What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Witty Username]

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.

You can have this result without playing the game wrong though.

Assassin rogue is a decent example of this (unless you are level 3ing that dip on something else)
One powershot open, into ush sneak attack, maybe a spicy skill check.

Something like gloomstalker will have a similar point, but also a significant number of other interesting options, some of it without dipping much into resources.

Or something like Samurai, will be laying down hurt like a champion, without just not having other abilities.

Or, say Phantom rogue, which can blast damage a bunch at will at high level play.

I like rogue, rogue as is, is pretty fine, but I have notes. And issues like this doesn't mean inherently the DM is failing. Especially when rogue isn't the only class with issues.

[Tendril]

A resource that is never appreciatively depleted is not, in actual fact, limited.

Who is saying spell slots never run out? It's just that they tend to run out slower than hp (unless you're using spells to conserve hp).

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.

Good for you. But that doesn't have much to do with rogues being weak or not.

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?

It doesn't matter if a spellcaster isn't stronger in literally every scenario. If they perform better on average then they're stronger. I don't think there's much more to it than that. But yeah, there is some onus here on the caster to select good spells and use them properly. I've seen casters in play that I wouldn't call more powerful than a rogue. But I still don't think a rogue can keep up with a well-optimized caster outside some niche scenarios.

[LudicSavant]

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?

Certainly not for me, I'm used to 6 or more Deadly+ encounters a day, and rests are usually ambushed if available at all. And the casters still last longer.

Who is saying spell slots never run out? It's just that they tend to run out slower than hp (unless you're using spells to conserve hp)

It doesn't matter if a spellcaster isn't stronger in literally every scenario. If they perform better on average then they're stronger.

This.

[Witty Username]

A brief drift to barbarian, since I think that is a fair example of some of the issues we are talking about even if one doesn’t agree with the overall points.

Barbarian has issues with heavy combat days since they are very reliant on rage, as it is a significant part of how the playstyle functions.
This also can be punishing as the value of rage is an HP multiplier so the more injured the character is the less effective rage is for them.

So say encounter 1, early assessment is key, a weak encounter shouldn't use rage, but a dangerous encounter demands it as quickly as possible. And 6 of these is going to be rough if you guess wrong once since your going with 2-4 of these.

And without rage, your a dude with a greataxe.

So both your primary feature is sharply limited and your passive features are not great.

This can be compared readily with other characters with stronger passive features like fighter or paladin, or a greater pool of active effects like ranger or paladin.

Passive features that don't cost resources matter little if the are not strong or have conditional limitations. Reckless attack's mutual advantage endangers the user which reduces survivability (without rage anyway). Brutal critical just doesn’t matter in alot of combats.

Active features on the other need to have impact to justify the limitations, and usable enough to strategize around. Rage is the prime mover feature of the barbarian. Its damage is pretty low, close to a fighting style like dueling, and as mentioned its defensive value is conditional (both on what your fighting and how your HP is looking).

Is this fun, hell yeah, is it strong or weak? That will depend alot on your game certainly. 3-4 combat days where you can rage every fight will feel great. 5-6 combats which can be difficult to predict, or worse yet make your rage fall off, is going to be rough.

Are you weaker then all casters, hard yes. They have more available and stronger abilities that are less conditional.

[Skrum]

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

If there's anything that defines the design failures of the monk and rogue, it's this. Rogue would function so much cleaner if, say, they could use cunning action twice. Monk, same deal - both of these classes directly trade offense for defensive responsibility. And starting around mid t2, it's really not advisable to straight-up trade blows with monsters.

I've even done it myself; thinking about monk and rogue in a kind of superposition of getting the benefits of multiple bonus actions a turn. But the game forces them to take a position, at which point Opportunity Cost rears its ugly head and forces these classes to make trade offs that better classes don't have to contend with.

Cunning Action or martial arts being at will doesn't matter if the ability in question is rarely a good move for the situation. Think of something like warlock's Maddening Hex: it does auto damage! No roll, no save, and it might even hit multiple creatures. All you have to do is cast a spell that warlock's like anyway, and boom, you've got a source of unblockable damage for hours on end.

Except this invocation isn't very good in practice, is it? Let's look at the opportunity cost:
- it takes concentration. On a spell that isn't very good, or at least, far weaker and less impactful than concentrating on something like hypnotic pattern or shadow of moil
- it takes a bonus action to use. Most combats are 3-4 rounds. That means a character gets 3-4 bonus actions a combat. By spending ALL of your bonus actions, you can...inflict 15-25ish damage? What the heck kind of return on investment is that?

The biggest resource in the game is action econ. Can you do more with your turn than the enemy does. That's what matters. Uses per day are a secondary concern at most. The way to evaluate an ability isn't "can I use this all the time," it's "how often is this the best move to make."

[Kane0]

Replacement tier 3 feature: When you use cunning action you can pick two options to take with the same bonus action.
If you're a thief, mastermind or some other rogue subclass with a bonus action, that can be one of them.

[Snails]

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.

It is a fair question to ask, and variants of the 15 minute gaming day are not rare, even if the extreme is more rarely reached in 5e than 3e. But...

First of all, lacking resources to spend for bursts means that the class is inherently less able to tune tactics to fit the campaign the DM happens to be running. That is a class weakness. The DM is playing the game wrong? So what? As a practical matter, I am going to choose a class that fits what happens at the gaming table. I rate the Rogue weak based on what I see.

Second of all, I think you are getting implicitly leaning into a weak argument: "Don't worry; your DPR is just fine, so you will do well enough over a 6+ encounter adventuring day." For reasons such as what LucidSavant mentioned, the ability to burst is a whole lot better than a bit of DPR. A burst-anemic class like the Rogue has to be unambiguously strong in long haul DPR to be comparable to other classes IMNSHO.

[Schwann145]

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.

No no, you were continuing to participate in the forum posting, you just refused to participate in your own points made.
For instance, when you criticized the Assassin for not being good at handling things like "learning new languages for the job" or "disguising themselves as a giant," and then totally dipped out of the conversation when asked how a "better option than Assassin" would be expected to do those things.

I'm still interested to learn how a non-Assassin Rogue (or Bard, or whatever you like) handles the issues you presented. After this many pages of avoidance, I'm not expecting anything though.

[Dr.Samurai]

One day of traveling and the thread takes off again lol.

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"?

Yes, but as a reminder the claim was about casters vs non-casters, not specifically about rogues even. So you and Skrum, or others, or some DMs do not have any considerations when making encounters for a group of spellcasters because you're confident that their spells will see them through the day. But for non-casters, you need to make sure the encounter is toned down so it doesn't kill them or stop them dead in their tracks.

On the face of it I find the claim difficult to believe. Firstly, I agree with JellyPooga that this is more a DM issue than a class issue. I honestly think this is the DM vibing with his caster players. It seems like, based on the examples you've given (enemies that are one-shotting non-casters) that, like Ludic, you run very deadly encounters. And it sounds like, based on what you and Ludic have said, that your players finish the day with resources left over.

Which seems to me like your players are less being challenged, and more being given the opportunity to play with their toys. You have rooms filled with smoke so the rogue can't see and can't Sneak Attack, but I guess there's never rooms that are Dead Magic Zones, or under Antimagic Fields, and also sealed from escape and filled with deadly monsters. There are creatures that can one-shot the rogue, but there's no creatures that deflect spells back to their casters.

I can't really speak to your scenarios because I don't have all the details and I don't know the party make-up. All I can say is that I enjoy scenarios like this, and I enjoy playing martials, and I'd be sad if my DM thought they had to tone everything down because there's one non-caster in the party.

