What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[JellyPooga]

The catch is that for warlocks, Y = "abilities that need an hour's rest to recharge", and this is not an expected part of the game.
Likewise, the catch is that for rogues, Y = "being better at skills than bounded accuracy allows", and this is not an expected part of the game either.
So "things that do Y are weak" applies here because Y is not an expected part of the game.

There's a difference between what the game expects and what players are doing and I think you are conflating the two. The game expects Rogues to break the usual paradigm of what most characters can do with regard to skills. Players often expect that all characters should have that because GMs are raising the bar to continue to challenge the Rogues higher bounds. If Players are changing the game expectations to match their own due to how a specific GM is running the game, then elements like the Rogue which are designed to function or excel in that area are going to be downplayed because the Players changed the goalposts. Is that the fault of the player or the game? Similar for Warlocks; if players are saying "an hour is too long for short rests so we don't take them", then that's absolutely their fault if the Warlock appears underpowered, because it's the game that expects parties to take short rests.

So like. What's your point. That we're wrong about rogues being weak? That we're wrong about the reasons people think rogues are weak? (Whether rogues are weak or not they certainly have that reputation!).

The sample build you gave, it looks solid. Good even, in the right game. Idk that it would excel at the table I play at, but that doesn't say very much; it's just one table.

I still have to question how it scales though. Level 7, 8, 9, IME melee characters really need AC in the low 20's. It'd be low - but sure, they'd have uncanny dodge, which.... Well it sorta works. I strongly suspect it'd be pushed back into a skirmishing roll though. Which leads back to all of my of original critiques of rogue (lack of presence, generally poor contributions, a feeling of "below replacement level")

Essentially, yes, my point is that if you see Rogues as weak for the reasons being given (largely speaking that they don't match up in combat), then your perspective is too narrow and you need to look at the broader value of what they do bring to the table a little closer. If the games you play in don't value the things the Rogue exemplifies, then yeah, that there is why you perceive them as weak; not that they are per se. It goes back to my contention that Sneak Attack is a Cantrip; everyone sees the prominence of it on the Class Features table (because it takes up a lot of real estate) and stops there, assuming that it's what the Class is all about, in the same way one might look at the Wizard or Clerics table of Spell Slots by level and assume that's what the main class focus is. Only in the latter case it's true and the former it's a bit misleading. The Rogue is not, primarily, a combat focused Class. It's well established and accepted that Rogues simply do not contribute in combat as effectively as many other Classes; they're decent enough, but by no means a front-runner (except maybe before level 4). That's not under contention. The argument doesn't stop there though, because the Rogue is bringing more to the table where many of the classes they're being compared to do not. Yes, there's outliers, particularly in some later released material, but few do so across the board or as flexibly.

As for my sample build, this is what it looks like at level 9 (I have this build saved as a template at levels 1,5,9,13,17 & 20);
Attack: +1 Rapier, +9 melee (1d8+5d6+5 (27) piercing)
AC: 21 = 16 (+1 Half-plate) +2 (Dex) +3 (+1 Shield), HP: 75
Str: 18 (+4), Dex: 14 (+2), Con: 16 (+3), Int: 10 (+0), Wis: 12 (+1), Cha: 8 (-1)
Saves: Str +5, Dex +6, Con +7, Int +4, Wis +1, Cha -1

Uncanny Dodge and Evasion go a long way toward extending those 75hp and I think that AC:21 with only +1 equipment at that level is probably lowballing. We can add Arcane Trickster on to this and boost that effective AC much higher with Shield, Blur, Mirror Image and more, if that's what's desired, or in a game that utilises a lot of terrain the Thief Rogue has much greater facility to add the +2 or +5 from half or three-quarter cover than almost any other class. A Fighter at the same level with the same Ability Scores only has 10 more maxHP and at most 2 points more of AC (and that if they took Defence FS, otherwise it's only 1 extra). Fighter pulls way ahead on DPR, assuming they've built built efficiently, but also doesn't have the Rogues Expertise or Cunning Action; both of which are good enough to be game-changing (or at least they should be, outside of white room exercises and in the wider context of a campaign as opposed to an encounter).

[Blatant Beast]

That's just it, they don't have to outdamage anyone. They're already near the top of the other two pillars, being top of the combat pillar too would make them overtuned. I'm okay if their damage is lower as long as it's competitive.

Expertise is available to all characters now, via a Feat. Expertise, especially in low tier play, is not that much better than the aid provided from a Guidance cantrip.

5e does not make learning new languages something the system natively supports. One either needs to take the Linguist feat, or have enough downtime in between sessions to learn a language.

A rogue dedicated to diplomacy, might simply be unable to effectively communicate, due to not being able to speak the target's language, and most rogue subclasses do not offer telepathy.

A rogue devoted to stealth, is great at hiding themselves if nothing is looking at them, but Pass w/o Trace is allowing everyone to hide. A cleric of Trickery is adding Advantage to someone else's Stealth roll from level one.

Picking locks is great, but the Silence spell, turns anyone with a hammer into a silent lockpick.

Expertise in Animal Handling? There is a spell for that....more than one in fact.
Expertise in Medicine? Not great...the same is true for Expertise in Acrobatics, (might as well take Athletics as that skill is more broadly applicable).

