What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Schwann145]

In my experience, opinions on Rogue are either "it's one of the best classes," or "it's one of the worst" with very little middle ground.

For those who find the class lacking, what specifically drives that opinion? What do you think it needs?

[clash]

Rogues have a lot going for them. They are very SAD, they can engage in every pillar of play. The problem with rogues is damage. Rogues are like monks where if they jump through the right hooks they can keep up with damage in non optimized play but they have no options to keep up with damage in an optimized game.

[Witty Username]

Rogue has a couple pretty powerful subclasses for that.

The issue is the traditional paths of optimization don't work as advertised because they assume extra attack.

If Archery + Sharpshooter + crossbow expert isn't the only acceptable way to play, rogue is fine.

[Skrum]

Bonus action overload, kinda low damage ceiling, fragile, poor combat presence, and bad scaling. Oh and no resources.

The core problem is they are a skill class in a game that didn't develope skills properly. They're fundamentally at odds with the system.

Still have some useful dips though. Cunning Action is a great ability - but like a lot of abilities in the game, it works a lot better on classes that aren't the class that gets the ability.

[J-H]

Rogues, like monks, do well in a complex environment where mobility and agility come into play, and they have opportunities to hide or hit-and-run. In a large open room, the only advantage they have is being faster - which puts them closer to the enemy than the party tanks faster.

Their damage output is also dependent upon triggering Sneak Attack, and is otherwise lower than that of a cleric in melee (clerics at least get 3d8+str by level 20). Only one subclass has spells to help, and the others have features that mostly contribute to movement. As a result, at higher levels they feel less and less relevant, as the only thing they can contribute to taking down an enemy is 11d6+5 damage (around 40), +- any weapon effects.

Barbarians can hit hard or auto-win wrestling, Paladins can smite and have spells, Rangers have a few decent spells and more powerful subclass features, Fighters can attack 8 times, monks can go invisible and stun, and even artificers usually have 3 attacks with one or more riders attached.

Aside from Arcane Trickster and a few other subclass functions, rogues depend upon skills or items for their crowd control options (Athletics, caltrops, ball bearings), but lack the stat support or multiple attacks to really take advantage of them, and the item-based CC doesn't grow with levels.

They are decently survivable against single foes, but Uncanny Dodge only works against one attack, and their AC is, at best, equal with a rangers, and lags behind that of more dedicated martial classes.

Feats help (Mobile, Poisoner) but still don't make up the gap in my mind.

At low levels (2-10) rogues are pretty good, but in my opinion they fall off after that unless they can pick up a good array of items that expand their options with things like spider climbing, blindsight, or extra attacks (weapons of speed).

[Dork_Forge]

I've only ever experienced this narrative here and in certain other 'optimization' circles and it basically boils down to them 'not doing enough damage' or 'not having avenues to increase damage much' a lot of the time. I don't think either of those arguments hold water, much like I don't agree with the hate the Monk class gets in the same circles. There are aspects to both classes that are difficult to represent in 'look at my math!' type arguments and some folks on the internet have expectations of damage completely divorced from what the game expects and instead get caught up in class to class comparisons and 'well a martial is meant to deal damage!'



As for an actual issue I have with them? The subclass levels were a massive fumble, waiting 6 levels for your next subclass feature feels bad and is too often anticlimactic or unreached because 9 is pretty high for most tables. They should have just got it at 6 along with the Expertise increase.

[Psyren]

For those who find the class lacking, what specifically drives that opinion? What do you think it needs?

Cunning Strike and Weapon Mastery

...Ok, to elaborate - What they needed most were ways to be more of team player in combat beyond getting their extra damage when an ally is near {target}, which Cunning Strike's suite of debuffs help them do. As for why - lacking spells in most cases, offensive subclass abilities in most cases, and the ability to be a solid frontliner (low defenses, low grapple/shove ability, weak strength etc) they weren't get a lot to do in combat utility-wise. CS and WM help to bridge that gap.

WM didn't do as much on the debuff front, however Nick Mastery does go quite a ways to alleviating their bonus action crowding problem.

[Dork_Forge]

Cunning Strike and Weapon Mastery

...Ok, to elaborate - What they needed most were ways to be more of team player in combat beyond getting their extra damage when an ally is near {target}, which Cunning Strike's suite of debuffs help them do. As for why - lacking spells in most cases, offensive subclass abilities in most cases, and the ability to be a solid frontliner (low defenses, low grapple/shove ability, weak strength etc) they weren't get a lot to do in combat utility-wise. CS and WM help to bridge that gap.