I was in an Expedition to Castle Greyhawk adventure and two party members entered a room where they slowly began being drawn toward a Sphere of Annihilation. They couldn't stop themselves, and they couldn't move backward away from the sphere. My fighter had 0 magical ability, but he had rope. And there was a giant stone fountain the previous room. So he quickly tied two lengths of rope together, tied it around the fountain, and dove into the room and looped it around his allies. The barbarian, still outside, looped the remaining length of rope around the fountain to stop our progression, then proceeded to make Strength checks to pull us out of the room with the rope.

Now, that example isn't nearly as intricate as those you've provided, but it is a magical trap, and the wizard couldn't teleport out. My point would be to let the martials try. I wouldn't let one bad check (passive perception wasn't allowed?) vs a Gelatinous Cube decide the fate of all rogues everywhere lol. The ranger could have easily suffered the same fate.

Also, we're sort of assuming an expectation that the characters have to have answers all the time for every encounter, or else its bad. And that's not how my table plays. The DM throws stuff at us and we can either deal with it or we can't. I am perfectly fine, let's say, with the rogue struggling in a room full of heavy obscurement. I don't know how everyone else is faring so much better, but if the rogue has an encounter or two where they don't do well, that's okay. It happens. My fighter is wearing cursed armor and has Vulnerability to Bludgeoning. We fought 4 fire giants, 2 stone giants, 2 trolls, and 5 hill giants. All the giants deal Bludgeoning with stones, but the hill and stone giants also wield greatclubs. I was at 30hp, which, against these giants, means I'm 1 hit away from getting knocked out. So I used Mobile, Charger, and ducking down behind giant corpses, to dart in and out while steering clear of thrown boulders. I was still dealing some damage each turn, but I wasn't on the frontline absorbing hits with my Hill Giant Rune and throwing down 3 GWM attacks a turn. I didn't think to myself "Oh man, my fighter wasn't at pique efficiency against a dozen giants, I should go play a caster!" nor did my DM think "Clearly I have to go easy on the team because the fighter has Vulnerability to Bludgeoning!". He enjoys challenging us lol. The monk ran in and used his Open Hand techniques to keep the giants from closing in, while the Ranger used Sharpshooter from a distance. The druid transformed into an Earth Elemental and planted himself in front of the giants to absorb most of their damage.

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.

Now that I understand more clearly what you mean, I still don't agree. But I think this just comes down to DMing style. Some DMs do not go out of their way to accommodate the players.

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.

The fact that you are calling out adding a locked chest as something you have to actively think about to throw the rogue a bone makes me think we play at very different games, so I understand now where this is coming from. For me, this is just tablestyle.

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.

That's correct.

I see the resources conversation has gone in a different direction, namely the "I can do this all day" direction.

I think of it in a different way. I've mentioned in other threads that I prefer specialists over generalists. Druids will only ever have 3 level 2 spell slots. In addition to Pass Without Trace at level 2 spells, you have Earthbind, Enlarge/Reduce, Healing Spirit, Heat Metal, Hold Person, Lesser Restoration, Spike Growth, Summon Beast. So when you're using Pass Without Trace, you're choosing to cast it over any of these other spells. And it only lasts an hour, and you have to move at a Slow Pace. You can't cover an entire dungeon like this, so Pass Without Trace will only get you so far. Your first encounter could cause you to lose it due to Concentration. It could also render it a moot point if the noise from your encounter has alerted other nearby monsters to your presence.

None of this is to say that PWT sucks or doesn't work. But it's not this slam dunk everyone makes it out to be. It is competing with other spells, and if you lose it do to damage or being incapacitated, or you get 1 encounter with surprise but don't encounter anything else or lose Surprise due to monsters being alerted, then you've cast the spell for a single instance of Surprise. Which may have been worth it, or maybe not, we don't know, and neither does the caster when they cast the spell.

And this goes for all the other claims.

That is what I mean when I say "are you sure the casters are going to have those spells when they need it?". It's the players making choices as they are presented with problems. That is an issue with generalists that are using resources to do all the general things they can do; it's all competing with itself. So if you're like "Stand back rogue, I'm going to use Disguise Self and Charm Person to infiltrate!", that's two less Shield/Absorb Elements that you can cast. So now you're in an encounter with one-shot enemies and you have to pop off 2 Shields to keep yourself from dying in the encounter. Ok in the next encounter with dragons, you don't have Absorb Elements available.

That's the point. For this versatility claim to be true, you actually have to be doing versatile stuff. And since those are drawing on your spell slots, it becomes a question of whether or not you can do that throughout the day. Or if you even want to.

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.

Frontliners will definitely have an issue with ranged, assuming Strength. But other noncasters shouldn't, I don't think. The other two aren't as obvious to me. My characters generally find magic weapons, so that pretty much covers that. And hazardous terrain... my strength characters can jump well enough, rogues and monks can Dash like crazy. So not sure on that one.

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.

Excellent post!

This is part of the reason I find comparative commentary so useless... why assume any given party is going to have that class in it? I recall the thread on hard crowd control, and everyone is like "suck it up, a bard or paladin will help you". I'm looking at my current party, and my previous party, and 2 out of my 3 PBP parties, and I'm like "there are no bards or paladins present...". It's shallow commentary that doesn't help us understand how classes perform.

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.

Ludic, let me put it to you like this... I like having a discussion with people that back up what they say. As an example, Skrum provided a sample spell list without even being prompted to, because he believes that strongly in what he is saying. When I asked for spell lists, Amnestic and others provided without skipping a beat because, presumably, they're interested enough in the converation. Then Just To Browse combined one of those lists, with previous encounters he ran, and gave a break down, all to demonstrate the points he is making.

I like that. It makes me feel like people are engaged, believe what they are saying, and respect everyone involved.

I don't like people making proclamations and then, when pushed back on it, ignoring the pushback and retreating from the conversation until they decide to insert themselves again to make a different point. That's annoying to me. Expecting someone to see a conversation through and back up what they say is not entitlement, it's just common sense and common decency. So do with that what you'd like, I think I've made myself clear.

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.

Agreed, on all counts. Like someone said; they play in 6+ Deadly+ encounters a day and still have resources left. It's just button pushing by the sounds of it. DM describes the encounter, they say what spell/s they are casting to nuke it, and then move on to the next "super deadly encounter". It's so super deadly, that they beat all of them, don't have to rest because those get interrupted, and still don't run out of resources. That's how deadly the game is!

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 Gauntlet is precisely what clued me in to how optimizer DMs and optimizer players just vibe and make the game work to the players' favor.

But before we even go there, I'd wonder why multiple triple deadly encounters back to back to back are the standard anyone should go by to determine how a class performs in the game. Like... I get Ludic and his buddies really like that style of game but... why should I judge a class by that metric if my table doesn't play that way, or if that's not what the designers intended?

No no, you were continuing to participate in the forum posting, you just refused to participate in your own points made.
For instance, when you criticized the Assassin for not being good at handling things like "learning new languages for the job" or "disguising themselves as a giant," and then totally dipped out of the conversation when asked how a "better option than Assassin" would be expected to do those things.

I'm still interested to learn how a non-Assassin Rogue (or Bard, or whatever you like) handles the issues you presented. After this many pages of avoidance, I'm not expecting anything though.

I totally forgot one of the points made was "yeah but what if you have to disguise yourself as a giant" lol.

[LudicSavant]

No no, you were continuing to participate in the forum posting, you just refused to participate in your own points made.

For instance, when you criticized the Assassin for not being good at handling things like "learning new languages for the job" or "disguising themselves as a giant," and then totally dipped out of the conversation when asked how a "better option than Assassin" would be expected to do those things.