Expertise in Knowledge skills, also pose their own narrative issues. In a movie or a play, it would probably come across as strange that the low intelligence criminal, that comes from a long line of smuggler's, and whom has no formal education and talks like a mafia member from the movie Donny Brasco, (Thieves Cant, baby...forget about it), at level up can suddenly become one of the foremost experts on any bit of arcana or trivia.

It is like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix instantly learning Gongfu,----suddenly the rogue knows celestial mechanics and how the gods relate to the constellations, (Expertise Religion).

Even in regards to Knowledge skills, a one level dip in Knowledge cleric, might be a better option than taking Rogue levels, as the Knowledge Domain yields two Knowledge based Expertise skills, and access to medium armor and shields, access to clerical scrolls and magical items, Ritual Magic, and some first level spells.

My experience with 5e is people tend to multi-class less than in prior editions, but Rogues and Warlocks are both classes, that I have yet to see played up to 20th level as a single class character.

I've seen two high level Arcane Tricksters, played by different players, advance in a similar fashion: at most they take 11 levels of the rogue class to garner Reliable Talent, and take the rest in Bladesinger.

Extra Attack + Bladesong+ more Wizard spells, and Wizard stuff is generally better than the T4 class stuff the rogue class has. Re-do spells, such as Silvery Barbs also makes abilities like Reliable Talent, in essence weaker, because handing out Advantage to team mates is easier, and the system has a plenitude of options that do that.

Overtime, 5e has almost systemically added in features that weaken the Rogue's grasp on their own niche. BG3 has some great examples of this....one does not need a Rogue at all...stacking buffs, and using Inspiration is all one really needs to pass checks in that game.

[Kurald Galain]

The game expects Rogues to break the usual paradigm of what most characters can do with regard to skills.

No, the game does not. The game expects rogues to have a +3 bonus with most of their skills (at the levels most commonly played at), and that doesn't break any paradigm.

I'll grant that Reliable Talent is actually a game changer for rogues, but it comes online much too late.

the game that expects parties to take short rests.

The game expects the occasional short rest, but not very often and certainly not after every combat. You can tell because a short rest explicitly takes an hour (as opposed to five minutes, in the previous edition).

- Expand reliable talent to be any ability check and not just proficient ones, maybe starting at a floor of 7 in tier 2 then rising to 10 in tier 3 and 13 in tier 4.

That's a good idea; this really helps rogues find their niche.

[Amnestic]

I don't want to go down the specifics of the rules of the table I play at - but if we're assuming each character gets the same magic items, but one class started with more armor, that class will continue to have more armor.

The contention was that by the end of tier 2, a melee would need "low 20s AC", which a medium armour rogue with a shield would typically have, via magic items. They cleared the bar you asked for.

So, I don't want to just compare to paladin; that's a narrow way to critique a class or build and DND can and should contain multitudes. And yet. Paladin exists in the game lol. There's a degree of "that's what's also available."

Sure, and a plate wearing 2h paladin who takes the Blind Fighting or Interception fighting style's going to have 18 AC, plus whatever magic items he gets. That's less than the medium armour shield rogue (by 1).

And that's fine.

[Tendril]

My experience with 5e is people tend to multi-class less than in prior editions, but Rogues and Warlocks are both classes, that I have yet to see played up to 20th level as a single class character.

This touches on what I feel is a pretty big issue with the rogue. If you want a sneaky character that's good at skills, you only really need 1 or 2 levels of rogue to make that happen. Why would I want to be a level 7 rogue when I could be a fighter 5 rogue 2? Especially when considering that rogue has the weakest level 5 in the game, lacking both 3rd level spells and extra attack.

Whenever I think of making a rogue I find myself thinking "What if I just played class X instead with a rogue dip?", and pretty much always I end up feeling like rogue isn't worth investing in.

[Dr.Samurai]

Expertise is available to all characters now, via a Feat. Expertise, especially in low tier play, is not that much better than the aid provided from a Guidance cantrip.

A feat is a big investment, and only covers 1 skill; now the rogue is up 2 feats on this character. Further, Guidance requires casting a spell, which you may not want to do if you're trying to be quiet, and which may tank a social encounter if you do it in the middle of a conversation.

5e does not make learning new languages something the system natively supports. One either needs to take the Linguist feat, or have enough downtime in between sessions to learn a language.

A rogue dedicated to diplomacy, might simply be unable to effectively communicate, due to not being able to speak the target's language, and most rogue subclasses do not offer telepathy.

Sure, there may be times it doesn't work. This is true for virtually everyone. Ranger I think has the easiest time learning new languages.

A rogue devoted to stealth, is great at hiding themselves if nothing is looking at them, but Pass w/o Trace is allowing everyone to hide. A cleric of Trickery is adding Advantage to someone else's Stealth roll from level one.

This is not a guarantee. I have a -1 to Stealth AND Disadvantage and even with Pass Without Trace it's not a sure thing in our game.

Picking locks is great, but the Silence spell, turns anyone with a hammer into a silent lockpick.

Hammers are less useful against traps, which are governed by the same mechanic that allows you to pick locks.

