What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[strangebloke]

I think this should probably be something that comes online at level 3, along with the level 11 mimicry feature. Like, the published adventure where I want this feature -- the only published adventure where I want this feature, I think -- is Dragon Heist, and that ends at 5.

Agreed. You could move it to level 3 with the other abilities and come up with an entirely new ability for level 9 and it wouldn't make assassins at all overpowered.

[Blatant Beast]

Yeah, but thats just as true with a conventional thief rogue going ahead scouting for traps and the like, if maybe with a different timescale. It unfortunately doesn't have an obvious answer.

Which loops us back to the underlying issue with the class design: the Rogue often does not support the group unit as well as some other classes can.

The Soulknife, at least has sharable telepathy, but it seems clear, that other classes, like the Fighter class, often have subclasses that can help others directly with their powers, and the Rogue class very rarely does.

The 2024 PHB was finalized, I believe, so it seems doubtful that the Rogue design philosophy will change that much, based off the known base class chassis changes for 2024.

On a separate track, sending a lone party member forward to scout without Fire support or communication has been a contentious practice going back decades. We used to jokingly call the scouting party member, “Ghoul Bait” even back in 1e.

Overwatch, Fire Support, Kill Zones, and Unit Communication are concerns that military units consider.

[Kane0]

Or have another subclass breakpoint around level 6 *mumble grumble*

[JellyPooga]

On a separate track, sending a lone party member forward to scout without Fire support or communication has been a contentious practice going back decades. We used to jokingly call the scouting party member, “Ghoul Bait” even back in 1e.

This does rather beg the question that if such a practice was so commonly regarded in enough of a bad light that it had such a reputation, why was it still being done?

To my knowledge, in any edition, no class has forced any player to scout solo. In every game I've ever participated in, scouting was an invaluable part of a mission, important enough to be a team effort; the Rogue (or Thief) would use their sneaking prowess and manual/practical ability (to circumnavigate untenable obstacles to some scouts e.g. things requiring opposable thumbs, like doors), accompanied by the Wizards familiar, either/and/or as "eye-in-the-sky" or as information relay (at later levels, this might be an Arcane Eye), the Druid might be in wild shape in support, the Ranger or Fighter would usually doff any heavier armour and lend a bow in case things went south and even Barbarians, Paladin and Clerics would run interference or distraction if it was an option/useful. Once info was gathered, it'd be decamp to camp to share and discuss the plan of action based on information acquired.

5e has only made this style easier with its gamut of stealth-enhancing options, scouting tools and team-friendly features across a number, if not most classes, as well as introducing short rests (a tangible additional benefit to stopping to convene after scouting to lay plans) and none of them, IMO, render the Rogue obsolete any more than a Rogue is necessary.

[Dr.Samurai]

Agreed. You could move it to level 3 with the other abilities and come up with an entirely new ability for level 9 and it wouldn't make assassins at all overpowered.

I'd be good with this. More and sooner is the way to go.

Which loops us back to the underlying issue with the class design: the Rogue often does not support the group unit as well as some other classes can.

The Soulknife, at least has sharable telepathy, but it seems clear, that other classes, like the Fighter class, often have subclasses that can help others directly with their powers, and the Rogue class very rarely does.

Does anyone in the party ever use Ritual Casting? In ten minutes a rogue can clear 2,000ft of dungeon corridors at a slow pace, or search a room, or search 10 doors for traps, and notice monsters/threats ahead of time and go back to tell the party what's up ahead. Since they're doing this at a slow pace, they can use Stealth, and with, presumably Expertise, they will hopefully go unnoticed.

The 2024 PHB was finalized, I believe, so it seems doubtful that the Rogue design philosophy will change that much, based off the known base class chassis changes for 2024.

I wouldn't want to do away with their niche, but I'd be fine with adding other stuff so they can excel just as much with the party. Could be something like where if someone takes lead at a certain pillar of play, it provides benefits to the party. For fighters it could be combat/defenses, rogues it could be dungeon exploration, etc.

On a separate track, sending a lone party member forward to scout without Fire support or communication has been a contentious practice going back decades. We used to jokingly call the scouting party member, “Ghoul Bait” even back in 1e.

Overwatch, Fire Support, Kill Zones, and Unit Communication are concerns that military units consider.

Seems like scouting ahead is not going anywhere any time soon.

But at this point these types of things (overwatch, communication, etc) can be done to some degree as well. A wizard can send their familiar with the rogue as Overwatch, and limited fire support with touch spells, and some communication, though ideally the rogue wouldn't have to speak out loud to communicate and risk blowing their cover. A warlock can use their tome with that invocation to cast Sending at-will to the rogue, and do the same with their familiar as a wizard (within 100ft).

A scribes wizard could send the Manifest Mind up ahead and cast any spell from the mind (so long as it is within 300ft). It sheds dim light though so not great for stealth.