I actually answered you on this back on page 15. You then declared that I hadn't answered (even though I just had) because I met my own goalpost (do more stuff than the Assassin) as opposed to a strawman goalpost (do literally everything on a list I made of things the Assassin can't do, at the same time).

One only needs to do more than the Assassin to be a better option than the Assassin. Any goalpost beyond that is excessive and unnecessary.

[LudicSavant]

optimizer DMs and optimizer players (...) why should I judge a class by that metric if my table doesn't play that way

You don't need to!

No, really. To quote myself:

I will preface by saying that no statement from me about ranking classes should be taken as discouraging people from playing those classes. I feel that every class has access to subclasses / build options that are capable of filling a meaningful role in a 6 Deadly+ encounters a day campaign with an old school meat grinder DM -- which is already a considerably higher standard of difficulty than almost all campaigns have.

Or to put it another way: If you're playing Smash Bros on the couch with your friends, you don't need to worry that Bowser is weaker than Fox or Sonic or Minecraft Steve. If you get good at Bowser, you will not only stomp all of your friends, but you can actually get to a surprisingly high level in tournaments before you hit a hard wall. Ask any good Smash player who's stronger, Steve or Bowser, they're gonna say Steve. But the fact that Steve has a higher optimization ceiling than Bowser isn't something that needs to concern the casual player. It's something that is relevant to game designers and tournament-level players.

You seem to get the impression that someone tells you X class is weaker than Y class, that you're being told that you shouldn't play that class, or that it's useless, or that it doesn't have value, or something like that. But this is not at all reflective of my feelings. Heck, I main Bowser in Smash. And I'm the one who volunteered to play in CMCC's Gauntlet just because some people (yourself included, IIRC) were saying that it'd be impossible for a monk to win. .

Now if you're wondering about why optimizers talk about greater challenges than the ones you face at your table when asked which class is stronger, it's because that's often how strength is measured -- who can be pushed hardest before they fail? Or to put it another way: If a Wizard can survive more numerous and challenging encounters, then they're not going to suddenly run out of resources if you give them fewer and less challenging encounters.

[Skrum]

"super deadly encounter". It's so super deadly, that they beat all of them, don't have to rest because those get interrupted, and still don't run out of resources. That's how deadly the game is!

The Gauntlet is precisely what clued me in to how optimizer DMs and optimizer players just vibe and make the game work to the players' favor.

On this point, my guess is Ludic is talking about "deadly" as in what the DMG would call a deadly encounter (like in terms of CR). The qualities I would ascribe to such an encounter are, if not handled correctly by expending notable resources to contain and/or end quickly, will spiral out of the players' control, or end up in a grinding battle of attrition that leaves some characters at very low hit points. This is exactly where the rogue, with their lack of burst options or situational resources, can falter.

Does "Deadly" mean the characters face risk of death? Well, yes and no. 5e makes it really hard to kill characters, and for them to stay dead. A deadly or deadly+ ranked encounter IME does not follow the linguistic meaning of deadly; rather it's just a CR-based ranking. Usually, the implication is that poor decision making or poor optimization could lead to the characters losing or dying.

For experienced players playing optimized characters (that have notable access to magic items), deadly+ is kinda the only encounter worth running. A medium or hard ranked encounter is just...not really worth rolling initiative for. That is, unless there's time to run several of them and the whole table enjoys that kind of grindy, slow drain of resources (time and a place, IMO). But personally, since RL time is often at a premium, I prefer to narrate or use skill checks to resolve lessor encounters and only enter initiative for the so-called deadly+ battles.

Heck, I main Bowser in Smash.

Pfft Bowser is midtier at worst. Zelda and King Dedede, now we're cooking with gas. #lowtiersriseup #jethammeristhebestmoveinthegame

[LudicSavant]

On this point, my guess is Ludic is talking about "deadly" as in what the DMG would call a deadly encounter (like in terms of CR).

Your guess is correct!

Pfft Bowser is midtier at worst. Zelda and King Dedede, now we're cooking with gas. #lowtiersriseup #jethammeristhebestmoveinthegame

True. But he is worse than Fox and Sonic and Minecraft Steve, anyway

[Skrum]

True. But he is worse than Fox and Sonic and Minecraft Steve, anyway

Bowser is the rune knight of Smash Bros. It makes perfect sense.

Total off-topic and off-subject, heavies vs heavies in smash bros is unironically the best the game has to offer. No broken combos, no campy garbage, just neutral and mind games. The way it was meant to be played.

To relate this to DND....the best classes in the game that lead to the best play, IMO, is somewhere around rune and echo knight on the low end and paladin and artificer on the high end. That's the sweet spot of gaming.

[Psyren]

I actually answered you on this back on page 15. You then declared that I hadn't answered (even though I just had) because I met my own goalpost (do more stuff than the Assassin) as opposed to a strawman goalpost (do literally everything on a list I made of things the Assassin can't do, at the same time).

One only needs to do more than the Assassin to be a better option than the Assassin. Any goalpost beyond that is excessive and unnecessary.

Exactly this, especially the bolded line.

And nobody is saying that Assassin is completely unplayable or useless. Even if features 9 and 13 never come up in a given campaign, it's still a rogue, i.e. it still has Exp+RT+tools for advantage. But I completely understand (and support) why WotC is taking it back to the drawing board - potentially twice - based on the feedback they got from the majority of their audience about it. It might not be useless, but it does suck, and "suck" is a sign that a subclass needs a redesign.

[Just to Browse]

Yes, but as a reminder the claim was about casters vs non-casters, not specifically about rogues even. So you and Skrum, or others, or some DMs do not have any considerations when making encounters for a group of spellcasters because you're confident that their spells will see them through the day. But for non-casters, you need to make sure the encounter is toned down so it doesn't kill them or stop them dead in their tracks.

Hmm, this is the second time I've needed to remind you of the original discussion. The actual topic is that: " When I'm spending time on encounters, it's usually because [...] I want to highlight someone inflexible like the party rogue, without allowing a more flexible caster to obviate the challenge." Here's the link to that quote.

Foul! JTB is just vibing with their casters! You use the word "vibing" a lot, which seems to mean "accommodating them by targeting their strengths and not targeting their weaknesses". If that's the case, the only players I have to vibe with are the inflexible ones, because they don't get spotlight if I'm not focusing on them. This is my central thesis!

JTB's Players aren't being challenged. Unfortunately this is also not true. These encounters push characters to the limit regularly, casters end days out of slots (though usually the party rogue asks to stop before that because they're on the edge of death).

But what about a sealed anti-magic room? We do these scenarios as well. I had a monster conveniently immune to a bunch of damage types that casters usually deal with (they swapped damaging spells and focused on other enemies), the death knight in my last example threw around counterspell and could make OAs when the PCs teleported (the mage learned a hard lesson when she tried to misty step away), and I've used null-magic zones and spell reflection aplenty. So unfortunately this argument is flat out wrong. Even with counterspells, antimagic, spell reflection, invisible hunters that stalk mages, inconvenient damage immunities, rooms that explode when anyone takes fire damage in them (I ran this!), the inflexible characters are still the ones that need the least highlighting.

Picking holes in the gelatinous cube story. Quick hits.

• Why didn't the rogue see the cube? They moved down a dark hallway, their passive perception was at -5, failing to beat the necessary DC 15.
• Why does this decide the fate of all rogues everywhere? This one example doesn't. Not sure if you missed the other examples, but I wrote more than one.
• The ranger would suffer the same fate. He did not need to use a dark hallway because he had darkness!