Expertise in Animal Handling? There is a spell for that....more than one in fact.

Is there? I know you can Speak with Animals but... is that the same as getting an animal to do what you want? Or stop it from being spooked? I'm not so sure.

Also... so far we're casting Speak With Animals, Telepathy, Silence, Pass Without Trace... how many spells are we devoting to replacing the rogue?

Expertise in Medicine? Not great...the same is true for Expertise in Acrobatics, (might as well take Athletics as that skill is more broadly applicable).

This strikes me as sort of saying that when exploring, the terrain is never challenging, and any old spellcaster can walk up and cast a spell to solve the problem, or cast a spell to get to the thing and then cast another spell to solve the problem.

And then of course, the same spellcasters cast their spells in combat and end it within 2 turns.

Sounds like a very easy game of Dungeons and Dragons.

Expertise in Knowledge skills, also pose their own narrative issues. In a movie or a play, it would probably come across as strange that the low intelligence criminal, that comes from a long line of smuggler's, and whom has no formal education and talks like a mafia member from the movie Donny Brasco, (Thieves Cant, baby...forget about it), at level up can suddenly become one of the foremost experts on any bit of arcana or trivia.

It is like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix instantly learning Gongfu,----suddenly the rogue knows celestial mechanics and how the gods relate to the constellations, (Expertise Religion).

I don't find this "issue" compelling in the least. The rogue is an expert.

Even in regards to Knowledge skills, a one level dip in Knowledge cleric, might be a better option than taking Rogue levels, as the Knowledge Domain yields two Knowledge based Expertise skills, and access to medium armor and shields, access to clerical scrolls and magical items, Ritual Magic, and some first level spells.

Many people dip classes. Are we saying now that fighters and wizards are no good because they also dip other classes?

My experience with 5e is people tend to multi-class less than in prior editions, but Rogues and Warlocks are both classes, that I have yet to see played up to 20th level as a single class character.

I've seen two high level Arcane Tricksters, played by different players, advance in a similar fashion: at most they take 11 levels of the rogue class to garner Reliable Talent, and take the rest in Bladesinger.

Taking a class to third tier, gaining 4 Expertises and an extra feat, along with Reliable Talent... and this is an argument that the class is no good...

Extra Attack + Bladesong+ more Wizard spells, and Wizard stuff is generally better than the T4 class stuff the rogue class has. Re-do spells, such as Silvery Barbs also makes abilities like Reliable Talent, in essence weaker, because handing out Advantage to team mates is easier, and the system has a plenitude of options that do that.

This is symptomatic of handing every mechanic in the game to wizards on a silver platter.

Overtime, 5e has almost systemically added in features that weaken the Rogue's grasp on their own niche. BG3 has some great examples of this....one does not need a Rogue at all...stacking buffs, and using Inspiration is all one really needs to pass checks in that game.

My group hasn't found that ANY class is needed.

[Hael]

Extra attack definitely does not overpower rogues in the slightest. In fact their damage output barely moves that much. The reason is that there is an antisynergy with the usual tactics to pump up their damage numbers. For instance haste attack + ready action and using their reaction to hit sneak attack again with something like warcaster + booming blade. Both components (booming blade and ready attack) conflict somewhat with extra attack.

Extra attack only really adds a lot of dpr if you have a build that emphasizes it, eg PAM/GWM with advantage and extra damage riders (like paladin improved smite+divine smite). The bladesinger multiclass extra attack version on a rogue is better, but its still not a mega damaging build even there.

Regarding the extra pillars that rogues are supposedly good at. The problem is that skillmonkeys tend to be redundant in optimized parties in 5e. You can very much in the aggregate replace them with judicious party choices. Casters also have a great deal of tools to replicate or exceed what they do.

Scouting is a bit of a trap (again at least in the high op versions of games that I play). You are infinitely better suited to send in a druid familiar (or a druid wildshape that can fly away if something goes wrong), or eg to use divination.

And overall, they have the same problem that sorcerors have. Which is that their role is basically completely overshadowed by a better solution (the bard). IF the bard didn’t exist, you could probably push the rogue up a tier or so.

[stoutstien]

This touches on what I feel is a pretty big issue with the rogue. If you want a sneaky character that's good at skills, you only really need 1 or 2 levels of rogue to make that happen. Why would I want to be a level 7 rogue when I could be a fighter 5 rogue 2? Especially when considering that rogue has the weakest level 5 in the game, lacking both 3rd level spells and extra attack.

Whenever I think of making a rogue I find myself thinking "What if I just played class X instead with a rogue dip?", and pretty much always I end up feeling like rogue isn't worth investing in.

This is just a framing issue. Rouges don't have a weak 5th lv as much as they don't scale in spikes so it's less noticable. The gap between extra attack and SA scaling at this point is tiny unless one or the other doubles down on damage via feat investment.

[Blatant Beast]

Evasion is a huge selling point for going up to Rogue level 7, but I see your point Tendril.

Evasion, as an ability is great for keeping a Rogue unharmed, but this keeps the Rogue as a 'selfish class', often able to take care of itself, but not adding much to the group in terms of reducing a group's collective liabilities.