Anyways, no guarantee you'll have any of this, but cool to think about possible elite teams like this.

Or have another subclass breakpoint around level 6 *mumble grumble*

Also agreed.

[Kane0]

Anyways, no guarantee you'll have any of this, but cool to think about possible elite teams like this.

After suffering a not-very quiet party in a game where we routinely attract additional encounters when fighting, each of us players planned a more subtle backup character independantly. If we wiped we would have ended up with a replacement party of druid, ranger, bard and either bladelock or dex pally replacing fighter, cleric, artificer and monk.

Honestly I dont think we'd fare any better, but interesting to consider.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Does anyone in the party ever use Ritual Casting? In ten minutes a rogue can clear 2,000ft of dungeon corridors at a slow pace, or search a room, or search 10 doors for traps, and notice monsters/threats ahead of time and go back to tell the party what's up ahead. Since they're doing this at a slow pace, they can use Stealth, and with, presumably Expertise, they will hopefully go unnoticed.

There's a conflict between in-game and table time here. Ritual casting takes ten minutes in-game, but it's essentially instant at the table. Clearing 2,000 feet of corridor might take ten minutes in-game, but at the table it requires rolls, descriptive dialogue, clarifying questions, and player and character decisions. If there's nothing in that 2,000 feet, then there's no value in the rogue clearing it; every thing in it, whether a door or a trap or a monster they find or whatever, adds extra table time to the task.

[Psyren]

Are you trying to imply that somebody would accidentally make the life story of an existing person, completely randomly?

It's not "completely random" - if the whole point of your persona is to help you infiltrate somewhere with limited access, then logically, the possibility set of people who are allowed to enter that place would also be limited. So your chances of landing on one that trips one of the two RAW fail states increases dramatically.

There's also a degree of player skill/judgement involved here. If you're trying to infiltrate the King's birthday party, you should probably aim to get in as one of the help/servants, Hitman Agent 46 style. If you try to infiltrate as his long-lost cousin, or the dignitary of an obscure nation, that might improve your access once inside, but it could also hurt your chances of avoiding one of the two fail states even more.

(And the above does nothing to answer the other obvious drawback raised by strangebloke, Ludic etc - what the heck is the rest of the party doing while you're playing Hitman for 7+ days in-game?)

Agreed. You could move it to level 3 with the other abilities and come up with an entirely new ability for level 9 and it wouldn't make assassins at all overpowered.

That would indeed put this whole discussion to bed. I'd still likely never use it (due to the 7 days and all the myriad other drawbacks discussed at length in this thread), but at least I wouldn't feel actively ripped off by it being there. Not to mention, it would predate Reliable Talent at that point, so the chance that I can successfully replicate its effects by rolling are a lot lower.

Does this mean the ability is 'useless'? No, of course not. It has use, just like almost all features do. But it would take an enormous feature to pull the Assassin out of the lower end of the scale, and this just isn't an enormous feature.

Exactly, no one is saying it's useless. Just bad, because it's the entirety of what your subclass gives you 9 levels in. No poster is being attacked by us pointing out a bad feature.

Or have another subclass breakpoint around level 6 *mumble grumble*

Standardized subclass levels is at the top of my 6e wishlist in flaming letters.

[strangebloke]

I'd be good with this. More and sooner is the way to go

I mean, then, I don't think we disagree at all? Nobody has said that its useless, just that its not a strong feature relative to what you can otherwise get at level 9.

If you could move it to level 3 and give the assassin some new feature at level 9 instead, without making assassin ridiculously overtuned, i think that indicates that at a baseline assassin isn't very strong.

I think people get their hackles up when I say that something is 'relatively weak' as though we're suggesting that people shouldn't play with these classes or try to make them work. But IMO the question of whether something is strong or highly useful in the abstract has nothing to do with whether it should be played with or not. The unarmed fighting style is pretty weak but I've still played a character built around it. Melee ranger, particularly melee drakewarden, is really not the strongest way to build a ranger, but I also spent a year playing one of those. My current PC is a battlesmith using a two-handed weapon, with saving throws keying off three different attributes. Again, pretty suboptimal!

Optimization and "suited for play" are just questions that run completely skew of each other. There are loads of hyperoptimized things that are not suitable for play (especially depending on the table), and there are loads of suboptimal things that are suited for play.

[Blatant Beast]

This does rather beg the question that if such a practice was so commonly regarded in enough of a bad light that it had such a reputation, why was it still being done?

We are talking humans here There are debates that have gone on for millennia.
People often do the same silly thing, over, and over, and over, again.

Page 100 of the 1e Dungeon Master's Guide describes an attack on a gnome PC that had been hoisted up to investigate a elevated Secret Door, and by pounding a spike into the stone to attach a rope, alerted nearby ghouls.