JTB is just assuming characters must have answers all the time or else they're bad. This is incorrect. My only point, literally my only point, is that it's easy to highlight flexible classes, and harder to highlight inflexible ones. I'm not sure why I need to keep correcting the record here.

Sure a rogue suffers, but how would a flexible character handle a smoke-filled room? Why not check the example where I wrote out several options for our example cleric?

If a DM has to think about locked chests, then the rogue isn't weak it's just a tablestyle issue. I honestly don't understand this one.

Examples! I'm glad you posted examples, because I'm gonna be honest, these both sound like perfect cases to demonstrate exactly what I'm talking about.

• A fighter can use a rope to prevent allies from falling into a magical black hole with anti-teleportation effects. Straight away, a sphere of annihilation that also blocks teleports sounds a hell of a lot like targeting the weakness of flexible party members. Second, anyone can tie ropes, which means flexible characters will have both the original option (using a rope) and whatever else they have (magical webbing? walls of stone? animated ropes & vines?). This is a grade A perfect example of how flexible characters have more options, thank you for providing it.
• An outnumbered fight at low HP where you can avoid thrown boulders. More than anything this sounds like the DM vibing with the inflexible party members. 13 enemies kept at bay just by flurry attacks? Six nominally-human-intelligence enemies, none of whom decide to chase down a low-HP guy, nor command their underlings to do so? A seemingly generous interpretation of corpses as cover? This is the most vibingly vibed fight to ever vibe! This reads like a textbook example of a DM vibing with inflexible characters.

I do think this is a playstyle issue. It sounds like you're playing a game with a smart, accommodating DM who knows how to showcase the party's strengths without anybody feeling bad. I play this way too (or at least I like to think so!)--I just acknowledge that it takes extra effort to make sure the inflexible classes feel good at the table.

For experienced players playing optimized characters (that have notable access to magic items), deadly+ is kinda the only encounter worth running.

Just wanted to call this out separately, because it sounds like Dr. Samurai may not be familiar with 5e XP budgets, or DM convention around them.

5e handles XP budgets pretty poorly. If your players are playing well, "Easy" and "Medium" encounters are frequently cakewalks, while "Hard" is at the border of using a resource. Folks who actually want to challenge their players use multipliers of "Deadly", like "2x Deadly" or "Triple Deadly". If that sounds kind of dumb, well, yeah I think it is. 5e's rules for XP budgeting aren't that great.

Dr. Samurai, based on your example giant encounter, it sounds like your DM is already pretty familiar with this idea. The XP budget for that encounter is supposedly triple deadly for a level 20 party, but the fight itself isn't actually that dangerous. Ludic's experience is 6+ of those per encounter day, mine is usually less because I have a lot of players who want to play rogues and fighters and whatnot.

[Kane0]

5e handles XP budgets pretty poorly. If your players are playing well, "Easy" and "Medium" encounters are frequently cakewalks, while "Hard" is at the border of using a resource. Folks who actually want to challenge their players use multipliers of "Deadly", like "2x Deadly" or "Triple Deadly". If that sounds kind of dumb, well, yeah I think it is. 5e's rules for XP budgeting aren't that great.

Well, good resources anyways. No witch bolt and flame arrows nonsense.
Which is a shame, quite often I dont want to play optimally (I am considerably more experienced/rules savvy than the rest of my group) and if I happen to be a caster I feel the pressure to do the 'heavy lifting'

[Just to Browse]

Which is a shame, quite often I dont want to play optimally (I am considerably more experienced/rules savvy than the rest of my group) and if I happen to be a caster I feel the pressure to do the 'heavy lifting'

Very relatable haha. My current group has a couple of hyper-optimizers who love being the backbone of the party, but I personally enjoy letting loose. Recently I've played a fighter without a subclass thinking it would be a fun powerup moment some time later in the campaign, and an unga bunga barbarian that just stood still and spammed reckless + GWM every turn, and they were both a lot of fun because the DM ran easier fights & wrote content to highlight me. It's nice to have someone willing to do that, and I totally get why some of my own players do the same.

[Witty Username]

5e handles XP budgets pretty poorly. If your players are playing well, "Easy" and "Medium" encounters are frequently cakewalks, while "Hard" is at the border of using a resource. Folks who actually want to challenge their players use multipliers of "Deadly", like "2x Deadly" or "Triple Deadly". If that sounds kind of dumb, well, yeah I think it is. 5e's rules for XP budgeting aren't that great.

It does seem that is the intention at the least.
At least how I read the encounter section it seems to imply a success and fail metric of each encounter in its defined scope

Easy,
failure receiving damage.
Medium,
failure spending healing resources(I tend to simplify this to resources since ultimately we are trying to avoid harm in combat without putting a goal in jeporty), success taking inconsequential damage.
Hard,
A party member being reduced to 0/death as failure, using resources having avoided that as success.
Deadly
Success as anything that doesn't mean a party wipe. Failure as bus crash.

How I tend to use this is 3-4 Deadly encounters by planning and then other things to fill in for thematic or ascetic reasons.

[Schwann145]

I actually answered you on this back on page 15. You then declared that I hadn't answered (even though I just had) because I met my own goalpost (do more stuff than the Assassin) as opposed to a strawman goalpost (do literally everything on a list I made of things the Assassin can't do, at the same time).

One only needs to do more than the Assassin to be a better option than the Assassin. Any goalpost beyond that is excessive and unnecessary.

You introduced several things that the Assassin would not be particularly prepared for in lieu of simply being an Assassin Rogue. The list of things you introduced are also things that a Soulknife Rogue would not be particularly prepared for in lieu of simply being a Soulknife Rogue. However, because the Soulknife gets a combat bonus and/or a short teleport option, the conclusion drawn was, "Soulknife > Assassin," totally side-stepping the issue that the Soulknife is not at all better at pretending to be exotic races, or learning languages on the fly, or any of your other, "these are the tier 3 problems you'll need to overcome," concerns.
You completely sidestepped the request to apply your own standard to your own examples, and simply went with, "Soulknife get combat bonus so Soulknife better."

Forgive me if I don't find that a particularly compelling answer to your own list of criticisms.

But at this point, we're just talking in circles. The posts exist for anyone to read them. They can draw their own conclusions.

[Dr.Samurai]

You don't need to!

No, really.

Great, then let's stop.

You seem to get the impression that someone tells you X class is weaker than Y class, that you're being told that you shouldn't play that class, or that it's useless, or that it doesn't have value, or something like that.

No. Not at all. I don't consider anyone here an authority, nor do I take comments on this forum as a directive.

No, my issue is bad commentary resulting in bad reputations.

And I'm the one who volunteered to play in CMCC's Gauntlet just because some people (yourself included, IIRC) were saying that it'd be impossible for a monk to win. .

Lmao I'd never say it was impossible because I don't look at the game that way. I'm literally here telling Just to Browse and Skrum that I'm skeptical of their claims that they have to worry about martials but not about casters.

Now if you're wondering about why optimizers talk about greater challenges than the ones you face at your table when asked which class is stronger, it's because that's often how strength is measured -- who can be pushed hardest before they fail? Or to put it another way: If a Wizard can survive more numerous and challenging encounters, then they're not going to suddenly run out of resources if you give them fewer and less challenging encounters.

Yeah but the devil is in the details, which are often left out of these discussions.

On this point, my guess is Ludic is talking about "deadly" as in what the DMG would call a deadly encounter (like in terms of CR). The qualities I would ascribe to such an encounter are, if not handled correctly by expending notable resources to contain and/or end quickly, will spiral out of the players' control, or end up in a grinding battle of attrition that leaves some characters at very low hit points. This is exactly where the rogue, with their lack of burst options or situational resources, can falter.