WM didn't do as much on the debuff front, however Nick Mastery does go quite a ways to alleviating their bonus action crowding problem.

I'm a 5e baby, did Rogues have that stuff previously?

And for the bolded:

I just.. don't understand?

Between Uncanny Dodge and Evasion their defenses are pretty solid (and with mundane gear they're looking at a low-effort AC 17 top). They won't do it all day but they can fill in for frontline pretty well and can be built to do it even better.

And with how Grapple/Shove works in 5e, Expertise lets them excel at it with really minimal investment.

[Skrum]

I've only ever experienced this narrative here and in certain other 'optimization' circles and it basically boils down to them 'not doing enough damage' or 'not having avenues to increase damage much' a lot of the time. I don't think either of those arguments hold water, much like I don't agree with the hate the Monk class gets in the same circles. There are aspects to both classes that are difficult to represent in 'look at my math!' type arguments and some folks on the internet have expectations of damage completely divorced from what the game expects and instead get caught up in class to class comparisons and 'well a martial is meant to deal damage!'

I mean, 5e did do a good job of making (almost) every option playable. Rogue isn't useless and even I, who thinks rogue is the weakest class, don't think its utterly without value or unplayable or something. But a class has to get the ignoble spot of Worst, and rogue has a lot of problems.

I'll even add this: a game where the entire party was rogues and the DM was catering to rogue strengths, that sounds like a blast. A kind of open world, semi-realism type game, rogue would excel. Unfortunately though that's really not what other classes do, and most games aren't run that way. Between the lack of resources and the heavy skill focus, rogue is literally built like the game isn't played the way it's played.

Between Uncanny Dodge and Evasion their defenses are pretty solid (and with mundane gear they're looking at a low-effort AC 17 top). They won't do it all day but they can fill in for frontline pretty well and can be built to do it even better.

And with how Grapple/Shove works in 5e, Expertise lets them excel at it with really minimal investment.

Rogues can't shove and grapple very well cause they don't have extra attack. Fighters don't get expertise but they are often str focused and they get twice as many tries as rogue - or more likely, can shove and still attack once. Rogues have to commit their entire action.

Evasion is a good ability, no question. But it doesn't come up all the time

Uncanny Dodge is good, if the tactic is to only occasionally get tagged and then run away. So, it works for rogue in a narrow sense: but it means rogues have terrible presence. And if rogue is always running away, well I hope your teammates can take hits. Rogue can't tank or CC and their damage is middling. That's not a great place to be.

[J-H]

I'm a 5e baby, did Rogues have that stuff previously?

No, and the adoption rate of D&D2024 is questionable. Also, it removes the ability for rogues to get sneak attack damage with reaction attacks (Battlemaster, Dissonant Whispers, OAs, etc.) so there's a net nerf at least for parties that work together to set up extra piles of d6s.

I just.. don't understand?

Between Uncanny Dodge and Evasion their defenses are pretty solid (and with mundane gear they're looking at a low-effort AC 17 top). They won't do it all day but they can fill in for frontline pretty well and can be built to do it even better.

AC 17: A basic skeleton (+4 to hit) requires a 13, meaning they have a 40% hit rate. AC 21 (plate + shield + Defense style): A basic skeleton requires a 17 to hit, or a 20% hit rate. Against enemies appropriate for low level characters, a rogue gets hit twice as often as a heavy-armor/sword and board fighter(/paladin/cleric/etc.).

Against, say, a dragon with +10 to hit, the dragon needs a 7 or higher, meaning it has a 70% hit rate, vs against our same AC 21 comparison, the dragon needs an 11, for a 50% hit rate. The rogue is going to get hit 40% more often than the fighter.

At level 20 with +3 gear for everything and a tome, which is the best a rogue can get, the rogue has Dex 22 and is running Studded Leather +3 for an AC of 21. A fighter(/etc.) with +3 plate and a +3 shield has AC 27 with the Defense fighting style. Again, against an enemy with +15 to hit (str 28, PB +6), the rogue has a 75% chance to get hit while the martial has a 45% chance to get hit... so the rogue gets hit almost twice as much.

The rogue's only native way to mitigate the damage of getting hit a lot more is Uncanny dodge, which works against one attack. Getting shot at by 6 skeletons? It doesn't help much. Getting attacked 3 times by a dragon? It helps some, but not as much as not being hit by an attack would. Using Uncanny Dodge also burns the ability to make a second attack (for more sneak attack damage).

