe one subclass increases the die size of your sneak attack, or provides extra attack? Otherwise, more things that let you SA more reliably (like swashbuckler), supplement damage with debuffs (the path I went down) and/or rest-limited features that allow you to nova (rogue equivalent action surge/smite)
4) Would be a good idea for some more teamwork focused subclasses, like an expansion of the mastermind's bonus action help. When you cunning action, one ally of your choice can use their reaction to also cunning action
5) Seconded
6) see 1
7) Seconded
8) Erm, it's a lacklustre capstone but I dont' think that would be a great improvement. You already have uncanny dodge, so perhaps expand on that at the later stage to apply to more than one instance of damage or something

Some suggestions of my own:
-Snip-
-Make sure every subclass is at least as strong as Arcane Trickster. Incidentally, one of the things that's nice about Arcane Trickster is that they have more fallback plans when Sneak Attack doesn't apply.
-The Rogue should be less toploaded. For instance, I feel like I get most of the benefits of being a Soulknife from a 3 level dip, after which I can jump off into Rune Knight or whatever. Like, I've already got cunning action, 2x Expertise, and prof scaling psi-die.

I think having that extra subclass point around level 6 would be a vast improvement on this front

Here is a thought:
Rogue feature, 5th
"Play Pazzak"*
At 5th level, a rogue's mind it a mess of mental games, meaningless tasks, and esoteric knowledge. The rogue gains resistance to psychic damage, their mind cannot be read even by magical means, and they have advantage on all Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma saving throws.

I henceforth rename 'Foil Discernment' to 'Pure Pazaak' (page 19)

[Witty Username]

On Slippery Mind, I am actually pretty fine with the feature, it comes late, but proficiency is less relevant at earlier stages of the game.
Adding charisma saves is a good change, since it is a sign Wotc remembers that it is supposed to exist. But save proficiency is already good, its worth a feat afterall.

It feels weaker then monk's, but that doesn't mean it is bad, the only class better at saves is Paladin and that probably shouldn't migrate. Also theme wise that gives rogue good mental defenses and reflexes but weak points in direct to the body stuff. Which feels right.

That is why my instict is to pull it down and put a stronger feature in its spot. Or leave it mostly as is.

[JellyPooga]

Exactly! Impact relative to opportunity cost.

Agreed; I feel early 5e designers overestimated how much impact should be lost in exchange for something being at-will.

Or is it that Players/GMs have adapted their playstyle to appreciate the always-succeed, fire-and-forget, free-from-consequence-rest style of play that the original design team did not intend? A resource that is never appreciatively depleted is not, in actual fact, limited. That's not an opinion. If, therefore, a resource is not limited, then awarding it greater benefit for being so is arbitrary, if not false. It then follows that the negative opinion of the Rogue class stem not from the Class itself being weak, but the playstyle of those that disparage it being unintended by the design of the game.

Play the wrong game, get the wrong result.

You do you and have fun doing but it's quite obvious to me that I play a very different game to some of the Rogue detractors in this thread. I, for one, would not dream of compensating or changing an encounter to accommodate characters that I didn't think could handle it; that's the Player Characters job to decide, not the GM's. If a bunch of level 1 PC's decide to fight Smaug, then I (as GM) will give them the TPK they rightfully deserve. If I found out the GM had tamed down an encounter, let alone a campaign, because they thought my Rogue couldn't handle it, I would quit that campaign. How dare they insult my ability to judge what my character can or cannot handle! I don't want to win at everything forever; that's boring. I want to be challenged and that doesn't come from a neatly balanced promenade of level and character appropriate encounters. So yeah, a spellcaster might be able to handle more difficult, by the number, encounters if they happen to have prepared the right spells that day, but what about the circumstances they don't have just eh right spell? What about when spells aren't an option? What about when they've run out of spells, or want to save their spells? What about when a spell is too much? What about when they get downed by massive damage that the Rogue literally ignored? What about when they couldn't get to where they needed to be, when they needed to be there?

A lot has also been said about Frightful Presence of an ancient red dragon to make the Rogue look bad in this particular match because, oh noes! they can't use Sneak Attack if they have Disadvantage...What about their breath weapon that the Rogue basically ignores? Or their wing attack legendary action that the Rogue laughs off? Or the lair actions that are mostly dex based AoE effects...that the Rogue largely doesn't care about? I'm sure the Wizard or Druid is having fun trying to make their DC:45 Concentration check to maintain whatever spell made the entire party precisely 1023% more efficient at dragon slaying, after failing their non-proficient Dex save against the DC 24 fire breath attack. Meanwhile, the Rogue is quite happily alive and doing something useful instead of wondering where approximately 80-100% of their HP went in one turn. It might only be 20% as useful as whatever the Cleric is doing, but at least it's useful and at least the Cleric got to cast Bless or whatever it is at all because the Rogue had the foresight to bring a regular, oil fuelled lantern with them.

[Just to Browse]

If anything, I've had the opposite experience: I've had to take WotC's guidance on combats and dial it up to punish my casters. Playing the way WotC intended makes inflexible characters look frankly awful starting somewhere in T2. I've added more stakes for failure, more punishments for fire & forget play, more consequences for bad play, and the weaker classes like the rogue either don't look any better, or outright play worse.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the arguments in favor of the rogue are based so heavily on theorycrafting. When you really try to push classes to their limits, the rogue isn't sitting pretty ignoring dex saves, they're getting killed by con saves, getting locked out of dealing damage by smoke or smartly-positioned enemies, thrown on far sides of chasms where they sit helplessly, or getting caught on dangerous solo missions where 1 half-damage attack can't save them from certain death. Again, I'll point to Ludic's long history of gameplay & the CMCC Gauntlet: there are actually people who play D&D in high-stakes settings in varied environments against dozens of dangerous enemies with mixed goals against skilled DMs, and they almost invariably rank the rogue low because it really is a bad class. The folks who rate the rogue well are ironically the ones playing the more fire-and-forget, free-from-consequence games that seem to be denigrated here.

Like, I've talked about adapting encounters to the rogue, but want to emphasize that I don't actually want to do that! It's just that the rogue is so narrow that I have to choose beween tailoring my combats to the rogue's narrow set of strengths, or not running a high-consequence, real-risk-of-failure game at all. I'm not forcing my playstyle on the the rogue, the rogue's weakness is what forces me to do this!