Last week, in a 20th level game, the 4 PCs, (including a Rogue and Monk), were facing a number of custom CR 2 yard trash creatures that had an explosive AoE demise, (DC 11 Dex save for 21 damage, half damage on save).

After several encounters, the party Bard and Fighter are a bit jacked up, even with Fire Resistance, because each foe they kill is contributing a small amount of damage to them.

Of course the PCs with Evasion have taken zero damage, from these deadman trigger explosions.
Evasion, despite increasing an individual PCs survivability, has very little influence on increasing an Adventuring Groups overall survivability.

Evasion as an ability, does not mitigate the need for a party to rest, and the rogue offering to take extended watches, because they have taken no Dex Save Damage, nor have any abilities that need recharge is just not that great of a boon.

As a matter of group composition, (which I would argue is the true measure optimization...how and what can this Unit of Adventurers do), a Rogue, being a selfish class is just not adding as much to overall group survival as other PC options.

Jason Bourne is great at surviving, but is quite poor at keeping his friends alive. The Rogue PC class, has the same problem. Ultimately, this is a problem, when D&D games are usually played with the focus of keeping the party alive, and not a single PC, (whom can not even Rez their downed friends).

In regards to Dr. Samurai's points in an above post: sure there can be times in which, pre-buffing is not available, but by definition, such times are going to be few and far between. A DM might be incentivized to add more constraints that keep the Rogue class more relevant in play, but overall I do not think that is a great development from a systemic prospective.

The largest issue with the Rogue in 5e, to my mind, is: The Rogue class is designed as a loner, (except for Sneak Attack), which is a bad design viewpoint for a game that has as it's base organizational focus the Adventuring Group.

Skill Expert is a half feat. +1 to the ability score of your choice + Expertise in Athletics is a solid option for any character, but especially for low strength PCs...the cost strikes me as minimal. Barbarians are feat starved, but other classes do not require GWM to the same degree.

[Crusher]

...

I don't understand.
We're in a D&D forum, talking about D&D. In all my experience playing D&D, well over a decade (so not as long as the real grognards, but still a good while) I've never seen someone's default response to PvP being positive.

Yeah, I *totally* agree with this. Obviously, not every group is the same. On the other hand, every time I've ever seen PvP related stuff come up its been very poorly received. A few months ago, at a relatively new table I've been playing at, a character outright stole a valuable, interesting item from another PC (the fighter, who was oddly good at slightly of hand stole a wyvern's egg from the Beast Master Ranger). The ranger was *not* pleased and considered not coming back, and while no one made a big deal out of it, I don't think its a coincidence the fighter never came back after that session.

That having been said, one of my most bittersweet moments as a DM was creating a moral conundrum so tough the party nearly turned on each other to resolve it. In fact, the end of the campaign was semi-near (party was level 18 and plan was to go to 20, there were two big adventures to go), so the party agreed to freeze that campaign so everyone could think about things. We started the next campaign a little early, and 2 more campaigns later no one has any interest in revisiting that one.

It was satisfying to create something that connected so strongly with the players, but they *hated* it, which I felt bad about.

[LudicSavant]

From level 1-9, Rogue has only one non-combat feature of note (aside from subclass): Expertise in 2-4 skills (which is something that the Bard has in addition to a whole bunch more). And what Expertise does at these levels is provide a roughly Guidance-sized bonus to a few skills.

And unless it's a Dex skill, odds are it's not so much putting you ahead as it is catching you up to whoever was maxxing a mental attribute -- a Rogue with Expertise in Perception likely has about as much Perception as an unbuffed Cleric. Heck, even a Wizard's owl will have 18 Passive Perception.

Most (but not all) of the good non-combat utility skills (Perception, Insight, Investigation, Persuasion, Arcana, etc) are based on mental stats, and the majority of classes based on mental stats have really damn good utility features on top of maxxing those primary stats.

As for Dex skills, we've got...
- Sleight of Hand doesn't have a lot of rules associated with it; your mileage will vary a lot based on DM and campaign, I suspect.
- Acrobatics, which is usually inferior to Athletics.
- and Stealth, which is a pretty great skill. But while Rogues are good at it, the best stealth characters generally either bring their party with them on the infiltration (for example, with Pass Without Trace), or have some way to bypass the various things that make stealth fail without a check (e.g. counters to divinations, special senses, hiding while observed, etc), or both. Rogues usually do neither of those things.
- Thieves' Tools I'd say is usually not as useful of a trap-bypassing skill as Perception, Investigation, or Arcana. For example, Arcana can find, identify, and disarm any magic trap or trap-like spell, whereas Thieves Tools only applies to a few of the example traps in the DMG, and generally isn't even the best way to bypass those traps.

Later on the bonus from Expertise grows to a roughly Advantage-sized bonus, and you get Reliable Talent too, which is worth ~+2 to a normal roll (or +0.7 to an Advantage) roll on average.

Subclasses can add more in terms of non-combat utility, but precious few Rogue subclasses actually add good non-combat skills. A very notable exception is the Soulknife, which gets a larger-than-Expertise, Bardic Inspiration-sized skill amp from its psi die (on top of Expertise!), and some other useful non-combat features too (like one of the better forms of telepathy in the game).