Evasion is pretty good, although it fails to help against Cone of Cold, Synaptic Static, Hold Person, Banishment, etc. etc. It's only one saving throw out of six possible, and the higher level you are, the more often you can expect to face enemies that do more than just Evoke at you.

And with how Grapple/Shove works in 5e, Expertise lets them excel at it with really minimal investment.

Yes, if they give up damage. Grapple/shove sub in for iterative attacks. At level 5, any class with Extra Attack can grapple and shove in the same turn. Rogues can grapple in round 1 and shove in round 2, and then start getting to attack with advantage in round 3. The only way around this is to be a TWF rogue, take the attack action by shoving, and then making an off-hand attack as a BA to try to land the sneak attack damage. Rogues can get a higher skill number, but they don't have the action economy to deploy it effectively without a teammate. If you want to make a grapple/shove rogue and you're not chasing that level 18 quasi-capstone, take 5 levels in Fighter to pick up a fighting style, Extra Attack, and a subclass feature. Giving up 2d6-3d6 (7 or 11 damage) of sneak attack for an entire extra attack (1d6+4 or about 7 damage plus options) is worth it.

[Witty Username]

No, and the adoption rate of D&D2024 is questionable. Also, it removes the ability for rogues to get sneak attack damage with reaction attacks (Battlemaster, Dissonant Whispers, OAs, etc.) so there's a net nerf at least for parties that work together to set up extra piles of d6s.

As I recall, that particular change was reversed in the playtest material.


--
As far as I know from optimization circles,
First they said Ranger was the weakest class,
Then some said monk was the weakest class,
and some further still said the rogue was the weakest class,

And finally one said barbarian was the weakest class,
And all agreed barbarain was the weakest class

As a reminder of how tight this argument has been, I still think monk is the bottom of the barrel, but it is not a very deep barrel.

[Dork_Forge]

I mean, 5e did do a good job of making (almost) every option playable. Rogue isn't useless and even I, who thinks rogue is the weakest class, don't think its utterly without value or unplayable or something. But a class has to get the ignoble spot of Worst, and rogue has a lot of problems.

I'll even add this: a game where the entire party was rogues and the DM was catering to rogue strengths, that sounds like a blast. A kind of open world, semi-realism type game, rogue would excel. Unfortunately though that's really not what other classes do, and most games aren't run that way. Between the lack of resources and the heavy skill focus, rogue is literally built like the game isn't played the way it's played.

Yeah I get 'one must be bottom thing' I just don't think it should be Rogue.

As for how Rogues do in games, I've never seen a Rogue do poorly (outside of die rolls) and I've never encountered a player dissatisfied with a work. Small sample size, but it's probably a couple dozen, probably more, at this point either playing with them or DMing them, leaving my experience actually playing them aside.

Rogues can't shove and grapple very well cause they don't have extra attack. Fighters don't get expertise but they are often str focused and they get twice as many tries as rogue - or more likely, can shove and still attack once. Rogues have to commit their entire action.

Extra Attack is nice, but it Grapple/Shove was brought up in context of helping out team mates/contributing outside of hitting and a Rogue is pretty darn good at knocking someone over or locking them down. They can't do it all in one turn, but most likely those that will be dedicating their entire turn to it as well.

Remember, I didn't say they were the best at it, but Expertise and the ability to close large gaps in a single turn and still do it makes them better than most at it. Heck, they're a great dip to take for those looking to be good at it with Extra Attack too.

Evasion is a good ability, no question. But it doesn't come up all the time

Of course

Uncanny Dodge is good, if the tactic is to only occasionally get tagged and then run away. So, it works for rogue in a narrow sense: but it means rogues have terrible presence. And if rogue is always running away, well I hope your teammates can take hits. Rogue can't tank or CC and their damage is middling. That's not a great place to be.

Yes, Uncanny Dodge makes skirmishing whilst risking OAs work well. However, being able to halve attack damage on demand is a fantastic defense and they have a good enough AC and enough hit points that, when combined with Uncanny Dodge, they can step in at the front for a few rounds as an substitute tank pretty handily.

I'm assuming all of this criticism is of the main chassis, because the subclasses most definitely cover some of these complaints, but in no way shape or form is Sneak Attack Rogue damage 'middling' unless a table is consistently running considerably tougher than average or the party is engaging in a competition involving a wall and bodily fluid regarding damage.

