What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

Sorcerer comes with a good skill amp these days too (on top of their full spellcasting and Subtle metamagic and such). Their new Magical Guidance feature lets you reroll skill checks after seeing the roll.

A proper face might have max Cha and Expertise and various rerolls and skill amps on top of that and utility spells and features that can help with various non-combat scenarios with or without rolls.

Bard gets just as much Expertise as a Rogue on top of full spellcasting and a bunch of other heavy utility features.

How about a non full caster? Well, the Tasha's version of the Ranger gets an extra free cast of a utility spell, ignore difficult terrain, a climb speed and swim speed (which I'd say is better than Expertise in Athletics as far as non-combat stuff goes), and they get Expertise in a skill of their choice (say, Perception), and they get to cast stuff like Pass Without Trace.

Or there's the Artificer, getting Expertise with all tool proficiencies, Flash of Genius to amp both their own or allies' checks , cantrips including Guidance, rituals, half-casting with a bunch of utility spells, and a bunch of infusions and magic items.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Amnestic

If you're using SS/GWM, then you've probably sacrificed an ASI to get it, so you'll have, what, 16 main stat, +3 PB, so a total of +1 to your actual attack bonus once the -5 is taken off?

Yeah, it's a big payoff if you hit. If.

---

A thing to add to this because I have checked this math.*

We frequently compare rogue without feat investment to builds with GWM + PAM or the ranged equivalent.
But this leads to problems if we consider some fixes.

For example adding extra attack, this would make rogue go from one of the weaker options for damage at 5th level into the best - and having run those numbers it starts to beat out things like GWM/SS or PAM/XBE, notably without any feat investment.

And 5th would still be a low strength level for the rogue specificly.

*I can provide numbers when I have more time, if people are interested.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sindeloke

"Sneaking across balance beams to disarm traps" isn't scouting. I've never seen a familiar disarm a long hallway of traps one by one and then carefully solve a puzzle door to prepare the area for when the party gets there, and that's the claim about why the rogue's scouting is so special compared to literally anyone else who invests in Stealth and Perception. If the familiar goes ahead, or an arcane eye, or whatever, it looks at things and the DM describes what it sees. Takes exactly the same ten to ninety seconds that the description would have taken when the party got there.

---

Oh, so the familiar isn't replacing the rogue's scouting ability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooky the Imp

This is all true.

However, it's also heavily dependant on how many times those things are actually coming up over the course of an adventuring day.

Casting a spell (or using another limited-use resource) in place of a skill check will obviously burn through resources quite quickly. On the other hand, using limited resources to guarantee success on especially important skill checks would seem perfectly reasonable.

---

I agree. I'm not saying a spell can't be used ever to solve an out of combat challenge. But that's a far cry from replacing everything a rogue can contribute. It depends on how many skill checks are called for in a day, and how many spell slots you have (and proper spell known/prepared).

Quote:

---

Bear in mind that hit points are a limited resource, too. So if you rely on expertise but end up fluffing a key roll (because a d20 is still swingy) and end up taking damage as a result, you're still down a limited resource. It just happens to be a different kind of limited resource. :smalltongue:

---

Yeah, but I'm not sure the "blunder our way through the world tapping the spell button when we need it" is much better in this regard, especially if you're using combat features for out of combat uses. You may be saving HP out of combat, and spending it in combat.

Quote:

---

See, this is where our philosophies heavily diverge.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with having all of those. If anything, it sounds exceptionally useful.

Yes, you're not going to be doing all of them at the same time. But so what? The point is not to use all your spells all the time. The point is to have a utility belt of options that are there when you need them. Shield is there to protect you from either a single high-damage attack or a swarm of little ones. Absorb elements can protect you from a lot of damaging spells, AoEs and the like. Silvery Barbs can protect you or an ally from a single attack, whilst also adding Advantage as a bonus. And those three spells are all just Lv1, yet will remain useful throughout a mage's entire career.

Then you've got Counterspell, which is absolutely incredibly when you need it. It's not something you're going to be casting every round or even every fight. But when an enemy wizard throws out Synaptic Static, you (and your party) will be incredibly grateful to have it. :smallwink:

---

I value flexibility too. But there is a cost associated with it, as with most things.

There is value in consistency and specialization as well. If you're frontlining for the party, and relying on the threat of your OA to keep the enemy from moving, but also need Shield to protect your AC, then you're not Counterspelling or using Silvery Barbs. But, like in my current party, maybe you're the only one that can counterspell, because the other three players are a fighter, monk, and ranger. So maybe you should focus on the unique things you can provide to the party, instead of spreading yourself thin trying to do all the things. If you have these amazing combat spells that impose battlefield control and debilitating conditions, why spend those slots/spells known overshadowing another member of the party with redundancy? You have something powerful and unique that you bring to the table, focus on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witty Username

A thing to add to this because I have checked this math.*

We frequently compare rogue without feat investment to builds with GWM + PAM or the ranged equivalent.

---

Do we? I thought the original comparison gave the rogue Sharpshooter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theodoxus

[interesting idea about a skill revamp]

---

Huh. The idea of things within your skill set just working certainly helps to resolve the "skills beg for permission, spells simply happen" dichotomy.

It does kind of exacerbate the difference between the skilled and unskilled on both ends, though. I definitely like any idea that makes people who are supposed to be good at a skill, actually good, but I also have a lot of respect for the design goal that anyone in the party, with or without proficiency, should feel like it's worth rolling to try something in most cases. Under the current system, in theory, you'll see checks between 5-10 that give the barbarian a good shot at passing a religion check or give the wizard reason to feel unsteady but not hilariously clumsy on a rocking boat. Not being able to set anything below 10 means you have to either say the rocking boat isn't a problem for anyone, or that the wizard is going to be on his butt for twice as many rounds as he would have otherwise.