"You hear some nasty rending noises and gobbling sounds, but they
end quickly"....time to roll a new character.

Keep in mind, the gnome in this example had PC overwatch, and was not entirely alone.
The example, made an impact on me.

It is not difficult to imagine, that a lone PC, sent on to explore 2,000 feet of corridor, or investigate 10 doors by themselves is even more at risk. The Paralyzed condition, prevents the subject from being able to move and speak, which could very well apply to being able to scream. Which means, the Rogue's disability/death is unknown to the group.

That seems bad to me now, and struck me as a bad outcome, even as a child.

Beyond that, QuickLyRaiNbow, above strikes me as being absolutely correct in terms of the actual gameplay time to resolve abilities. If searching is being abstracted down to a single die roll, then searching or using a Ritual Spell would take the same amount of Actual Time, in play.

If searching an area requires descriptions and interactions, then solo scouting means a mini-adventure for the Rogue, and everyone else takes bathroom breaks, pours themselves a tasty beverage, and starts looking at their phones. Attention spans and behaviors have changed since the 1980's, is my experience.

A Rogue searching with another PC, or another PC's Familiar, has the real world benefit of directly engaging two players.

[strangebloke]

Treantmonk's "god wizard" guide - the thing he made waaaaaay before the Youtube channel existed, referred to the "scout" role colloquially as the "corpse" role.

It's very simply obvious that an encounter intended for 4+ players is going to absolutely slaughter a lone scout that isn't strictly optimized for combat, and while rogues are 'good' at stealth, they lack a lot of the best stealth tools and they will eventually mess up or get caught out and then.... wooops!

solo scouting is just a stupid meme. The only reason to do it is if there's some weird table dynamic present.

[Darth Credence]

There's a conflict between in-game and table time here. Ritual casting takes ten minutes in-game, but it's essentially instant at the table. Clearing 2,000 feet of corridor might take ten minutes in-game, but at the table it requires rolls, descriptive dialogue, clarifying questions, and player and character decisions. If there's nothing in that 2,000 feet, then there's no value in the rogue clearing it; every thing in it, whether a door or a trap or a monster they find or whatever, adds extra table time to the task.

DM: You peek through the doorway and see a passage stretching into the darkness.
Wiz: I need ten minutes to get telepathic bond back up.
Cleric: Good idea, I'll take the time to roll the bones and see if we can get any information.
Rogue: I'm going to scout the corridor, checking for traps along the way, and see what I can map out while they are doing a ritual.
DM: OK. Cleric, what course of action are you looking at?
Cleric: Can I make that decision when the Rogue gets back?
DM: You can if they're back in time, otherwise you'll need to make a call at the end of the ritual time.
Rogue: I'll be back.
DM: OK, Rogue, what is your plan? And give me a stealth check.
Rogue: 22. Scout ahead, checking for traps along the way. I'll note any doors, but I won't go in. I'll just listen at the doorways for anything obvious, then move on. I'll turn back with enough time to make sure I'm there.
DM [draws on map]: You make your way down the hallway, using your passive investigation to check for traps along the way. You pass doors here, here, and here. At this one, you spotted a trip wire, although you don't know what it will set off without further investigation. Do you do so?
Rogue: I'm on a time limit, so nothing beyond the basics.
DM: OK. You hear some noises behind this door, but you can't tell what it is. You don't get anything from this door. Going any further risks not making it back in time.
Rogue: OK, heading back.
DM: Cleric, he'll be back in time, so what will you ask about?
Cleric: How about if we open the trapped door?
DM: The bones reveal both weal and woe - you sense great danger but great reward.

That entire exchange would take about a minute of real-time, and a big part of it is what the cleric is doing. If you don't think that was "worth it", then so be it, but it would be in my games. Three characters did something effective, one of them only because the rogue was allowed to eat up almost a minute doing some scouting. Could there be more descriptive dialogue? Sure, and it would take up more time. But unless the DM and the rogue go to a different room to have the DM give just them the descriptive dialogue, there is no difference between the DM describing it to the rogue and describing it to the whole party. All the descriptions are given, and when the scout returns, they share it, so it all works out. The number of decisions that have to be made just don't need to be that many - here we had the rogue give some parameters at the beginning, and the DM clarified once. Then they just had it done. If the DM describes every step the rogue takes, having them roll for investigation for every floor tile, then, yeah, scouting would be a huge waste for everyone else. But why would anyone run it that way? If the scout is wary of danger, they will very likely be able to recognize it and pull back before something happens that they cannot deal with, so let them do it and find out what's ahead. I've had a scout in my game (a bard rather than a rogue, but they still performed the function) turn being ambushed into surprising the enemy, and their total time of being focused on to do so was about 5 minutes.