[Psyren]

Also, it removes the ability for rogues to get sneak attack damage with reaction attacks (Battlemaster, Dissonant Whispers, OAs, etc.)

That change was reverted, rogues can SA once per turn again now.

I'm a 5e baby, did Rogues have that stuff previously?

I can't speak for 4e - but in 3.5, all Rogues could UMD, not just a single subclass, and getting your hands on magic items (especially consumables) to use it with was much easier / more readily assumed due to WBL being a baseline expectation. Moreover, their offense had a higher ceiling when optimized since sneak attack triggers on every hit rather than once per turn.

And for the bolded:

I just.. don't understand?

Between Uncanny Dodge and Evasion their defenses are pretty solid (and with mundane gear they're looking at a low-effort AC 17 top). They won't do it all day but they can fill in for frontline pretty well and can be built to do it even better.

What's not to understand? UD works on a single attack per round. By the time you have that 17 AC (8th level at the absolute earliest barring CL) most things you're fighting have multiple attacks. Being in the front also usually means plenty of Con and Str saves, e.g. things trying to poison you. They don't have shield proficiency and have d8 HD.

And with how Grapple/Shove works in 5e, Expertise lets them excel at it with really minimal investment.

It makes them not suck to be sure, but you're overselling Athletics Expertise. Most Rogues have a 10 Str if not 8, so your Expertise in Athletics still puts you behind a Str-based character with simple proficiency at most levels in an actual campaign. They catch up at around level 13, where most campaigns end. And even if you do all that, you're giving up your entire action to use it, compared to a Fighter or Barbarian or Paladin who isn't.

You could instead invest in Str + Athletics Expertise, but then you're making yourself a worse rogue to be better at something that someone else in the party can probably do more easily instead.

[Witty Username]

On the subject of saves, Rogues have the third best spread of defenses (monk at second barely, and Paladin in front by a full country mile)

When slipery mind comes online they have
Dex, Int and Wis
With Resilient they can take another, in optimized crowds this is usually Con

So they have proficiency against all 3 major saves, and 2 of them will tend to have significant investment (Dex and Con)

Along with evasion which will no sell a bunch of dangerous damage effects, save wise defenses are pretty good, heck they will trend better than monk since they are less reliant on feats for optimized damage lines, and resilient is not a dead pick by high level. Monk only passes a the 14th level point because Strength and Charisma saves will sometimes matter.

Oh and the One D&D stuff is looking to give them Charisma save proficiency as well as Wisdom. Which if that makes it through will make this argument stronger.

[Dork_Forge]

I can't speak for 4e - but in 3.5, all Rogues could UMD, not just a single subclass, and getting your hands on magic items (especially consumables) to use it with was much easier / more readily assumed due to WBL being a baseline expectation. Moreover, their offense had a higher ceiling when optimized since sneak attack triggers on every hit rather than once per turn.

So a bit higher damage, but with how items are in 5e not a whole lot missing comparatively.

What's not to understand? UD works on a single attack per round. By the time you have that 17 AC (8th level at the absolute earliest barring CL) most things you're fighting have multiple attacks. Being in the front also usually means plenty of Con and Str saves, e.g. things trying to poison you. They don't have shield proficiency and have d8 HD.

As a character occasionally stepping in to fill the roll the tank for somereason can't at that moment, they do just fine.

Yes things often have multiple attacks, more attacks typically also means lower damage hits and less damage from an attack is still less damage from an attack. Again, for occasionally stepping in, they do just fine and better than a lot of nontank classes. As for the AC, in actual play with a full build it's no where near as restrictive, heck there's a lot of races now that bump it up to 13+Dex and getting med+shields is frustratingly easy in 5e, nevermind AT with Shield.

It makes them not suck to be sure, but you're overselling Athletics Expertise. Most Rogues have a 10 Str if not 8, so your Expertise in Athletics still puts you behind a Str-based character with simple proficiency at most levels in an actual campaign. They catch up at around level 13, where most campaigns end. And even if you do all that, you're giving up your entire action to use it, compared to a Fighter or Barbarian or Paladin who isn't.

You could instead invest in Str + Athletics Expertise, but then you're making yourself a worse rogue to be better at something that someone else in the party can probably do more easily instead.