Quote:

---

So, as a force multiplier, the new Cunning Strike is a great start, but I'd go farther, using Skill Tricks to open up tactical opportunities that other classes could exploit.

---

There's, of course, a whole other conversation here, about how tactical the game actually allows you to be, given rules (or lack thereof) around weapon reach, elevation, movement, status effects, etc. But yeah things like trips, granting attacks, debuffing enemies, and the like are definitely a good area of potential development. Use that bonus action to throw a haste potion at a buddy, or stab someone with a blade coated in an elemental spider venom that causes cold vulnerability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai

Oh, so the familiar isn't replacing the rogue's scouting ability.

---

You can't have it both ways, unfortunately. Either the rogue is doing a bunch of checks and disarming and extra stuff that the familiar isn't doing, and therefore taking up more time and making the party sit on their thumbs doing nothing, or the rogue is doing exactly what the familiar is doing, and therefore isn't bringing anything unique or impressive to the table.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LudicSavant

Other classes aren't slouches in non-combat stuff. For example, take a Druid.

A Rogue might have taken Expertise in Perception. A Druid will often have a similar base bonus simply by virtue of Wisdom being their main stat, then can boost it further using their abilities. For example, you can wildshape into a bird and gain keen sight for +5, not to mention an eye in the sky viewpoint and a handy disguise. Or they can have their familiar do it, since they can get those now from Tasha's.

A Rogue might have Expertise in Stealth on top of a higher Dexterity, but a Druid can drop a Pass Without Trace to give everyone in the party +10 for an hour, enabling full-party stealth tactics.

A Rogue might take Expertise in Athletics, but a Druid can just circumvent most navigation challenges, and they have better battlefield control than any grappling a single-attack Rogue can muster.

And a Druid's subclass features are often no slouch in the non-combat features department. For example, Stars Druid gets Guidance, a Reliable-Talent-esque feature, and a 1d6 Reaction check amp that can be used Prof/day to boost not only your own skill checks, but anyone in the party's. Or their saves or attack rolls, too.

---

Indeed - there are several classes that can achieve parity or even superiority with rogues by spending their magical rest-based resources. Working as intended.

Cunning Strike
When you damage a creature with a Sneak 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

Devious Strike
When you damage a creature with a Sneak Attack on your turn, choose one of the following:
- That creature must make a Constitution saving throw or be Weakened until the start of your next turn
- That creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or be Dazed until the start of your next turn

Insidious Strike
When you damage a creature with a Sneak 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

Lacking slots doesn't exempt one from attrition -- in fact, a lot of the resourceless characters do poorly at endurance challenges (e.g.if you replace your party's Rune Knight with a Champion, you usually go fewer encounters before the party needs to rest or fail, rather than more. Same goes for replacing your Arcane Trickster or Soulknife with a Mastermind or something).

This is because the primary cause of attrition isn't using up ability slots, it's overcoming obstacles. Even a 'resourceless' character is spending check opportunities, action economy, hit points, or time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai

Do we? I thought the original comparison gave the rogue Sharpshooter.

---

The original comparison was rogue, dex 20 with shortbow.
Vs barbarian with rage up and GWM.

Skrum did mention sharpshooter reduces rogue's DPR, which is probably true. Similar mechanics are in play for paladin and GWM, since such feats get worse the more valuable ones individual attacks are.

But my note there is I would use other options.
Off the top of my head, things like piercer, booming blade, elven accuracy etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witty Username

The original comparison was rogue, dex 20 with shortbow.
Vs barbarian with rage up and GWM.

Skrum did mention sharpshooter reduces rogue's DPR, which is probably true. Similar mechanics are in play for paladin and GWM, since such feats get worse the more valuable ones individual attacks are.

But my note there is I would use other options.
Off the top of my head, things like piercer, booming blade, elven accuracy etc.

---

8th level Rogue w/ a +1 shortbow, 20 dex, and elven accuracy against AC 17
w/o adv: 16.15
w/ adv: 24.99

8th level Barb w/ a +1 greatsword, 18 str, and GWM against AC 17
w/o adv (I don't love adding this because barb can get adv far more freely than the rogue can, but just for comparison's sake)
w/ GWM: 17.5
w/o GWM: 17.5 (yeah, it's the same. Kinda funny)

w/ adv
w/ GWM: 29.09
w/o GWM: 24.89

--------

Barb with adv matches rogue with elven accuracy. Barb with adv and using GWM beats rogue

I will note, rogue isn't noncompetitive. In play, my guess is it basically feels equal. Rogue having range is going to be able to attack each turn a little easier, while barb will occasionally spend their turn moving.

The part that is going to feel the most imbalanced between the two is when the barb hits twice. Especially if they're using GWM, that's gonna be FAR more damage than the rogue could possible do outside of a very strong crit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrum

Barb with adv matches rogue with elven accuracy. Barb with adv and using GWM beats rogue

I will note, rogue isn't noncompetitive. In play, my guess is it basically feels equal. Rogue having range is going to be able to attack each turn a little easier, while barb will occasionally spend their turn moving.

The part that is going to feel the most imbalanced between the two is when the barb hits twice. Especially if they're using GWM, that's gonna be FAR more damage than the rogue could possible do outside of a very strong crit.