Does "Deadly" mean the characters face risk of death? Well, yes and no. 5e makes it really hard to kill characters, and for them to stay dead. A deadly or deadly+ ranked encounter IME does not follow the linguistic meaning of deadly; rather it's just a CR-based ranking. Usually, the implication is that poor decision making or poor optimization could lead to the characters losing or dying.

For experienced players playing optimized characters (that have notable access to magic items), deadly+ is kinda the only encounter worth running. A medium or hard ranked encounter is just...not really worth rolling initiative for. That is, unless there's time to run several of them and the whole table enjoys that kind of grindy, slow drain of resources (time and a place, IMO). But personally, since RL time is often at a premium, I prefer to narrate or use skill checks to resolve lessor encounters and only enter initiative for the so-called deadly+ battles.

I'm fully aware of what deadly+ encounters are referring to.

My point is what is the point in saying "we beat 6+ super deadly encounters every day, have enough resources to do it, don't even get the benefit of rests in between, and the DM is never even worried about if we'll make it through or not, they don't have to overthink because we have spells".

This to me sounds like it's easy all around for everyone; the DM doesn't have to think about because as you and JTB have told us, you're not worried at all about casters in a party, you can throw anything at them and their spells will win them the day. And Ludic is saying they have enough resources to do this through the entire day.

And this is supposedly super difficult and challenging. It really sounds like all we're doing is choosing which finger to knock over the first domino with.

Exactly this, especially the bolded line.

Nope. The claim was that the assassin was deficient because they can't deal with countermeasures from supernatural creatures like liches and mind flayers and fiends and celestials. And they can't disguise themselves as giants and demons.

We have asked for an example of the character that can do these things. A soulknife is not that character.

Hmm, this is the second time I've needed to remind you of the original discussion. The actual topic is that: " When I'm spending time on encounters, it's usually because [...] I want to highlight someone inflexible like the party rogue, without allowing a more flexible caster to obviate the challenge." Here's the link to that quote.

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


What surprised me about your comment was you listed absolutely mundane things like "fight a monster, finding information" as things that you don't have to worry about casters doing, but you do with rogues/non-casters. But as part of this conversation I've also pushed back on the idea that casters will always have a spell to solve the problem, or that DMs don't have to cater to casters but they do martials.

If the only point you are making in this particular conversation is "this is what causes me to spend more time on encounter building", I can't possibly disagree with that. I believe you. I've no interest in debating that point because I can't. How would I even know?

Foul! JTB is just vibing with their casters! You use the word "vibing" a lot, which seems to mean "accommodating them by targeting their strengths and not targeting their weaknesses". If that's the case, the only players I have to vibe with are the inflexible ones, because they don't get spotlight if I'm not focusing on them. This is my central thesis!

Vibing is more like you're on the same wavelength. Like in the Gauntlet, there was a golem. Nuke's sidekick was standing in front of the golem. Nuke lined up his animated objects (adamantine shards) in a column between him and the golem. On the DM's turn, the DM chooses to have the golem ignore the sidekick in front of him, and walk through the animated shards, taking something like 8 or more opportunity attacks. This is vibing.

It's like the DM and the players are reading from the same playbook, so the player's choices and actions are optimal because the DM also thinks this is how things should go. Nuke optimizes his Initiative to go first, and the DM allows for the familiar to act on the same turn as the wizard, resulting in multiple actions on turn 1 before the enemies take their turn. Then they turn around and say "wow, look how the wizard nuked everything on turn 1".

These are decisions that facilitate the gameplay. It's not wrong. I'm not denouncing it. I'm just explaining what my original point that you responded to was, that it takes two to tango.

Take the objection to the assassin much earlier in this thread. They can't deal with simple countermeasures like divination, and they can't disguise themselves as larger creatures. They have to contend with genius intellect aberrations or liches, and immortal spirits with supernatural powers.

We've been asking for an example of someone that can do these things. The most obvious to me would be something like a wizard using spells like Disguise Self, Nondetection, Polymorph, etc.

If the assassin can't work in a campaign because countermeasures stop them, but a wizard can avoid Truesight seeing through Disguise Self/Polymorph, and the Mind Flayer or Lich is not aware of Nondetection and doesn't question it when they can't read the wizard's mind, this is vibing with caster players. The players will use magic to solve all problems, and the DMs will accept this and let it happen. Recall, there was no mention about the strengths of mundane disguises vs magical in this thread; it's just assumed that the magic abilities are superior and will work, full stop.

JTB's Players aren't being challenged. Unfortunately this is also not true. These encounters push characters to the limit regularly, casters end days out of slots (though usually the party rogue asks to stop before that because they're on the edge of death).

It doesn't really sound like a challenge though. It sounds like spells are cast and the encounters are over in a couple of turns. Move on to the next one. It's also incredible resource management that these hyper deadly encounters are so tough, but somehow they can manage their resources right down to the last one so that they're only out of resources "at the end of the day".

But what about a sealed anti-magic room? We do these scenarios as well. I had a monster conveniently immune to a bunch of damage types that casters usually deal with (they swapped damaging spells and focused on other enemies), the death knight in my last example threw around counterspell and could make OAs when the PCs teleported (the mage learned a hard lesson when she tried to misty step away), and I've used null-magic zones and spell reflection aplenty. So unfortunately this argument is flat out wrong. Even with counterspells, antimagic, spell reflection, invisible hunters that stalk mages, inconvenient damage immunities, rooms that explode when anyone takes fire damage in them (I ran this!), the inflexible characters are still the ones that need the least highlighting.

Interesting. So null-magic zones, and the martials are still struggling more than the casters? I would not have put money on that.

Picking holes in the gelatinous cube story. Quick hits.[list][*] Why didn't the rogue see the cube? They moved down a dark hallway, their passive perception was at -5, failing to beat the necessary DC 15.

I'm not picking holes, but if claims are being made I want to understand where they come from and, if applicable, demonstrate some points I've been making.

I'm a big proponent of Skulker. I lament that it's being changed for 5.5. In previous threads I mentioned that stealth specialists should strongly consider Skulker so that they can stealth in the dark but not lose out on Perception.

Now a higher Perception check would have helped the rogue in this solo mission. Advantage on Perception would have allowed the rogue to succeed past the Gelatinous Cube. Which is to say, things like Steady Aim (remember from earlier in the thread?), Blindsense (this one too), Skulker, Observant, etc. would have allowed the rogue to avoid that cube.

But instead, when discussing features that boost the rogue's abilities, we're told it's just "winning more" or "well this class can do that earlier". The rogue features suck, but look how they would have helped the rogue in this instance. Or "someone can grab Skill Expertise and also get Expertise". Sure, but the rogue can grab Skulker or Observant and be even better still.

This is why I form the opinions I do on the commentary I see. It doesn't actually touch on the relevant points, in my opinion.

JTB is just assuming characters must have answers all the time or else they're bad. This is incorrect. My only point, literally my only point, is that it's easy to highlight flexible classes, and harder to highlight inflexible ones. I'm not sure why I need to keep correcting the record here.

Because it's not the only point you're making. You've agreed with other points made in the thread, and you've literally said that you have to dial down encounters for martials. And my point is you don't actually have to do that; it's okay if they don't have all the answers. So no need to correct the record, just keep track of all the things you're saying.

Sure a rogue suffers, but how would a flexible character handle a smoke-filled room? Why not check the example where I wrote out several options for our example cleric?

Oh right... casting wall spells blindly.

If a DM has to think about locked chests, then the rogue isn't weak it's just a tablestyle issue. I honestly don't understand this one.