Hot take, a Rogue that intends to do any degree of grapple/shoving or just likes the idea of their character not being built like a twig doesn't hard dump Str. Getting a +1 Str is so trivial it isn't really much of an investment, an example array before racials:

12 15 13 10 11 12

Dex is still on pace to max at 8th, with room to take a half feat at 4th (say, Moderately Armored is a Dex half feat that seems relevant to the conversation), with Con primed to be a +2 and a +1 Charisma for face stuff with no hard dumps of 8, because I dislike them. dump Int and that frees up a couple points to throw around.

A +1 Str and Ath Expertise means that the Rogue is going to be on par with Str characters up until 8th level, where they briefly pull ahead by one before it equalised again at 9th.

So not behind at all really besides one level at 8th, with barely any investment. But if they actually want to invest more, or say just have a higher number to put from a roll (since rolled stats are a thing some people do) a simple +2 puts them ahead with increasing gains from there. You don't have to be a StRogue to not have a crappy Str score.

Heck, if it's a Rogue that's actually more than the base class and actually thought 'you know I might want to grapple/shove' or 'it might be fun to be a Rogue that is pretty strong' then they could easily pump further.

A Giff gives permanent advantage, two (?) different races give appendages to grapple with full hands, Soul Knives get Psi-Bolstered Knack, AT's get Silvery Barbs and probably other stuff.

And even if they just go with the +1, yeah being able to score your checks like a Str primary character is still a pretty good bar to be hitting.

I never said they were the best at any of the things being corrected, but they certainly are good enough to do them from time to time.

---

No, and the adoption rate of D&D2024 is questionable.

Thanks for that, tbh I fell off the 2024 stuff pretty hard so have lost touch with a lot of the changes, and wasn't a fan of what I saw anyway.

AC 17: A basic skeleton (+4 to hit) requires a 13, meaning they have a 40% hit rate. AC 21 (plate + shield + Defense style): A basic skeleton requires a 17 to hit, or a 20% hit rate. Against enemies appropriate for low level characters, a rogue gets hit twice as often as a heavy-armor/sword and board fighter(/paladin/cleric/etc.).

Against, say, a dragon with +10 to hit, the dragon needs a 7 or higher, meaning it has a 70% hit rate, vs against our same AC 21 comparison, the dragon needs an 11, for a 50% hit rate. The rogue is going to get hit 40% more often than the fighter.

At level 20 with +3 gear for everything and a tome, which is the best a rogue can get, the rogue has Dex 22 and is running Studded Leather +3 for an AC of 21. A fighter(/etc.) with +3 plate and a +3 shield has AC 27 with the Defense fighting style. Again, against an enemy with +15 to hit (str 28, PB +6), the rogue has a 75% chance to get hit while the martial has a 45% chance to get hit... so the rogue gets hit almost twice as much.

The rogue's only native way to mitigate the damage of getting hit a lot more is Uncanny dodge, which works against one attack. Getting shot at by 6 skeletons? It doesn't help much. Getting attacked 3 times by a dragon? It helps some, but not as much as not being hit by an attack would. Using Uncanny Dodge also burns the ability to make a second attack (for more sneak attack damage).

I feel the need to again clarify here:

I am not saying the base Rogue is a good tank, I am saying they are hardy enough that in dire times they can step up to the plate and get smacked around for the team. Which they are. I run a higher level game where the (mostly) Bard takes that roll sometimes simply because they have the most HP left at that point by far.

As for the comparison I don't really think it amounts to much tbh, of course a heavy armor Fighter building for AC and getting two +3 items to the Rogues one. If you actually built a Rogue for AC they wouldn't cap out at 21, heck an AT with Shield doesn't cap out at 21 with no other help or build considerations. They aren't the best at AC, again what I said was that their AC is decent enough. And boosting that AC is pretty darn trivial in an actual build.

Evasion is pretty good, although it fails to help against Cone of Cold, Synaptic Static, Hold Person, Banishment, etc. etc. It's only one saving throw out of six possible, and the higher level you are, the more often you can expect to face enemies that do more than just Evoke at you.

Of course there are things outside of Dex saves, that doesn't take away from the fact that Dex is one of the most common saves in the game.

What I said was Evasion is a good defensive feature, because it just is. I never claimed in anyway that it was a be-all-end-all. But combining it with UA, a d8 Hit Die and decent AC means the Rogue isn't a squishy class, classes being tougher than them (and they should be, that's what their design and thematic are) doesn't take away from my point.