[Dr.Samurai]

How many spell slots are people devoting to out of combat challenges? Especially at low levels, when the slots are not so many and competing more with your offensive abilities.

[Psyren]

Expertise is available to all characters now, via a Feat.

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

Expertise, especially in low tier play, is not that much better than the aid provided from a Guidance cantrip.

Numerically, no. But Guidance spam has considerations beyond the numerical boost it provides. Loud chanting before every check is not always practical for instance.

Those practical considerations apply to your other examples. A rogue with a language barrier won't be able to benefit from Guidance either. A silenced hammer isn't equivalent to a rogue's lockpicks; the caster might be concentrating on something way more useful than Silence, or the hammer in question may not be suitable for breaking the lock in question, or both.

Overtime, 5e has almost systemically added in features that weaken the Rogue's grasp on their own niche. BG3 has some great examples of this....one does not need a Rogue at all...stacking buffs, and using Inspiration is all one really needs to pass checks in that game.

You don't need any specific class in BG3; you could respec everyone to Barbarians if you wanted and still clear the game. That's not an indictment of rogue, it's a testament to how well BG3's narrative is designed.

[Sindeloke]

I don't feel that rogues should have extra attack as a method to boost their damage per se - it's more about how they play. Shove prone, attack at advantage for a sneak attack. Shove and grapple in the same turn. Let them function like an actual martial class. Take a little pressure off their bonus action.

You could make them the "action economy class." Extra reaction per round (uncanny dodge against multiattack, or uncanny dodge and still get an off-turn sneak attack). Extra interaction per round (this shouldn't have been restricted to the thief in the same way that mindless rage shouldn't have been restricted to the berserker). Extra shove, trip, or grapple per round (could staple this into cunning action, but I'd rather see it just allowed during the attack action, rogues have enough competition for the bonus action already).

Point being, a rogue could move ahead of the party with Stealth, perceive enemies and secret doors and traps with Perception, discover mechanisms to open those secret doors or disarm those traps with Investigation, then disarm them with Thieves Tools, climb to hard to reach locations where these mechanisms are located with Athletics, balance along beams or narrow ledges with Acrobatics, etc.

Another problem with rogues is that, while this is certainly a situation that gives the rogue an opportunity to have their cool moment, it also completely sucks for the rest of the party. They're sitting on their asses at the front of the dungeon, twiddling their thumbs, while the rogue gets to Do Stuff.

A bard's Awesome Moment may be convincing a terrible fey to help the party instead of eating them, but the barbarian and the wizard are still there in the conversation. They can ask questions, attempt knowledge or intimidation checks, and remain involved in the game. A fight might be carried by a GWM action surge or a well-used forcecage, but the whole party is still in the initiative order; the monk is still getting flurries on the minions that the fighter ran past, the ranger can deal the killing blow on the monster the sorcerer locked up. Other classes' moments to shine still function in a group context, allowing other members of the team to continue to participate in the game.

If a class is designed, on the other hand, so that its best case scenario is spending 30-60 minutes monopolizing the DM's time with an elaborate forward action, while everyone else hangs out on their phone wondering why they agreed to drive all the way out here when they could be doomscrolling reddit just as comfortably at home, that's not great for the class' reputation.

I think @Blatant Beast has it right, talking about the rogue as a "selfish" class, something that also ties into the rather hilarious "lol pvp is totally fine and awesome and people who think me having my fun at their expense is bad are the real losers who just need to git gud" little tangent upthread; rogues have a bad reputation because they're, more than any other class, built around a set of mechanics and a thematic history that are kind of orthogonal to group play. Obviously they can be team players, because team play is a player choice, not a character choice - but if staying with the group, resting when they want to rest, and not taking their stuff means the class isn't playing to its potential or getting its time to shine, it's probably been accidentally designed for a different game.

[Tendril]

This is just a framing issue. Rouges don't have a weak 5th lv as much as they don't scale in spikes so it's less noticable. The gap between extra attack and SA scaling at this point is tiny unless one or the other doubles down on damage via feat investment.

Well I tend to see a lot of SS and GWM by this level, so the reality is that rogues do end up weak comparatively. I also place pretty high importance on characters being strong at roughly the levels 5-8, since I feel campaigns tend to spend a lot of time there. That's partly a table thing, but it does also seem to be an intentional design decision if you look at XP tables.

This isn't to say that rogues are unredeemable or anything, but at best rogues seem "ok" at the levels where most classes feel like total powerhouses.

[stoutstien]

Well I tend to see a lot of SS and GWM by this level, so the reality is that rogues do end up weak comparatively. I also place pretty high importance on characters being strong at roughly the levels 5-8, since I feel campaigns tend to spend a lot of time there. That's partly a table thing, but it does also seem to be an intentional design decision if you look at XP tables.

This isn't to say that rogues are unredeemable or anything, but at best rogues seem "ok" at the levels where most classes feel like total powerhouses.

That's an issue with lopsided effects certain feats have rather than an indication that the class itself is the problem. Of course stuff like alert and ritual caster have the potential to fill in the gap but it's harder to toss that in a excel sheet.