---

In terms of looking outside of DPR numbers (which can be really detached from the reality of actually playing the game), the Barbarian is taking on a lot more risk to get their advantage (assuming Reckless) and the Barbarian is going to miss more. A lot more.

A GWM Barbarian is going to miss around 25% more than the Rogue not taking that accuracy hit. Just because the +10 pumps the average numbers higher doesn't make that any harder of a pill to swallow when the Barbarian keeps missing because the dice aren't in their favour, or heck, because they are experiencing the average result, which is them missing.

But in terms of the existing comparison piece I tried out that RPG bot calculator, it's pretty nice, for reference though I through this at it instead:

Rogue (level 8), TWF (w/Style) and two +1 Scimitars:

w/o adv. 27.19
w/adv 35.87

So simply going TWF with the style, which you can grab with V.Human or CLineage easily and still max 20 at 8th, pretty much blows the GWM Barbarian out of the water considering the reliability of the damage. (honestly, I was surprised by that)

Or we can do something else, like just play a Soulknife:

w/o adv. 23.80
w/adv. 32.29

Or what if we play a Soulknife with Thrown Weapon style or Dueling?

w/o adv. 26.20
w/adv. 35.65

Or since the Barbarian is going at it with a LR resource invested, let's try an AT with a Shadow Blade and Booming Blade (and note, they have a much easier time getting advantage between the familiar and SB conditions):

w/o adv. 20.88
w/adv. 29.98
w/adv. and EA 34.34

Now, it's my first time using that calculator and there's a lot of back-and-forth changing but I don't think I made any errors, or at least no egregious ones.

So the numbers from the tool you like to use suggest that a Rogue can match or even beat out that Raging, +1 weapon, GWM Barbarian comparison point if they're actually somewhat optimized for damage. Of course, you can make the Barbarian hit harder with some more optimization, but I think the point that the Rogue can hang in damage with a damage-orientated Barbarian should have been made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrum

8th level Rogue w/ a +1 shortbow, 20 dex, and elven accuracy against AC 17
w/o adv: 16.15
w/ adv: 24.99

8th level Barb w/ a +1 greatsword, 18 str, and GWM against AC 17
w/o adv (I don't love adding this because barb can get adv far more freely than the rogue can, but just for comparison's sake)
w/ GWM: 17.5
w/o GWM: 17.5 (yeah, it's the same. Kinda funny)

w/ adv
w/ GWM: 29.09
w/o GWM: 24.89

--------

Barb with adv matches rogue with elven accuracy. Barb with adv and using GWM beats rogue

I will note, rogue isn't noncompetitive. In play, my guess is it basically feels equal. Rogue having range is going to be able to attack each turn a little easier, while barb will occasionally spend their turn moving.

The part that is going to feel the most imbalanced between the two is when the barb hits twice. Especially if they're using GWM, that's gonna be FAR more damage than the rogue could possible do outside of a very strong crit.

---

If I may swap out +1 shortbow, for +1 rapier which allows the application of booming blade:
Advantage
W/o = 25.85
W/adv = 35.583
W/elvish = 39.65 *as we get to latter, this is actually higher than the non-crit average, crits are starting to actually matter statistically

The straight average is only 37 to the barbs 44 so you may be right that the barbarian will feel pretty good about hitting twice, but my quick math is that will only be about a third of the time, even with advantage


More to my earlier point though,

For the rogue with the shortbow, let's just add extra attack like is sometimes recommended
so we have 1d6 + 5, 1d6 + 5 and 4d6 sneak attack dice,

advantage:
W/o 23.67
W/ 31.19*

I dropped it being a +1 weapon for this math, and as it turns out, we are beating those barbarian with GWM numbers in both categories, no feats or special options, just extra attack and sneak attack with a shortbow. This is what I mean when I say that adding extra attack may be too much, It makes featless no multiclass rogue beat out optimized builds, potentially opens up those optimized builds for rogue on top of that, and has a number of other potential knock on effects with things rogue is already capable of.


*this may be a little high, when calculating for crit sneak attack is frustrating as hell since technically the first hit not critting reduces the chances of the next hit critting with sneak attack, so it is not quite the same as advantage numbers, so this may be slightly high by a point

Edit @Dork_Forge for some Yes, and
For the Two-weapon fighting example, you don't even need the fighting style for a chunk of that, the bonus action attack is a bit lackluster on its own, but a lot of the benefit is for sneak attack with increased consistency.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dork_Forge

In terms of looking outside of DPR numbers (which can be really detached from the reality of actually playing the game), the Barbarian is taking on a lot more risk to get their advantage (assuming Reckless) and the Barbarian is going to miss more. A lot more.

A GWM Barbarian is going to miss around 25% more than the Rogue not taking that accuracy hit. Just because the +10 pumps the average numbers higher doesn't make that any harder of a pill to swallow when the Barbarian keeps missing because the dice aren't in their favour, or heck, because they are experiencing the average result, which is them missing.

But in terms of the existing comparison piece I tried out that RPG bot calculator, it's pretty nice, for reference though I through this at it instead:

Rogue (level 8), TWF (w/Style) and two +1 Scimitars:

w/o adv. 27.19
w/adv 35.87

So simply going TWF with the style, which you can grab with V.Human or CLineage easily and still max 20 at 8th, pretty much blows the GWM Barbarian out of the water considering the reliability of the damage. (honestly, I was surprised by that)

Or we can do something else, like just play a Soulknife:

w/o adv. 23.80
w/adv. 32.29

Or what if we play a Soulknife with Thrown Weapon style or Dueling?

w/o adv. 26.20
w/adv. 35.65

Or since the Barbarian is going at it with a LR resource invested, let's try an AT with a Shadow Blade and Booming Blade (and note, they have a much easier time getting advantage between the familiar and SB conditions):

w/o adv. 20.88
w/adv. 29.98
w/adv. and EA 34.34

Now, it's my first time using that calculator and there's a lot of back-and-forth changing but I don't think I made any errors, or at least no egregious ones.