Yes, if they give up damage. Grapple/shove sub in for iterative attacks. At level 5, any class with Extra Attack can grapple and shove in the same turn. Rogues can grapple in round 1 and shove in round 2, and then start getting to attack with advantage in round 3. The only way around this is to be a TWF rogue, take the attack action by shoving, and then making an off-hand attack as a BA to try to land the sneak attack damage. Rogues can get a higher skill number, but they don't have the action economy to deploy it effectively without a teammate. If you want to make a grapple/shove rogue and you're not chasing that level 18 quasi-capstone, take 5 levels in Fighter to pick up a fighting style, Extra Attack, and a subclass feature. Giving up 2d6-3d6 (7 or 11 damage) of sneak attack for an entire extra attack (1d6+4 or about 7 damage plus options) is worth it.

You don't need to Grapple and Shove every time and it was brought up in a teamwork capacity. Yes Extra Attack is a big part of making a character that wants to focus on that kind of thing work well.

That doesn't detract from the fact that a Rogue can be above average at the roll should they want to with minimal investment and that it is an option they can utilize if they want/the situation dictates.

Heck, one situation that comes to mind is a oneshot where a fiend tried to run away to alert the others. As a Monk in that game I ran him down and stopped him easily, but thinking on it a CA:Dash Rogue with Athletics Expertise would have worked just as well with how it went down. Niche? Sure, but a real example that came to mind that I had as a player.

[Skrum]

Yeah I get 'one must be bottom thing' I just don't think it should be Rogue.

Who would you put?

As for how Rogues do in games, I've never seen a Rogue do poorly (outside of die rolls) and I've never encountered a player dissatisfied with a work. Small sample size, but it's probably a couple dozen, probably more, at this point either playing with them or DMing them, leaving my experience actually playing them aside.

They function but they don't impress. At least that's me. They're just kinda there, plunking away. They have an extremely replacement-level feel; like any class could be subbed in and not a single thing the rogue was doing would be missed.

Heck, they're a great dip to take for those looking to be good at it with Extra Attack too.

Rogue is a fun dip, no argument there.

I'm assuming all of this criticism is of the main chassis, because the subclasses most definitely cover some of these complaints, but in no way shape or form is Sneak Attack Rogue damage 'middling' unless a table is consistently running considerably tougher than average or the party is engaging in a competition involving a wall and bodily fluid regarding damage.

A level 8 rogue with 20 dex and a +1 shortbow that deals an additional 2d6 on the first hit each attack action (this is literally an affix my table has added to make up for rogue getting kinda screwed by +d6 per hit weapons) deals 30.14 DPR

A level 8 barb with 18 str, GWM*, and a +1 greatsword that adds d6 damage to each hit deals 37.25

These items are quite representative of the table I play at...but let's see how rogue fairs with just +1 weaponry (everything else the same)

rogue: 23.09
barb: 32.09

Not so good! Yes rogue can pinch-hit for certain martially stuff, like taking a hit or landing a shove. But they largely just run away and deal damage. And...it's not that much damage. Barbs are also not a good class, but they at least 1) deal a chunk of damage, and 2) are a presence on the battlefield.

*my first scenario I gave rogue sharpshooter and 18 dex...it made their damage go down

[Psyren]

I am saying they are hardy enough that in dire times they can step up to the plate and get smacked around for the team.

Dire indeed.

Who would you put?

Not directed at me but I think 2014 Monk is worse off. Ranger though gets a far worse rap than it should, even using the crappy 2014 features their spells and the rest of their chassis make up for it imo, and they like rogues get way more to do in the other two pillars. (Well, one of the others at least.)

[Witty Username]

What is the AC you are using for those numbers? From the barbarian that looks like a 73% accuracy by my quick crunch?

[Dr.Samurai]

I will echo what JH has said as far as having the right environments for rogues to excel in. Often times when people repeat sweeping generalizations about a class, the assumptions don't really line up with actual play (hence white room optimization).

For me, whenever it comes time to make a character and select a class... I can't really ever get over the fact that their second subclass feature comes online at level nine. Other classes are 1 level away from their THIRD feature, as opposed to just getting their second feature. It's just way too late in the lifespan of a campaign (generally).

That said, a dedicated skill monkey with Expertise, subclass skill features, bonus action mobility, and eventually Reliable Talent would be great in a party. In our current party, it's a crap shoot who will attempt what skill check, because we all have poor modifiers to most of them.

[Skrum]

Not directed at me but I think 2014 Monk is worse off. Ranger though gets a far worse rap than it should, even using the crappy 2014 features their spells and the rest of their chassis make up for it imo, and they like rogues get way more to do in the other two pillars. (Well, one of the others at least.)