Now the gap the rogue subclasses get at this point is an issue with the *feel* factor for sure but that a different issue that they ran into trying to receive reconcile the rather normalized scaling the class has with the space that has left. They almost had it figured out with the last 2 subclasses.

**If I had my way I would have made the formation the party moved around in more interactive. the rogue/ranger/other classes with a focus on environmental interactions have benefits that shift depending where they are. PWT should be something a ranger provides by leading the way rather than just face smash spell solution for example.

[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.

[Amnestic]

Well I tend to see a lot of SS and GWM by this level, so the reality is that rogues do end up weak comparatively. I also place pretty high importance on characters being strong at roughly the levels 5-8, since I feel campaigns tend to spend a lot of time there. That's partly a table thing, but it does also seem to be an intentional design decision if you look at XP tables.

This isn't to say that rogues are unredeemable or anything, but at best rogues seem "ok" at the levels where most classes feel like total powerhouses.

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.

[JellyPooga]

I think @Blatant Beast has it right, talking about the rogue as a "selfish" class, something that also ties into the rather hilarious "lol pvp is totally fine and awesome and people who think me having my fun at their expense is bad are the real losers who just need to git gud" little tangent upthread; rogues have a bad reputation because they're, more than any other class, built around a set of mechanics and a thematic history that are kind of orthogonal to group play. Obviously they can be team players, because team play is a player choice, not a character choice - but if staying with the group, resting when they want to rest, and not taking their stuff means the class isn't playing to its potential or getting its time to shine, it's probably been accidentally designed for a different game.

I really can't disagree with this more. More than almost any other Class (the one exception that come to mind being the Bard), the Rogue is designed as a team player. The myth that they're a solo class is perhaps born from earlier editions or from the kind of players that gravitate toward the class due to false expectations, but in 5e they are a party's best friend. If nothing else, the Rogue wants a friend to generate Sneak Attack without needing Advantage. Further, they benefit more from off turn attacks, such as can be gained from Haste or Battlemaster Commander's Strike, due to that Sneak Attack (an OA/off-turn attack from a Rogue simply does more damage than from anyone else). Uncanny Dodge means the Rogue can take one hit per turn at lower cost than most others, which may be all that's needed to save someone on the backline. Evasion means they don't care about friendly fire from AoE. Cunning Action means the Rogue can do the things that others can't, like be where they need to be, when they need to be there. Expertise and Reliable Talent save resource based features like spell slots and their otherwise entirely resource-free chassis means that no-one, repeat no-one, is doing anything because the Rogue demands it, which is more than can be said of the Wizard when he's out of spells, the Warlock when he wants a quick nap or the Barbarian who isn't feeling angry enough to face the next encounter. All of this in on the surface, core chassis, basic Rogue function and absolutely makes them a team player, let alone their subclasses which do things like "Give everyone Advantage on everything. Forever. From a distance" or "Give the Big Bruiser disadvantage on attack rolls against everyone but me"...yeah, really selfish features like that

[stoutstien]

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.

I think it hard to have any real productive conversations about the state of anything that isn't directly tied to spells once you don bring them in because they are jarringly more effective, efficient, and are usually stackable. I've been experimenting and I've gone as far as cutting the spell slot availability by half and they still win out when you start racheting up the challenge enough to matter.

[Tendril]

That's an issue with lopsided effects certain feats have rather than an indication that the class itself is the problem.

What's the difference? Rogue doesn't interact well with most boosts to attacks (which also includes things like magic weapons, not just feats) and so they feel bad. Sure, this means the issue isn't just the design of the rogue, it's also the design of the systems around it... but if a class doesn't mesh well with the systems of the game then that is an issue. I'm not trying to prove a point about where the problem comes from, all I'm really saying is that rogue has a problem.

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.

+1 before the roll. But then you might add advantage from Reckless Attack. Or maybe you're using the Archery fighting style. Or someone is using Bless. Or Faerie Fire. Web. There's a lot of ways to make attacks better at hitting.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think @Blatant Beast has it right, talking about the rogue as a "selfish" class, something that also ties into the rather hilarious "lol pvp is totally fine and awesome and people who think me having my fun at their expense is bad are the real losers who just need to git gud" little tangent upthread; rogues have a bad reputation because they're, more than any other class, built around a set of mechanics and a thematic history that are kind of orthogonal to group play. Obviously they can be team players, because team play is a player choice, not a character choice - but if staying with the group, resting when they want to rest, and not taking their stuff means the class isn't playing to its potential or getting its time to shine, it's probably been accidentally designed for a different game.

The response to every skill is "The spellcaster can do it better than you, let them do it" and these same people are saying the rogue is the selfish class lol. Unbelievable. Meanwhile, the rogue is trying to find the critical clues and disarm the traps so the party can progress safely.

By the way... if you send the familiar forward to scout, you're putting the party in the same exact position as if the rogue were doing it. Except this time it's a wizard or druid so... now it's not a problem that everyone else is "twiddling their thumbs".

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.

So a Stars Druid is going to use both Wild Shapes for a familiar, and a +5 bonus to a Perception check. Very interesting use of resources there simply to 1-up the rogue.

This is what is called high optimization right?