So the numbers from the tool you like to use suggest that a Rogue can match or even beat out that Raging, +1 weapon, GWM Barbarian comparison point if they're actually somewhat optimized for damage. Of course, you can make the Barbarian hit harder with some more optimization, but I think the point that the Rogue can hang in damage with a damage-orientated Barbarian should have been made.

---

A couple of points, and I admit that I may not be using the calculator correctly.

But firstly, you say the barbarian is missing, despite the fact that with Advantage (which they can muster, at-will) they have a 60% hit chance, and a 10% crit chance. This is the same as virtually everyone else, unless you assume they have Advantage. Except...

How is the TWF Rogue getting Advantage for this comparison? They are using their Bonus Action to attack, so they're not using Cunning Action to Hide, and they're not using Steady Aim (which would only work on one attack anyway). So what's the justification for assuming Advantage? They don't have Extra Attack to shove Prone first and then TWF. So what is the assumption here?

Thirdly, if I plug in a minimum to hit of 12 (8 base, +5 GWM, -1 weapon), with 1d12+16 for damage (assuming variant human as you did, and 20 Strength), I get a DPR of 32.66. That's with Reckless Attack, but not assuming Rage. So this is like minimum GWM barbarian. This will go up with Rage, with Zealot, with Giants, with crits/kills and GWM, with Berserker/Battlerager, with another magic item since the rogue has two magic weapons, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai

But firstly, you say the barbarian is missing, despite the fact that with Advantage (which they can muster, at-will) they have a 60% hit chance, and a 10% crit chance. This is the same as virtually everyone else, unless you assume they have Advantage. Except...

---

In comparison to a rogue's accuracy, which if we are talking specifically sneak attack is 84& by traditional reckoning (60% accuracy with advantage, but in this case advantage because it only needs one of two attacks to land rather than true advantage)

Frankly, advantage on the second attack probably doesn't matter that much, since the prime goal of rogue attack lines is to land sneak attack. hide for the bonus action or go for the third bite if you you outright missed. and advantage has some pretty significant diminishing returns when it gets excessive. Triple advantage vs 4 * advantage at 60% is 94% vs 97& in terms of accuracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Witty Username

Edit @Dork_Forge
For the Two-weapon fighting example, you don't even need the fighting style for a chunk of that, the bonus action attack is a bit lackluster on its own, but a lot of the benefit is for sneak attack with increased consistency.

---

Yeah, I know that a lot of TWF for Rogues is the SA consistency, but I personally like making the attack as worthwhile as possible. Afterall, it was a damage comparison and every little helps given it's a relatively small investment for a decent damage bump throughout the life of the character.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.Samurai

A couple of points, and I admit that I may not be using the calculator correctly.

But firstly, you say the barbarian is missing, despite the fact that with Advantage (which they can muster, at-will) they have a 60% hit chance, and a 10% crit chance. This is the same as virtually everyone else, unless you assume they have Advantage. Except...

---

The them missing thing wasn't about the calculator, I didn't do anything with the Barbarian I just compared to Skrum's, it was more about the reality.

They have a -6 compared to the Rogue's to-hit, without advantage they will hit a lot less. With advantage, given it's worth roughly +5, they'll still hit less especially since adv. isn't actually a real bonus and just a second chance.

I don't believe any sane Barbarian is going to Reckless all the time, unless they really want to be a heal-burden or roll up a new character, but the mix of GWM and a lower Str score is significant.

Quote:

---

How is the TWF Rogue getting Advantage for this comparison? They are using their Bonus Action to attack, so they're not using Cunning Action to Hide, and they're not using Steady Aim (which would only work on one attack anyway). So what's the justification for assuming Advantage? They don't have Extra Attack to shove Prone first and then TWF. So what is the assumption here?

---

There is no assumption, I just provided the with and without advantage numbers for all of them for completeness. A TWF Rogue is generally going to have adv. less and rely on ally-given sources more, that's a given.

Quote:

---

Thirdly, if I plug in a minimum to hit of 12 (8 base, +5 GWM, -1 weapon), with 1d12+16 for damage (assuming variant human as you did, and 20 Strength), I get a DPR of 32.66. That's with Reckless Attack, but not assuming Rage. So this is like minimum GWM barbarian. This will go up with Rage, with Zealot, with Giants, with crits/kills and GWM, with Berserker/Battlerager, with another magic item since the rogue has two magic weapons, etc.

---

I'm going to guess by to hit you meant a minimum of 12 on the die rather than the to-hit bonus? On an AC17 target isn't that 13 not 12?

Regardless, I'm not really getting the point of this part. My point was never that the Barbarian sucks, or the Rogue always does more damage, I even pointed out the Barbarian could be optimized for higher damage (as you have done here).

My point was that even with the, imo egregious, baseline comparison given (+4 Str, +1 item, GWM) the Rogue can still compete on damage with very simple and minor/obvious optimization. That's it. It's a thread basically dumping on and defending the Rogue, I was just defending the Rogue, not dumping on the Barbarian.

As an aside for the whole give the Barbarian another item thing, I really didn't think that mattered tbh since it was an uncommon item at 8th and for item parity the Barbarian could just have a cloak of protection or something. There really isn't all that much swinging around in worn damage boosts at uncommon, or I think generally actually.