Monk is probably my runner-up, but I put it ahead of rogue because 1) mercy and shadow are legit subclasses, and 2) monks actually scale, oddly enough. It takes them awhile but somewhere around level 7 or 8 monks actually get enough ki they can start to function. Rogue only gets worse as the levels advance.

[Skrum]

What is the AC you are using for those numbers? From the barbarian that looks like a 73% accuracy by my quick crunch?

16. Probably on the high side, but personally I care a lot less how a class handles mooks. That's what fireball is for. I wanna know how it fares against the boss or other tough threat.

[Witty Username]

16. Probably on the high side, but personally I care a lot less how a class handles mooks. That's what fireball is for. I wanna know how it fares against the boss or other tough threat.

Hm, I only get a ~18 dpr by that math on Barbarian Vs the ~ 14 for the rogue.

Are you assuming both Reckless Attack and Rage up?

That is assuming 20 stat each, and I left out the +1 weapon stuff

[Skrum]

Hm, I only get a ~18 dpr by that math on Barbarian Vs the ~ 14 for the rogue.

Are you assuming both Reckless Attack and Rage up?

That is assuming 20 stat each, and I left out the +1 weapon stuff

I'm assuming adv attack for each; reckless and rage for the barb and steady aim for the rogue. Basically, ideal conditions for both classes.

I'm using this to calculate it. My fav tool :)

[Dork_Forge]

Who would you put?

In terms of design? Wizard.

In terms of effectiveness? It'd be joint between several probably, if I had to pick one maybe PHB Ranger without the later subclasses or spells. With the heavy caveat that anyone can do fine playing anything.

They function but they don't impress. At least that's me. They're just kinda there, plunking away. They have an extremely replacement-level feel; like any class could be subbed in and not a single thing the rogue was doing would be missed.

Eh, the reactions from tables when a Rogue destroys a check are always amusing and the excitement over their crits is second only to a Paladin with slots to burn. For impressing then things get a lot more niche or you have to actually talk about specific Rogues. Like I've played a Tabaxi Soul Knife that has certainly left party mates impressed with what he could do.

As for subbing in just anyone... not really. At bare minimum that sub needs to be a skill monkey or that party needs to be covering skills well. Realistically, they'd be missed for scouting potential without specific replacements (I don't subscribe to the familiars are the best scouts nonsense).

A level 8 rogue with 20 dex and a +1 shortbow that deals an additional 2d6 on the first hit each attack action (this is literally an affix my table has added to make up for rogue getting kinda screwed by +d6 per hit weapons) deals 30.14 DPR

A level 8 barb with 18 str, GWM*, and a +1 greatsword that adds d6 damage to each hit deals 37.25

These items are quite representative of the table I play at...but let's see how rogue fairs with just +1 weaponry (everything else the same)

rogue: 23.09
barb: 32.09

Not so good! Yes rogue can pinch-hit for certain martially stuff, like taking a hit or landing a shove. But they largely just run away and deal damage. And...it's not that much damage. Barbs are also not a good class, but they at least 1) deal a chunk of damage, and 2) are a presence on the battlefield.

*my first scenario I gave rogue sharpshooter and 18 dex...it made their damage go down

I thought I already mentioned this somewhere in the thread but yeah, this confirms it. Problems with Rogue damage often come up when people start comparing PC damage options.

How much damage a Barbarian does with GWM (an outlier feat) doesn't mean that a Rogue is bad or middling at damage by the expectations or even by the average of what PCs are actually doing.


Your comparison leaves out that the Rogue has traded damage for the safety of ranged and doesn't clarify (that I saw) if the Rogue was grabbing advantage from either Cunning Shot or Hiding. (Yes Barbs have Reckless, and Barbs get smacked in the face more for it).

I don't like the whole accuracy adjusted DPR thing for multiple reasons, so I'm just going to deal with average damage because I think that's more valuable.

Soulknife Rogue with +5 Dex and Thrown Weapon style (8th level):

5d6+1d4+14 = 34 avg. consistently with the safety of ranged and a massively higher accuracy than the GWM Barbarian, with safer to attain advantage sources.

An AT Rogue can use a Shadowblade and mix in (temporarily probably) help from a familiar.

Doing less damage than a Barbarian with GWM is not bad damage. Heck, it's not even reasonable to call that 'middling' damage, the only natural conclusion to that is that anyone doing less damage than a SA Rogue is doing 'bad' damage, which is just completely out of whack with the game.