[Crusher]

. Asking if the Rogue can CC or heal? Well we'd better look at the options available that might actually do so rather than blinding ourselves to the possibilities.

In a recent campaign I've been playing a Thief Rogue and one of my favorite characters: Razor McStabbington, MD. Doctor and Ninja. He's a doctor who heaps scorn on clerics and paladins who outsource the work to some vague concept in the sky, "Oh, great Googly-Moogly, please heal this warrior's broken arm!" It frustrates him that this approach works, but doesn't change his attitude. Expertise in Medicine and Stealth, along with the Healer feat.

Despite the presence of a Paladin and Cleric he's at least arguably still the party's primary healer at level 7 because he can toss out 1d6+11 hp in healing as a bonus action (or do it twice/round!) at a cost of 5sp per heal. Sure, he can only do it once per character per short rest, but it really adds up. He's like the Warlock of healers and has been accused of being OP more than once.

[LudicSavant]

This is what is called high optimization right?

No. This is the barest of basics.

So a Stars Druid is going to use both Wild Shapes for a familiar, and a +5 bonus to a Perception check. Very interesting use of resources there simply to 1-up the rogue.

As a Wis-based class with Guidance, a Stars Druid can one-up a Rogue's Perception while using zero resources.

[stoutstien]

What's the difference? Rogue doesn't interact well with most boosts to attacks (which also includes things like magic weapons, not just feats) and so they feel bad. Sure, this means the issue isn't just the design of the rogue, it's also the design of the systems around it... but if a class doesn't mesh well with the systems of the game then that is an issue. I'm not trying to prove a point about where the problem comes from, all I'm really saying is that rogue has a problem.



+1 before the roll. But then you might add advantage from Reckless Attack. Or maybe you're using the Archery fighting style. Or someone is using Bless. Or Faerie Fire. Web. There's a lot of ways to make attacks better at hitting.

Because feats where a scatter shot of options that were included without playtest. It was a lottery that could have as easily swung a different direction with minimal word changes.

It's important to identify issues where they are not where the symptoms manifest or you end up doing exactly what they always do with the solutions making it worse.

[Theodoxus]

The more I think about skill systems in D&D and D&D-likes, the more I come to the conclusion that while the core idea isn't that bad, having a "skill class" certainly is. Even if your skills are developed enough to be useful in combat (mostly looking at PF2 here), your action economy doesn't support using more than 2 or 3, often with overlapping purposes with other skills.

I was thinking along these lines while walking this morning. I'm already going full bore on Ability Check proficiency as outlined in the 2014 DMG. The issue I'd been having is how to specialize in those cases where a character should have a specialized skill (or set). Where a Strength check is sufficient for your every day climb or jump check - roll a d20, add some modifier and get a result, it doesn't really capture the essence of someone who's an amazing climber.

So, my working solution (and by working, I mean currently back of the napkin math) is two fold. First, Ability Checks: Your proficiency in Saves mirrors your proficiency in checks. Yes, this means Rogues eventually get Wisdom Check proficiency, and Monks eventually get proficiency in all Ability Checks. This makes sense to me. It also means Resilient provides an additional benefit. Still fine. No, Aura of Protection does not provide a boon to Ability Checks.

All Ability Checks are base DC 16. 10 and less is failure. 11-15 is success with drawback. 16 to 20 is standard success. 21+ is critical success. Ability Checks are also for rather generic checks; Strength Checks to jump, climb, swim, push heavy things, etc. Int checks to know basic information, with the higher the roll granting additional information, and a success with drawback would be something like 2 truths and 1 lie. Wis checks would be perception and insight; Cha checks for persuasion and deceit. - I'm hoping to generate 3 basic checks for each attribute that aren't too esoteric. Constitution would probably overlap a bit with strength; using endurance for swimming against a current type things. Muscles help, but being able to tread for time is better. Other 'feats of endurance' might be running in a chase scene, withstanding being hugged to death (cute puppies, giant octopus, whatever), things like that.

Then you have Specializations, or Skills, or something named like that, and they're generally stuff you don't roll. If you're specialized in climbing, you can climb anything that would be below a DC 25 skill check without having to roll. If you're specialized in Arcane Lore, you know pretty much everything that isn't super specialized knowledge when it comes to the arcane. These specializations allow characters to really be 'the best' for their area of expertise. A Wizard with proficiency in Intelligence Checks has a decent chance to know if a mushroom is poisonous. A Druid with specialization in Nature just knows, unless that mushroom is someone's science experiment that has been done in the strictest super secret lab or something.

I'm currently thinking of just using the number of Skills provided in each classes description, but open the selection to any - since these specializations are less what a class is granting and more what the player wants their character to excel at.

Expertise will work a little differently, since they apply to Ability Checks. Each instance of Expertise would allow the PC to either double the PB for a specific Ability Check, or grant proficiency to another Ability. So, a Rogue, with Dex and Int, might choose to put one Expertise on Dex, granting a higher chance of success on their Ability Checks for Dexterity, and their second Expertise in Charisma, granting them the normal PB to Charisma Checks. This way, even if a 1st level Rogue picks Wisdom, they'll get their double PB bonus at 14th, so the attribute isn't 'wasted'.