Yeah I don't see how TWF makes all that much of a difference. I'm giving the rogue adv because of steady shot (and rather generously too, since they can't move when they use it, and if an enemy gets in their grill they either have to switch to melee or at best attack at neutral).

And if the option is two attacks w/o adv or 1 attack with elven accuracy...well TWF is two chances to hit, and elven accuracy is "three." Steady shot w/ elven accuracy is more likely to get that hit and trigger sneak attack.

Also, what damage is being added with booming blade? Because starting at level 5, it adds 1d8 on hit. Assuming the enemy is going to move to trigger the second effect is extremely presumptive. Likely, they're either 1) already in melee and don't need to move, or 2) are ranged enemies who won't move unless they absolutely have to. IME, it is not common to get that secondary damage.

Like, I get it, you guys want to defend rogue and show how good they can be. But you're making extraordinarily favorable assumptions, and the barb doesn't even have a subclass. Shadow blade is a 2nd level spell, which 8th level rogues get 2 of, and it's concentration, and they don't even get Constitution prof. An 8th level barb by comparison has 4 rages.

Listen, I've played with rogues. They can dish, if given some space to work. That's not the core of my criticism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrum

Yeah I don't see how TWF makes all that much of a difference. I'm giving the rogue adv because of steady shot (and rather generously too, since they can't move when they use it, and if an enemy gets in their grill they either have to switch to melee or at best attack at neutral).

And if the option is two attacks w/o adv or 1 attack with elven accuracy...well TWF is two chances to hit, and elven accuracy is "three." Steady shot w/ elven accuracy is more likely to get that hit and trigger sneak attack.

---

I'm not really sure what the issue is here, given the numbers were provided with your own calculator. But TWF is just straight up more actual damage, not just increasing the chance of the 4d6 (avg. 14) Sneak Attack, it's adding its own 1d6+5/6 (avg. 8.5/9.5). TWF is one of the top-shelf damage options for a martial in Tier 1 and getting a second attack is always going to be nice.

But it was also just one of several options I provided.

Quote:

---

Also, what damage is being added with booming blade? Because starting at level 5, it adds 1d8 on hit. Assuming the enemy is going to move to trigger the second effect is extremely presumptive. Likely, they're either 1) already in melee and don't need to move, or 2) are ranged enemies who won't move unless they absolutely have to. IME, it is not common to get that secondary damage.

---

I didn't factor in rider damage at all. I just added the 1d8 attack rider to the 2d8 Shadow Blade. Realistically in some situations the damage will be higher if the rider is triggered or if you use Green-flame Blade and hit a second target.

TL:DR the secondary damage was entirely omitted from the numbers, but would realistically come up sometimes now you've brought it up.

Quote:

---

Like, I get it, you guys want to defend rogue and show how good they can be. But you're making extraordinarily favorable assumptions, and the barb doesn't even have a subclass. Shadow blade is a 2nd level spell, which 8th level rogues get 2 of, and it's concentration, and they don't even get Constitution prof. An 8th level barb by comparison has 4 rages.

---

No favourable assumptions made, and the Barbarian is only missing a subclass because you didn't provide one in the comparison point, but most(?) of them aren't reliably adding anything of note to the damage anyway, and stuff like Zealot complicates using GWM since it increases the value of the base attack.

For the whole Shadow Blade thing, yep an AT can pull that off twice a day, but realistically speaking dropping a d8 and using a rapier for the other encounters is probably going to do just fine. Most tables shouldn't be throwing so many difficult combats at the party in a single day that the AT needs to resort to Shadow Blade more than twice. For maintaining concentration, Uncanny Dodge is great for that, though if it drops it drops.

Same with the Barbarian, they have 4 Rages, that may not be enough to Rage in every combat, but realistically they shouldn't need to Rage in every single encounter at this level.

Quote:

---

Listen, I've played with rogues. They can dish, if given some space to work. That's not the core of my criticism.

---

Then what is the core of your criticism, given all the Barbarian GWM comparisons I thought it was the Rogue's damage lacking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dork_Forge

I didn't factor in rider damage at all. I just added the 1d8 attack rider to the 2d8 Shadow Blade. Realistically in some situations the damage will be higher if the rider is triggered or if you use Green-flame Blade and hit a second target.

---

I did for mine, and I personally don't see much issue with it. That being said, my parties tend to be pretty significantly ranged. Quick smack, fall back feels pretty natural.
Heck, the barbarian stint that I played uses a halberd for that little extrar range (and halberds are my favorite weapon).

My overall point is shortbow is not the end of rogue options. And we should keep what we have in mind, before throwing a bunch of nonsense at problem.

Like doubling sneak attack dice would solve the damage issue, but I expect that would at least be mildly excessive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dork_Forge

Then what is the core of your criticism, given all the Barbarian GWM comparisons I thought it was the Rogue's damage lacking?

---

Under ideal conditions, rogues can do solid damage. Basically, if they're able to maintain distance and consistently hide or use steady aim, their damage racks up quickly. But it tends to be conditionally fragile - Darkness? Fog Cloud? Invisible enemy? Damage drops to nearly negligible. The barb can always not use GWM and still be attacking at net neutral in those cases.

Or if they're not given space - same deal. Fast enemies that a rogue can't stay away from, and they start having to make some very punishing choices in terms of their output. Swashbuckler can handle this the best, but that's just one subclass, and they don't have better defense than any other rogue so that kind of enemy still chews them up.