It's literally just people comparing PC options, most of the time ones known to be unbalanced outliers, and often missing the reality for the math. I had a table with a GWM Battlemaster on it, the frustration he felt missing GWM shots on easy AC targets was palpable and not infrequent.

I never thought I'd have to defend Rogues, but I guess it's a change of pace from defending Monks? *shrug*

[Skrum]

5d6+1d4+14 = 34 avg. consistently with the safety of ranged and a massively higher accuracy than the GWM Barbarian, with safer to attain advantage sources.

The problem is you're not factoring in that barbs (and fighters, monks, paladins, rangers, artificers...) all get 2 attacks. That's like. The point lol.

Also, you're saying "from safety" like it's a merit to the rogue. One of my complaints about rogue is exactly that - they do their little sneak attack business, and then scram. Well the rest of the party is just sitting there, getting attacked. Those attacks don't just disappear cause the rogue isn't in range - they get directed at someone else. Barb deals better damage AND can take a beating. That's two things. The rogue does one.

I'm not setting out to convince you of anything, so if you enjoy rogues, by all means, continue to do just that. I just, yah know. Won't agree lol.

[JNAProductions]

A level 8 rogue with 20 dex and a +1 shortbow that deals an additional 2d6 on the first hit each attack action (this is literally an affix my table has added to make up for rogue getting kinda screwed by +d6 per hit weapons) deals 30.14 DPR

A level 8 barb with 18 str, GWM*, and a +1 greatsword that adds d6 damage to each hit deals 37.25

Imma do a spreadsheet for this.

Find it here.

At AC 16, the Rogue is better than a non-GWM Barbarian under these circumstances.
With GWM, they do about 4.5 less damage per turn, assuming advantage.

[Psyren]

Monk is probably my runner-up, but I put it ahead of rogue because 1) mercy and shadow are legit subclasses, and 2) monks actually scale, oddly enough. It takes them awhile but somewhere around level 7 or 8 monks actually get enough ki they can start to function. Rogue only gets worse as the levels advance.

Rogues scale better than Monks imo, particularly 11+ where monks usually plateau. And if we're comparing specific subclasses, well, I'll take an Arcane Trickster or Soulknife over a Shadow or Mercy any day - though I suppose your DM's willingness to let PWT be an on-demand Surprise Button can change the power math on that.

For me, whenever it comes time to make a character and select a class... I can't really ever get over the fact that their second subclass feature comes online at level nine. Other classes are 1 level away from their THIRD feature, as opposed to just getting their second feature. It's just way too late in the lifespan of a campaign (generally).

I definitely hate this too, and it's the thing I'm saddest about from standardadized subclass progression not making it through the playtest. (Well, that, and the fact that now we can't have universal subclasses as a result.

But if there was any consolation prize that would make me feel better about what happened - WM, CS, and level 1 feat would do the trick.

[JNAProductions]

Note: The SA Dice and Stat Bonuses might look off in the Spreadsheet.

That's because the Rogue does +2d6 on a hit (from magic item) and has +1 hit and damage (same).
The Barbarian has an extra 1d6 damage built into every attack, and the Strength boost reflects the +1 to-hit and -damage.

[Skrum]

Rogues scale better than Monks imo, particularly 11+ where monks usually plateau. And if we're comparing specific subclasses, well, I'll take an Arcane Trickster or Soulknife over a Shadow or Mercy any day - though I suppose your DM's willingness to let PWT be an on-demand Surprise Button can change the power math on that.

I sorta see the arcane trickster being strong; they get spells, which are the easiest way to tell if a class is a good or not. Personally I think their glacial spell progression is both wildly unnecessary and too little to make up for general rogue shortcomings. But still - good subclass.

Soulknife, I just don't see it. They get...some "unarmed strikes" that don't usually matter? A boost to skills that rogue doesn't need? And...a janky, unpredictable teleport? Group telepathy is the most interesting thing, but it's about 2 steps from ribbon. I struggle to even contrive a situation where it MATTERS. Fun, for sure, but that's about it.

[Skrum]

Note: The SA Dice and Stat Bonuses might look off in the Spreadsheet.

That's because the Rogue does +2d6 on a hit (from magic item) and has +1 hit and damage (same).
The Barbarian has an extra 1d6 damage built into every attack, and the Strength boost reflects the +1 to-hit and -damage.

Against AC 19 rogue is slightly ahead! That's a feather in their cap at least. Pretty cool chart.