The games I'm in it's not an extra consideration to put in locks and chests and traps. They're just there. The DM isn't trying to highlight anyone, they just put this stuff in there. We don't even have a rogue in the party and we still come across chests and locks, etc. You're making it seem like the only reason you'd put them in there is to help the rogue out, or that including locked chests is a "harder".

Examples! I'm glad you posted examples, because I'm gonna be honest, these both sound like perfect cases to demonstrate exactly what I'm talking about.

• A fighter can use a rope to prevent allies from falling into a magical black hole with anti-teleportation effects. Straight away, a sphere of annihilation that also blocks teleports sounds a hell of a lot like targeting the weakness of flexible party members. Second, anyone can tie ropes, which means flexible characters will have both the original option (using a rope) and whatever else they have (magical webbing? walls of stone? animated ropes & vines?). This is a grade A perfect example of how flexible characters have more options, thank you for providing it.
• An outnumbered fight at low HP where you can avoid thrown boulders. More than anything this sounds like the DM vibing with the inflexible party members. 13 enemies kept at bay just by flurry attacks? Six nominally-human-intelligence enemies, none of whom decide to chase down a low-HP guy, nor command their underlings to do so? A seemingly generous interpretation of corpses as cover? This is the most vibingly vibed fight to ever vibe! This reads like a textbook example of a DM vibing with inflexible characters.

I do think this is a playstyle issue. It sounds like you're playing a game with a smart, accommodating DM who knows how to showcase the party's strengths without anybody feeling bad. I play this way too (or at least I like to think so!)--I just acknowledge that it takes extra effort to make sure the inflexible classes feel good at the table.

I wouldn't say we're vibing with the DM. The DM doesn't necessarily go with whatever we're trying to do. He doesn't share information on rolls with us, as an example of a common trait at optimization tables, and he tracks time as a resource. There's no rhyme or reason to if/when we get Surprise, or when monsters surprise us. He will consider things we want to do, but then gets very thoughtful about how we can make the attempt, always mindful of the dice and chance. He's pretty gygaxian, which tries to deceive players and target their weaknesses.

My opinion on why the example I gave worked is because the giants take up a lot of room, so it's not easy for them to maneuver through a hallway together. The elemental was large size and planted himself in the middle of the intersection, so they can't just walk over him (has to be 2 sizes smaller). Squeezing through allies, or standing up from prone means that pushing them back and knocking them down does a lot to keep them at bay. He also rolls Intelligence checks for the hill giants to see if they will act tactically or follow orders. I'm not sure what's surprising about a bunch of giant corpses providing cover to a medium sized creature but that's why it's called table variance.

More to the point though, it's not about whether casters are more flexible. It's about whether martials need to be catered to to the degree that you are saying they do. Your position seems a bit extreme to me and again, nothing I've read really signals that a non-caster would have struggled.

[LudicSavant]

simply went with, "Soulknife get combat bonus so Soulknife better."

But at this point, we're just talking in circles. The posts exist for anyone to read them. They can draw their own conclusions.

They sure can! Here's my answer to you from page 15, that you previously claimed did not exist.

As can be quite plainly seen, these posts do not say "Soulknife get combat bonus so Soulknife better." They don't even mention combat bonuses!

Soulknives have features that offer some but not all of these things. In addition to features that do a whole lot else (which not only can give you an alternate solution to infiltration problems, but also takes more pressure off other party member resources so that your teammates have more room to help fill in some more of your gaps).

For example,

• They can significantly boost checks to create disguises and forgeries for their allies in addition to themselves, using the psi-die.
• They can significantly boost checks to know or discover information, using the psi-die. They can also use a telepathic link to someone who isn't present, who may know or be able to look up or divine information.
• They can use telepathy, which is helpful for passing yourself off as a number of exotic creatures (such as succubi). It is also extremely helpful for coordinating schemes with your team in general.

All of the above is just part of the level 3 feature.

But since you seem focused on language barriers in particular, Soulknives actually do get some tools for that (unlike Assassins). Sure, they don't learn extra languages, but they do gain a non-language-dependent telepathy. You can establish a telepathic link to a translator. So as long as I can get a volunteer who knows the local language, I'm out ahead.

You know how a lot of spy archetypes have someone on the outside feeding them intel? Soulknife gets an ability that lets you do that at level 3.

[Psyren]

Nope. The claim was that the assassin was deficient because they can't deal with countermeasures from supernatural creatures like liches and mind flayers and fiends and celestials. And they can't disguise themselves as giants and demons.

We have asked for an example of the character that can do these things. A soulknife is not that character.

1) I was on page 15 addressing this contrived objection just like Ludic was.

2) 2014 Assassin wasn't deficient because they didn't get silver bullets to overcome said contrived scenario, they're deficient because the stuff they did get was far narrower and less useful than what the better subclasses got. (Good riddance.)

[Dr.Samurai]

1) I was on page 15 addressing this contrived objection just like Ludic was.

I've never seen someone so proud of dodging a question but... congratulations.

Firstly, I totally agree with you that the objection was contrived, and I said as much at that time. Calling out Detect Thoughts I thought was silly. Calling out Telepathy so you can disguise yourself as a succubus does indeed sound totally contrived. Needing to change size so you can disguise yourself as a giant? Yeah, not exactly on my list of things I need to infiltrate. And I mentioned as well that Ludic's insistence that you'll be infiltrating illithids and fiends and celestials and liches was arbitrary.

We asked for clarification on these contrived objections, as you call them, and did not receive an answer. In fact, Ludic said he was not required to answer to them, despite making those objections himself.

This is a clear and obvious double standard. And it's sort of ridiculous that you guys are still arguing about this 10 pages later. It's obvious to anyone that Truesight, which the creatures Ludic himself mentioned have, will defeat Disguise Self and Polymorph. And Nondetection... well, let's just say that it's a generous call indeed that a mind flayer would try to read someone's mind, not be able to target them, and shrug it off like "oh, hmm, they just defeated my countermeasure, oh well".

Of course, that's always been my point this whole time. That the type of optimization we read about on these forums depends on a certain amount of generosity. You know... ignoring having to make a Disguise check, as you claimed, moving at normal speeds while being Stealthy, not rousing suspicion with Nondetection.

These arguments, at the core, are based on a caster bias. People in the world know enough to stymie the rogue, but they don't know enough to simply pat people down as standard operating procedure to expose Disguise Self. Why? Because people just believe that magic should work. So they perpetuate a certain perspective, based on a certain playstyle, and class reputations are born.

[Kane0]

So I put my money where my mouth is, I'm working on my own Rogue.

Spoiler: blackjack and hookers

Show

Level 1: Expertise, Sneak attack
Level 2: Cunning Action, Martial Stance
Level 3: Roguish Archetype
Level 4: Ability Score Increase
Level 5: Cunning Strike, Uncanny Dodge
Level 6: Archetype Feature
Level 7: Evasion, Reliable Talent
Level 8: Ability Score Increase
Level 9: Slippery Mind
Level 10: Archetype Feature
Level 11: Devious Strike
Level 12: Ability Score Increase
Level 13: Devious Action
Level 14: Archetype Feature
Level 15: Elusive Target
Level 16: Ability Score Increase
Level 17: Insidious Strike
Level 18: Stroke of Luck
Level 19: Ability Score Increase
Level 20: Epic Boon

Expertise
Choose two of your skill proficiencies. Your PB is doubled for any check you make that uses either of the chosen proficiencies.

Sneak Attack
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack, you can deal extra damage. This extra damage equals a number of d6s equal to half your Rogue level, rounded up. The extra damage’s type is the same as the attack’s Damage Type.
You cannot add this extra damage if you have disadvantage on the attack roll.