But even in the best of cases, rogue has no presence. To a quite high degree they rely on other members of the party keeping enemies off them so they can do their steady aim, hide, whathaveyou. And despite needing to jump through those hopes...rogue damage is at best competitive with straightforward melee builds. Basically, the melee guy is doing two jobs - being the distraction, and doing damage. The rogue is doing one thing, damage, but needing a distraction.

In my mind, if rogue is going to be a situational threat like that, they should be doing good damage. Like, burst damage, which is rewarded in the game WAY more than steady output.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrum

In the last game I played the party got into a fight with a large amount of skeletons of various types. My barbarian got a decent initiative roll, raged, and ran into the middle. The skeletons mobbed him, and he took a TON of damage. By combat's end, he had taken 184 damage (before resistances). But he was still standing, and more importantly, because he was in the middle of the field being threatening and easy to attack, the other party members could do their thing.

That's what I mean by tank. No it's not sticky-tanking in the MMORPG sense, it's "can you wade into the direct line of fire and absorb a ton of attacks/damage." Rogue can take a hit, thanks to uncanny dodge. But that's about bailing themselves out, it's not suitable for actual tanking.

---

Sorry, I know this is a couple pages back (I'm just getting caught up), but this jumped out at me a bit for a couple reasons:
•Would the Barbarian in question have survived without the DR from Rage? If not, that means no one else would have either, regardless of their "tanking" capability (such as a Fighter or Paladin or such).
•Everyone always seems to forget that part of Cunning Action is the ability to bonus action Dodge. I'd think a Moderately Armored Rogue who can Dodge every round without giving up their offense is in a better tanking position than their more traditional tanking contemporaries. :smallwink:

Edit: Well... dang. One day I'll learn not to post in the middle of the night while tired. Not today though. :smalltongue: Thanks for the catch, Kane0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schwann145

•Everyone always seems to forget that part of Cunning Action is the ability to bonus action Dodge.

---

You're thinking of Patient Defense on the Monk. Cunning Action is Dash, Disengage or Hide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schwann145

Sorry, I know this is a couple pages back (I'm just getting caught up), but this jumped out at me a bit for a couple reasons:
•Would the Barbarian in question have survived without the DR from Rage? If not, that means no one else would have either, regardless of their "tanking" capability (such as a Fighter or Paladin or such).
•Everyone always seems to forget that part of Cunning Action is the ability to bonus action Dodge. I'd think a Moderately Armored Rogue who can Dodge every round without giving up their offense is in a better tanking position than their more traditional tanking contemporaries. :smallwink:

Edit: Well... dang. One day I'll learn not to post in the middle of the night while tired. Not today though. :smalltongue: Thanks for the catch, Kane0.

---

Yes, it was due to his damage resistance; actual damage taken was 92. But - he's a barb with 17 AC. Because his AC was only 17, he took A LOT of hits that, say, 23 AC would've deflected.

I obviously don't have a list of all of the attacks that hit him and can't say for sure what the minimum AC would be to reduce the raw damage from 184 to something a 10th level fighter or paladin could survive. But to your point, that particular situation was pretty barb-specific. Like, I'm quite certain that a more pedestrian 20ish AC would still have led to 100+ damage, and it would take pretty special AC to AC-tank their way through that.

I'm not saying "rogue isn't as tough as barbarian, there for rogue sucks." My point was that tanking isn't about being able to mitigate errant hits. To sell me on rogue being able to tank, they'd need to be able to survive some level of focused fire, multiple attacks for at least a few rounds against notable threats. I think it plainly obvious that rogue can't do that.

The highest damage rogue I could make at lvl 8 against AC17 was an EA arcane trickster Rogue (max stat) using shadowblade and booming blade (I assume 50% of the rider damage). That gives me 39.16 dpr (w advantage, which between shadowblade and ba should be relatively common). Without shadowblade and using booming blade, I get 34.8dpr with advantage (just booming blade and a +1 rapier) and 22 dpr without advantage (so no steady aim). Rogue gets 2 shadowblades per day.

The highest damage barbarian I could make at lvl 8 was a custom lineage Zealot PAM/GWM/ barbarian (18 str) with a +1 polearm (by assumption from above). While raging, the Zealot hits for 46.4 dpr (reckless) or 29.17 (non reckless). Without Rage it hits for 27.2 (no adv) and 42.9(adv). Barbarian gets 4 rages a day.

So this is actually decently close (order 10%), except that the Barbarian gets more (eg double) resources to hit his peaks. Note that assuming steady aim and reckless is usually a bit of a bad assumption in practice. At high op levels both will get you killed very fast.

Feel free to check my math (I used Ludics calculator). (edit: removed EA for barbarian, but messed up the -5/+10.. edited for correctness).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hael

PAM/GWM/EA barbarian (18 str) with a +1 polearm (by assumption from above). While raging, the Zealot hits for 43.1 dpr (reckless) or 28.8 (non reckless). Without Rage it hits for 25.2 (no adv) and 37.5 (adv). Barbarian gets 4 rages a day.

---

Barb can't make use of elven accuracy (I assume that's what EA is); that requires dex or mental stat-attack rolls, and barb of course needs to use str.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hael

So this is actually decently close (order 10%), except that the Barbarian gets more (eg double) resources to hit his peaks. Note that assuming steady aim and reckless is usually a bit of a bad assumption in practice. At high op levels both will get you killed very fast.

---

Agreed; constantly using reckless is quite reckless

That said - I will die on the hill that barb is going to get to use reckless way more than the rogue will get to use steady aim. A rogue not moving for a round often simply not possible, especially if they favor ranged weapons. If someone is adjacent to them, they're looking at using Steady Aim just to offset disadvantage. Shadow Blade is nice in that it can seamlessly switch from ranged to melee, but still, a rogue is often constrained in Steady Aim use beyond their own risk tolerance.