I'd also love to bring back skill tricks for Rogues; I think Rogues should be force multipliers for the other members of the party. This would (hopefully) remove the desire for Rogues to be 'lone wolves' which works about as well as PVP in a co-op game, while simultaneously making an 'all rogue party' less of an incentive.
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.

[JellyPooga]

No, the game does not. The game expects rogues to have a +3 bonus with most of their skills (at the levels most commonly played at), and that doesn't break any paradigm.

I think you undersell or don't realise how significant that additional +3 really is. A level 5 Rogue with Expertise and primary focus on the relevant Ability Score has +10 to their chosen skill, as compared to the +7 of a similarly focused character without it. That opens DC:30 as a possibility for that character. It will take characters without Expertise until level 13 to reach that same level of proficiency, but a level 5 Rogue can achieve it as a matter of routine, so long as time or risk are not at issue. Let me say that again; a level 5 Rogue can routinely accomplish the Near Impossible on any given task within the purview of their expertise. That is a massive shift in what is possible in the game for those characters. Yes, Guidance exists and offers a similar bonus, but it does also come with its own caveats; it's a spell, requires concentration, has verbal and somatic components and the caster must be in touch range of the character performing the task. Those are not insignificant. Without magical assistance, DC:30 remains not near, but actually impossible for most characters until they're well on the way to the highest tier of play. It requires magic or heroic tier competence to match what the Rogue is doing at 5th level. That's what Expertise is and how significant it's supposed to be; it's the ability to do things that most people don't even think can be done at all.

It's also why I don't think Reliable Talent comes on too late. Yes, it'd be nice to have it earlier but with Expertise, Rogues are already hitting just about every DC ever published. Do we really need to remove every skill check of DC:20 or lower from the game (again, bringing up +10 modifiers for a Rogue of lvl.5 or higher)? I think offering RT too early makes the same mistake that Natural Explorer does by removing checks rather than integrating them into a more interesting mechanic.

[Dr.Samurai]

My issue with all of this is the specialist vs the generalist.

And it's always the case that because a generalist CAN do something the specialist can do, it's asserted that the generalist can simply replace the specialist.

That's why I always ask... how many spell slots are you devoting to this through the course of an adventuring day? These are resources that can be used elsewhere.

Like the Stars Druid. Yes, you can use your Wild Shape for "Reliable Talent" on Int/Wis checks outside of combat. But then you're not getting that "Reliable Talent" on Concentration checks in combat, nor the other benefits of your Starry Form. Similarly, you can use Cosmic Omen to boost someone's ability check... but then you're not using it to buff someone's saving throws, or attack rolls, or debuff an enemy's saves/attacks.

It's like the do-it-all mage that can cast Silvery Barbs to impose Disadvantage, Shield to protect themselves from attacks, Absorb Elements to tank energy damage, Counterspell to ruin an enemy's plans, and also make a chunky Booming Blade opportunity attack.

Wow. So impressive. Except, you can only ever do one of those things. And instead of trying to "do everything", you could devote those spell slots to something else. Let the specialists specialize.

To paraphrase Ian Malcolm, you were so preoccupied with whether you could do something, you never stopped to think if you should. Just because you have a feature that can boost a skill check, doesn't mean you should go around saying you can replace a rogue. ESPECIALLY if that feature can be used in combat to do other things.

Those are not insignificant.

Yes, but it seems to me that nothing is significant to optimizers, as they imagine a game where a spell slot will solve every problem, and there are no factors and no context that can change that.

[Sindeloke]

By the way... if you send the familiar forward to scout, you're putting the party in the same exact position as if the rogue were doing it. Except this time it's a wizard or druid so... now it's not a problem that everyone else is "twiddling their thumbs".

"Sneaking across balance beams to disarm traps" is something quite a bit more than 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 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.

If all the rogue is doing is just looking around, sure, that doesn't take much time from the party, but then he's not using his special multiple-expertise-on-one-character power and he could just be a monk with good Dex and Wis.

Or better yet, a party-friendly shadow monk, who can cast pass without trace and bring everyone.

[Pooky the Imp]

My issue with all of this is the specialist vs the generalist.

And it's always the case that because a generalist CAN do something the specialist can do, it's asserted that the generalist can simply replace the specialist.

That's why I always ask... how many spell slots are you devoting to this through the course of an adventuring day? These are resources that can be used elsewhere.

Like the Stars Druid. Yes, you can use your Wild Shape for "Reliable Talent" on Int/Wis checks outside of combat. But then you're not getting that "Reliable Talent" on Concentration checks in combat, nor the other benefits of your Starry Form. Similarly, you can use Cosmic Omen to boost someone's ability check... but then you're not using it to buff someone's saving throws, or attack rolls, or debuff an enemy's saves/attacks.

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.

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.

It's like the do-it-all mage that can cast Silvery Barbs to impose Disadvantage, Shield to protect themselves from attacks, Absorb Elements to tank energy damage, Counterspell to ruin an enemy's plans, and also make a chunky Booming Blade opportunity attack.

Wow. So impressive. Except, you can only ever do one of those things. And instead of trying to "do everything", you could devote those spell slots to something else. Let the specialists specialize.

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.