Cunning Action
You can take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action as a Bonus Action.

Martial Stance
You learn two fighting styles, and at the start of each of your turns you can choose which one to benefit from.

Fighting Styles:
Archery: You gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls you make with ranged weapons.
Blind Fighting: You have blindsight with a range of 10 feet. Moreover, you can see an invisible creature within that range unless the creature successfully hides from you.
Crippling: When you hit with a weapon attack you also reduce the target’s movement speed by 10 feet until the end of your next turn
Dueling: When you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons, you gain a +2 bonus to damage rolls with that weapon
Dabbler: Gain two cantrips of your choice, selecting Int, Wis or Cha as your casting ability. If you choose a spell that deals damage, you add your casting ability modifier to the damage roll
Harrier: Your walking speed increases by 5 feet, and once per turn a creature you hit with a melee attack cannot make opportunity attacks against you until the start of its next turn
Quickdraw: You gain a +2 bonus to Initiative

Roguish Archetype
At 3rd level, you choose an archetype that you emulate in the exercise of your rogue abilities. Your archetype choice grants you features at 3rd level and then again at 6th, 10th and 14th level.

Ability Score Improvement
When you reach 4th level, and again at 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th level, you can choose one of the following:
- Gain one feat for which you qualify and increase one ability score of your choice by 1
- Increase one ability scores of your choice by 2, and another ability score by 1
- Increase three ability scores of your choice by 1
As normal, you cannot increase an ability score above 20 using this feature.

Cunning Strike
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack on your turn, choose one of the following:
- You gain advantage on your next attack roll against that creature until the end of your next turn
- That creature suffers disadvantage on the next attack it makes until the end of your next turn

Uncanny Dodge
When an attacker that you can see hits you with an attack, you can use your reaction to halve the attack's damage against you.

Evasion
When you are subjected to an effect that allows you to make a DEX saving throw to take only half damage, you instead take no damage if you succeed on the saving throw, and only half damage if you fail.

Reliable Talent
Whenever you make an ability check, you can treat a d20 roll of 7 or lower as an 8.

Slippery Mind
You gain proficiency in WIS and CHA saving throws.

Devious Strike
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack on your turn, choose one of the following:
- That creature must make a CON saving throw or be Weakened* until the start of your next turn
- That creature must make a WIS saving throw or be Dazed* until the start of your next turn

Devious Action
When you use your Cunning Action you can take two different actions using the same bonus action

Elusive Target
When you use your Uncanny Dodge feature, you halve the damage taken by all attacks until the start of your next turn.

Insidious Strike
Once per turn, when you hit a creature with an attack on your turn, choose one of the following:
- You can apply both options of your Cunning Strike feature
- That creature suffers disadvantage on the saving throw of your Devious Strike feature

Stroke of Luck
When you make a d20 test, you can choose to treat the result as a natural 20 instead of rolling.
Once you use this feature, you must finish a short or long rest before you can use it again.

Epic Boon
You gain one Epic Boon for which you qualify.

*Weakened: Deal only half damage with attacks
*Dazed: Cannot take reactions, on your turn you can only take one of your action, your movement or your bonus action

Now for the fun part... the subclasses...

Spoiler: incomplete

Show

Right off the bat, I think a lot of mastermind and inquisitive can be hacked up and moved into other subclasses like the assassin and thief. Those two are getting cut and the


Arcane Trickster
Level 3: Spellcasting
Level 3: Mage Hand Legerdemain
Level 6: Versatile Trickster (also roll in Use Magic Device)
Level 10: Magical Ambush (also when you hit with a sneak attack, until end of next turn)
Level 14: Spell Thief (you can end the effect early by casting the spell once without your own slot, even if it's of a level higher than you can cast)
Leave it largely as-is. Spellcasting and Mage Hand Legerdemain at 3, magical ambush at 6, versatile trickster at 10 and Spell Thief at 14.
I think Use Magic Device fits way better on the Arcane Trickster than on the Thief, bundle that in at level 6 or 10.

Assassin
Benefits from portions of Mastermind and Inquisitive
Level 3: Bonus Proficiencies (two tools and two languages)
Level 3: Assassinate (change the crits to +Rogue level to Sneak Attack damage)
Level 6: Infiltration Expertise renders you immune to scrying sensors, thought-reading and truth-telling magic as well as passive advantage on checks to pass yourself off as someone else
Level 10: Misdirection (changed to when you use uncanny dodge, the half that you prevent goes to an adjacent creature)
Level 14: Death Strike (reworked to 'if you have advantage and both rolls hit, the hit becomes a crit')

Phantom
Level 3: Whispers of the Dead
Level 3: Wails from the Grave (i'm tempted to make this an AoE)
Level 6: Tokens of the Departed
Level 10: Ghost Walk (faster fly speed?)
Level 14: Death's Friend (token on short or long rest?)

Scout
Level 3: Survivalist (pick other skills if you were already proficienct/expertise)
Level 3: Scout's Stride (+10' speed, choice of swim or climb speed, don't leave tracks unless you choose to)
Level 6: Extra Attack
Level 10: Superior Mobility (except it triggers when you uncanny dodge)
Level 14: Truesight

Soulknife
Level 3: Psionic Power
Level 3: Psychic Blades (let them stick around after the attack action)
Level 6: Soul Blades
Level 10: Psychic Veil
Level 14: Rend Mind

Swashbuckler
Level 3: Fighting Style (because I have a few that fit nicely)
Level 3: Rakish Audacity (Cha to Init)
Level 6: Extra Attack
Level 10: Elegant Maneuver (you can substitute any str check or save for dex instead)
Level 14: Reliable Strikes (when you roll below 8 for an attack, treat it as an 8)

Thief
Level 3: Larcenous Action (add Help, Search and Use Object to the list of choices for Cunning Action)
Level 3: Supreme Sneak (advantage on stealth and thievery checks)
Level 6: Pick Mark (observe creature for 1 minute and determine their int/wis/cha and perception/insight/investigation compared to yours)
Level 10: Freedom of Movement
Level 14: Superior Reflexes

[Psyren]

I've never seen someone so proud of dodging a question but... congratulations.

I really don't care that you think of it that way, but thank you.

This is a clear and obvious double standard. And it's sort of ridiculous that you guys are still arguing about this 10 pages later.

Uh, we had addressed the "scenario" and moved on. Both Ludic and I cited the fact that alternate approaches to infiltration problems exist (if you're a Soulknife) for example. You and Schwann are the ones who dredged it back up, not us.

Of course, that's always been my point this whole time. That the type of optimization we read about on these forums depends on a certain amount of generosity. You know... ignoring having to make a Disguise check, as you claimed, moving at normal speeds while being Stealthy, not rousing suspicion with Nondetection.

These arguments, at the core, are based on a caster bias. People in the world know enough to stymie the rogue, but they don't know enough to simply pat people down as standard operating procedure to expose Disguise Self. Why? Because people just believe that magic should work. So they perpetuate a certain perspective, based on a certain playstyle, and class reputations are born.

I can't speak for everyone, but my objections about Assassin have nothing to do with the fact that Disguise Self exists or that people are too generous towards it.

[Witty Username]

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.

I do think there is some complexity issues in places as well that crop up with this.

Rogue, barbarian, monk and ranger are all in the weak class discussions. And one of the things that keep barbarian, monk and ranger here are they have some deceptive amount of play difficulty.

Optimized play tends to have much tighter play (especially when Ludic is involved). This means that issues of class strength due to class difficulty are going to be less apparent.