Barb on the other hand has built in mitigation for using Reckless. That doesn't mean they can Reckless with abandon, it still has to be use smartly, but barb more than any other class is built to take hits. Steady Aim is at direct cross-purposes to everything else a rogue does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Psyren

Already covered this; 1 feat gets you one expertise, compared to rogue who gets 4 of them for 0 feats.

---

The answer "4 is greater than one" is a bit jejune. The Expertise Ability is clearly subject to marginal utility. A Rogue's fourth selection of Expertise, is generally not worth as much as their prior picks, because those prior Expertise picks were spent on addressing needs and wants, and the fourth Expertise pick is probably just going wherever.

The fact that the 5e skills themselves have differing inherent utility also further exacerbates the marginal utility issue above. Expertise in Performance is just not as generally applicable as Expertise in Perception, for example.

A Rune Knight fighter, that wants to be the King of Grapplers, does not need 4 options for Expertise, they just need Expertise in Athletics. The fact that the Skill Expert Feat also grants a +1 to an ability score, makes the opportunity cost very low, (especially for a VHuman fighter, whom is receiving extra feats from both race and class).

A Circle of the Moon Druid, that has Expertise in Athletics, has garnered a huge boost to their Wildshaped Grappling ability.

Ludic, in a prior post, mentions that a Rogue's Expertise, often is either enabling "win more" dice rolls, ("Hey look, my stealth check was a 37 against the DC 10"), or just maintaining a level of parity in terms of performance, (a 10 wisdom Rogue with Expertise in Perception, is performing at around the same level as a 20 Wisdom Cleric with proficiency in Perception, before Reliable Talent). I also find this observation to be true.

We also have design artifacts in the system that throw skill usage off, even when dealing with Expertise and the Reliable Talent abilities. The Reliable Talent ability does not help with Passive Checks, only active checks. A Rogue that wishes to be the most perceptive person in the world, still needs to take the Observant Feat, to increase their Passive Perception.

If your Rogue with Expertise in Stealth is trying to streak across the court during a NBA game, or across the stage during a Taylor Swift concert, that rogue is going to be spotted, as they are visible.

A Rogue, trying to cross a bridge made of webbing, stealthily, likewise runs into the limitations of Expertise: it does not matter that the Rogue's Stealth check was an astronomically high number, a Giant Spider's Websense still defeats a Stealth Ability Check of 42.

At some point, even the Stealthiest Rogue, needs magic, to succeed....that is the system as designed.

I would argue, it should not be this way. An Ability check of 31 is the highest result a PC without Expertise can achieve when they have proficiency in a skill and a +5 ability score modifier. A roll higher than 31 either requires preternatural skill or magic.

A Rogue's Expertise, should have built into it's description, degrees of success for super high rolls.

To go back to the example of a Rogue trying to Stealthily cross a bridge made of webs; a Rogue whom rolls a Stealth Ability Check greater than 31, should be able to defeat Web Sense, for example. At the extremes, an ability roll over 31, is showing that extreme skill, is like magic itself, and should be able to do things that normally would be impossible.

Without, something like this, Expertise at high levels, often is just "win more", which is not particularly useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skrum

Barb can't make use of elven accuracy (I assume that's what EA is); that requires dex or mental stat-attack rolls, and barb of course needs to use str.

---

Yep sorry you are right, I caught that too (as well as another mistake with -5/10) and edited my post. The last time I played a rogue and ran these sorts of numbers was pre Tashas, and before rogues got steady aim, which actually makes a huge difference to their overall dpr.

Still if people want a sort of integrated dpr, you would look at something like a six encounter day. With 2 shadowblades a day a Rogue would get something like (1/3) *(39.1) + (2/3) * (34.8) = 36.2 assuming steady aim .. and the barbarian with 4 rages would get something like (2/3) * (46.4) + (1/3) *(42.9) ~ 45.2. assuming reckless attack.

Without advantage the Rogue would have (1/3)*(24) + (2/3) * (22.45) ~ 23 dpr and the Barbarian would have (2/3) *(29.2) + (1/3) * (27.2) ~ 28.5 dpr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blatant Beast

At some point, even the Stealthiest Rogue, needs magic, to succeed....that is the system as designed.

---

Is it though? I ask genuinely rather than rhetorically. I mean, going back to my previous point regarding who can or can't hit those high DCs, it does require magic to achieve a DC of 30 before level 13 and even then it's a ritual that takes 10 times as long as the task would normally to do it with any certainty. With Expertise, it still takes 10 times as long, but without the magic and at the low, low level of 5.

To misquote "any sufficiently advanced technique appears as magic to the uninitiated". A level 5 character with Expertise is arguably pulling off what at least appear to be magical effects in their "near impossible" results. This isn't some houserule; it's just extrapolation from the rules at hand. Quite what extent that reaches in actual play is indeed GM dependent, but that such results should appear to achieve what any layman would consider actually impossible is without question. Once a Rogue hits level 11, those feats of "near magic" should become commonplace activity.

The rules are not a straight jacket and those that are written open to interpretation shoukd be interpreted accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hael

Still if people want a sort of integrated dpr, you would look at something like a six encounter day. With 2 shadowblades a day a Rogue would get something like (1/3) *(39.1) + (2/3) * (34.8) = 36.2 assuming steady aim .. and the barbarian with 4 rages would get something like (2/3) * (46.4) + (1/3) *(42.9) ~ 45.2. assuming reckless attack.