Sorcerer (and to a lesser extent wizard) is kept middle of the road by this more often then not, just about any action even a well seasoned player will make has a good chance of being some kind of unforced error.

Part of the reason I am still willing to call monk the weakest, it's optimized play is very non intuitive, and while it does fine with Ludic. Most of us, Ludic, we are definitely not.

[Just to Browse]

If the only point you are making in this particular conversation is "this is what causes me to spend more time on encounter building", I can't possibly disagree with that. I believe you. I've no interest in debating that point because I can't. How would I even know?

That quote is intended as a direct rebuttal to your quoted comment, "If your wizard and cleric and druid are really going to be so incredibly versatile, then your DM has to consistently create encounters that can allow that versatility to shine." So if you agree DMs don't have to "create encounters that can allow [flexible characters'] versatility to shine", and that in fact the opposite is true, then we don't have any disagreement (though I'm awfully confused why you've written so much when you could just have written "good point jtb" a couples pages ago, but this is the internet).

Remember that one time in the gauntlet? The example you give in the gauntlet is actually what I consider pretty smart play to try and counter Nuke. The details you've chosen not to mention for whatever reason are:

• A single round of attacks from the objects is enough to make the Golem roll for Berserk, which would lock it into hitting the Warrior or animated objects, allowing trivial kiting. The DM chooses to position the Golem as close to Nuke as possible to avoid this trivial kiting.
• The golem wasn't actually just walking through animated shards, they were currently in the animated shards, which had already gotten a full set of attacks off last turn and would continue to do so. The golem had very few turns to act, and the DM pushed them for maximum potential damage on Nuke.
• The warrior was taking the Dodge action, making them a particularly bad target.

This is, if anything, the opposite of vibing. It was such an obvious play that I hadn't even considered it could be misconstrued until now. The only thing shared between Gilalar and strangebloke was the understanding that if Nuke dies, Gilalar loses.

If I might hazard a guess, your other assessments of vibing, stuff not really being important, some features actually being really good, etc, might be based on a similar lack of play experience. Several of these arguments give me deja vu from the pre-Tier 3e days when my friends would tell me the 3e monk was totally op.

Assassin etc etc. I'm not sure why this keeps showing up in our conversations. Ludic seems like they answered these request 10 pages ago, and I've never really cared to engage because they seem to be on top of things.

No really JTB's players aren't being challenged. Fights are over in a couple turns, the players go to the next encounter, casters always run out of spell slots at exactly the end of the day. None of these things are true... I don't think I've ever said these things are true. ("Casters end the day out of slots" does not mean "they're only out of resources at the end of the day"! those aren't even close to the same thing!)

Why are martials succeeding in anti-magic rooms? I think you misread this comment. I include anti-magic tech in all sorts of places, but I don't run those exclusively. Sometimes there's anti-magic, sometimes there isn't, and on the whole, the occasional anti-magic scenario isn't remotely close enough to compensate for the vast gulf in breadth that flexible classes have over inflexible ones in most other scenarios.

RE: But what if X or Y? Then the rogue wouldn't die to a gelatinous cube! This is the most odd commentary. You and Jelly have been very adamant that the purported strength of flexible casters is all hypothetical, and it's just based on the assumption that they might have one spell on hand. But when I cede that entirely and base my comparison off a single arbitrarily-chosen cleric's spell list, all of a sudden we need to back up to hypotheticals, not just at the daily prep level, but hypothetical builds? Hypothetical feats? Hypothetical features that won't be available for 3 levels? Hypothetical features that probably might not even exist outside of a playtest?

You don't get it both ways, my friend. Either rogues are evaluated based on choices that players make, in which case we can see their breadth of options are pretty limited, or everyone gets to be a magical quantum option-chooser, and the flexible classes' options massively explode. If "the relevant points" require the rogue existing in a quantum build state while the cleric sits around with her thumb up her butt, your opinions are gonna be misinformed, just by like, the nature of the real world.

JTB needs to track what he's saying. Ah, ah, ah! You don't get to slip away with that. You specifically said, in a reply to me, "we're sort of assuming an expectation that the characters have to have answers all the time for every encounter, or else its bad."

We are not assuming this. JTB has said lots of things, but he has not said this, is not saying this, and will not say this. And since you mentioned it - I don't particularly enjoy constantly reminding you of the words I wrote, but I have to do it or else you're going to use these fake versions of me as rebuttals! (See "No really JTB's players aren't being challenged [...]")

You can't cast wall spells blindly. Already addressed. See "5. Those cleric options aren't actually very good" (p23) and "RE: Skepticism." (p24)

Why is it so hard to add a locked chest somewhere? This was a published adventure using a pre-built VTT map that didn't have anything particularly cool for the rogue. So yeah, adding a chest means moving some of the existing loot into a chest and doing some VTT kitbashing, which for me is like 5 minutes of notes/keying and 10-15 minutes struggling with paint.net or foundry's active tile module. I don't put infinite time into my game, so that's 15-20 minutes I'm not spending on my factions, future scenarios, NPC writeups, one-shots, or just leisure reading. It's not back-breaking, but I would literally only put it there to help the rogue out, and it literally is harder than the alternative to the tune of 15-20min of work. Those two things are simply, factually true.

New definitions of vibing. Since we're getting a more concrete definition of vibing, I'd like to note that (1) I don't share whether rolls are a success or failure (I think this is what you mean by "sharing information on rolls"?), (2) I track time as a resource, (3) I don't give players information when they're going to be surprised, (4) I regularly build encounters with deception because it's cool. Sounds like we've answered the question of whether I'm vibing with my players! I guess I'm not actually playing wrong, sorry Jelly!

Just don't highlight anybody, just put stuff places / Martials don't need to be highlighted. I think it's kind of funny that you claim this is the point, because it's fairly ancillary. What you're mentioning here is an actual difference in table style. At some tables, players & DMs feel bad when an inflexible character isn't getting highlighted. At tables like your own, people might not! Neither one is bad.

But those preferences don't change actual point at the root of our back-and-forth, which is that it simply takes less effort to highlight flexible classes like most casters. Inflexible characters have narrow strengths, which can fit poorly with a not-insignificant proportion of scenarios. If a DM cares about showcasing player strength, they're going to have to put more effort into tailoring their scenarios to the rogue than to the cleric.

[Just to Browse]

Sorry for double post, didn't see this til now.

Rogue, barbarian, monk and ranger are all in the weak class discussions. And one of the things that keep barbarian, monk and ranger here are they have some deceptive amount of play difficulty.

That's an interesting perspective. I'll admit I also think of most classes in terms of "how strong is this class when played as effectively as possible?" but that frequently doesn't match up, especially when the class's fantasy is at odds with their optimal play style.

[JNAProductions]

Also, a locked chest isn't really an obstacle by itself. Certainly not one that MUST be solved by picking the lock.

If we assume that...

1) The chest contains something vitally important, and
2) The chest must be opened NOW, rather than at your leisure, and
3) The chest's contents are fragile, so busting it open is not an option

Then yes, a lockpicking PC is the optimal solution. Doesn't have to be a Rogue-anyone with the right Background and a decent Dexterity can do it, especially if Guidance, Bardic Inspiration, etc. is on the table.

But if it's not vitally important... You can leave it.
If it doesn't have to be opened now, you can come back later, or just drag it with you if you have a muscly PC.
If the contents aren't fragile, you can just bash it open with a mace or hammer.

I wouldn't consider the situation MASSIVELY contrived-an Elixir of Life in a locked chest, for instance, that's desperately needed to save the important character's life is all three-but it's not exactly a common scenario either.