Without advantage the Rogue would have (1/3)*(24) + (2/3) * (22.45) ~ 23 dpr and the Barbarian would have (2/3) *(29.2) + (1/3) * (27.2) ~ 28.5 dpr.

---

That feels about right to me TBH. Rogues do more damage than I probably give them credit for, but GWM barbs are hard to compete with when it comes to round over round damage in that level range*

But, even when I made the DPS comparison 4 pages ago, my point wasn't that rogues do bad damage - they're in the ballpark of other martial characters. Little lower, but in the ballpark. My point was that IMO, those other martial characters that are doing slightly better damage bring more value to the party by dint of also being tough and/or armored and thus being a battlefield presence. Rogue, as noted, is a "selfish" class (while also relying on others to give them space to work!)

If rogue as doing 15% more damage than barb, like that'd be a better place for them; they're the glass cannon martial striker.
If rogue was doing the same damage but had a series of notable damage mitigation abilities, that's a better place for them.
If rogue was doing the same damage but also was doing some cool CC stuff, that'd be a great place for them.

*I also want to point that rogue's and barb's type of steady damage is not where the meta of the game is. A paladin or gloom stalker ranger will do less damage over 10 rounds than a barb, but they dealt more in the first 2 or 3 and that's what actually matters.

I never thought Rogue was bad, but I do think it's kind of boring. But that just might be a me thing.

I don't think neither rogue or barbarian is going to wow you with damage as they're both built for applying pressure more than anything else. You almost want the enemy to focus on trying to prevent you the deal damage because that opens up one of the spike types to drop the hammer.

This is a commonality of the classes that tend to have higher than normal initiative, enhanced movement, secondary forms of situational defenses, and soft threat to force poor decisions.

If your table generally allows people to dump damage on any target they want without any real setup then it's going to look bad just the same way that other games that focus on player versus player tactics that breakdown when speed/burst meta takes over.

There is 0 reason to use "high OP" ( a term that hasn't been defined) as the standard for anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blatant Beast

The answer "4 is greater than one" is a bit jejune. The Expertise Ability is clearly subject to marginal utility. A Rogue's fourth selection of Expertise, is generally not worth as much as their prior picks, because those prior Expertise picks were spent on addressing needs and wants, and the fourth Expertise pick is probably just going wherever.

---

I can't believe this point began with calling people's opinions naive.

Again, we go back to this idea that out of combat challenges can be solved by a single skill. That's really nice. Makes it simple to assume only one Expertise matters, or that a single spell will solve the issue.

It seems to me rogues may have a bad reputation because no one engages with out of combat stuff all that much.

Quote:

---

A Rune Knight fighter, that wants to be the King of Grapplers, does not need 4 options for Expertise, they just need Expertise in Athletics.

---

But what does this have to do with what the rogue can provide? I don't think the rogue is judged by how useful a dip would be to Rune Knights.

Quote:

---

Ludic, in a prior post, mentions that a Rogue's Expertise, often is either enabling "win more" dice rolls, ("Hey look, my stealth check was a 37 against the DC 10"), or just maintaining a level of parity in terms of performance, (a 10 wisdom Rogue with Expertise in Perception, is performing at around the same level as a 20 Wisdom Cleric with proficiency in Perception, before Reliable Talent). I also find this observation to be true.

---

A rogue's expertise will enable 10-15% more successes, up to 20-30% at higher levels, and even more with Reliable Talent.

Yes, there is "win more", but there is also "more win".

And we can't create a simultaneous scenario where the skill system is so vague and up to fiat that rogues suck, and also a scenario where the DC is 10 and the rogue is just providing overkill.

Quote:

---

We also have design artifacts in the system that throw skill usage off, even when dealing with Expertise and the Reliable Talent abilities. The Reliable Talent ability does not help with Passive Checks, only active checks. A Rogue that wishes to be the most perceptive person in the world, still needs to take the Observant Feat, to increase their Passive Perception.

---

That's fine.

Quote:

---

If your Rogue with Expertise in Stealth is trying to streak across the court during a NBA game, or across the stage during a Taylor Swift concert, that rogue is going to be spotted, as they are visible.

---

A disguise kit and Deception/Performance might be useful here. Again... thinking that only one skill will ever be used at a time is sort of giving you the result that you want.

Quote:

---

A Rogue, trying to cross a bridge made of webbing, stealthily, likewise runs into the limitations of Expertise: it does not matter that the Rogue's Stealth check was an astronomically high number, a Giant Spider's Websense still defeats a Stealth Ability Check of 42.

At some point, even the Stealthiest Rogue, needs magic, to succeed....that is the system as designed.

---

Firstly, I am not sure this is correct. Everyone has a normal jump distance, and then you can roll Athletics to surpass that. I don't know why a rogue can't roll exceptionally well and not alert a spider through websense. In fact, this seems like exactly the kind of thing that someone with a really high check could do.

In practical games, that aren't "high OP", the DM is free to adjudicate things however they want. They are not bound by the black letters in the book to only do what is explicitly said.

Secondly, who can approach this spider without alerting it? What sort of magic are you envisioning here? Is there a clear path in the air that you're seeing, and a high level wizard that is going to cast Fly on everyone? What sort of magic do you see bypassing this?

Quote:

---

Without, something like this, Expertise at high levels, often is just "win more", which is not particularly useful.

---

It is, actually. Consistency is a good thing. Part of the problem of playing a big strong barbarian, as an example, is that you can still regularly fail Strength checks. There is value in consistently being able to do things that reflect what your character is good at.