Back to the issue of the assassin feature. There are, and should be, things that can make the ability break, but I agree that some are making it seem too easy to break. I am going back to the idea that the assassin is pretending to be an inspector for the king to infiltrate the Duke's castle. The Duke will not question it, because they have patent letters confirming this. They can do anything an inspector would do, and the Duke won't think they are lying about who they are - they may sabotage their work, or even try to kill them, but they won't question whether or not they are an inspector. To call that into question, something has to happen, and for me it has to be a major mistake on the player's part. Say, hanging out in a crowded inn and talking about the actual plan, or calling the king by the wrong name in the duke's presence (for that one, I'd allow them to attempt to salvage it with a deception check that gets harder every time).

[Theodoxus]

All things being equal, if IE were moved to 3rd level and became effectively a ribbon (given the 7 day prep time required), what would people propose to replace it at 9th level - at least thematically, if not a fully fleshed out ability?

I think something poison related would fit. Maybe something along the lines of being able to obtain poisons at a reduced cost (50% redux would be fine), ability to change the delivery method [contact, ingested, injected] (I'd say during a short rest, but not adamant about it), and maybe something like adding poison use to their cunning action suite. Coating blades and arrow heads, that kind of thing.

[Darth Credence]

All things being equal, if IE were moved to 3rd level and became effectively a ribbon (given the 7 day prep time required), what would people propose to replace it at 9th level - at least thematically, if not a fully fleshed out ability?

I think something poison related would fit. Maybe something along the lines of being able to obtain poisons at a reduced cost (50% redux would be fine), ability to change the delivery method [contact, ingested, injected] (I'd say during a short rest, but not adamant about it), and maybe something like adding poison use to their cunning action suite. Coating blades and arrow heads, that kind of thing.

Definitely poison, IMO. An assassin should have something poison-related. I like adding it to cunning action. I'd probably go with allowing them to strengthen poisons rather than make them cost less, perhaps making the DC to save against them based on the assassin's stats and proficiency rather than purely based on the poison - like if their PB is 3, then drow poison save DC becomes 16, and midnight tears becomes 21.

[Blatant Beast]

DM: You peek through the doorway and see a passage stretching into the darkness.
Wiz: I need ten minutes to get telepathic bond back up.
Cleric: Good idea, I'll take the time to roll the bones and see if we can get any information.
Rogue: I'm going to scout the corridor, checking for traps along the way, and see what I can map out while they are doing a ritual.
DM: OK. Cleric, what course of action are you looking at?
Cleric: Can I make that decision when the Rogue gets back?
DM: You can if they're back in time, otherwise you'll need to make a call at the end of the ritual time.
Rogue: I'll be back.
DM: OK, Rogue, what is your plan? And give me a stealth check.
Rogue: 22. Scout ahead, checking for traps along the way. I'll note any doors, but I won't go in. I'll just listen at the doorways for anything obvious, then move on. I'll turn back with enough time to make sure I'm there.
DM [draws on map]: You make your way down the hallway, using your passive investigation to check for traps along the way. You pass doors here, here, and here. At this one, you spotted a trip wire, although you don't know what it will set off without further investigation. Do you do so?
Rogue: I'm on a time limit, so nothing beyond the basics.
DM: OK. You hear some noises behind this door, but you can't tell what it is. You don't get anything from this door. Going any further risks not making it back in time.
Rogue: OK, heading back.
DM: Cleric, he'll be back in time, so what will you ask about?
Cleric: How about if we open the trapped door?
DM: The bones reveal both weal and woe - you sense great danger but great reward.

That entire exchange would take about a minute of real-time, and a big part of it is what the cleric is doing. If you don't think that was "worth it", then so be it, but it would be in my games.

Sure, that describes a simple scenario, in a not too strange environment, with veteran players.

Now swap out the players for 13 year old players, or adults that are drinking alcohol, and swap the locale for something more exotic, such as a biomechanical corridor placed in a giant Tentacle tower, that rises from the earth. It might take more than a minute of real-time to resolve that.

That is part of why I brought up Scouting. In my experience, Scouting has always been a contentious issue, and depending upon the complexity of the scenario, the level of experience of the players, (and their level of inebriation), how long real time resolution takes will vary.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

That entire exchange would take about a minute of real-time, and a big part of it is what the cleric is doing.

It's also a situation where the area is homogeneous with everything they've seen before -- I assume, there's no description. All the doors are closed. There are no branches in the path or obstructions. There's no wandering monster, the rogue doesn't trip a trap. Nothing changes in the time the rogue is out. It's just a hallway.

@Theodoxus: unimaginative as it is, Extra Attack, possibly to work only in the same conditions their super-sneak-attack does.

[Darth Credence]

Sure, that describes a simple scenario, in a not too strange environment, with veteran players.

Now swap out the players for 13 year old players, or adults that are drinking alcohol, and swap the locale for something more exotic, such as a biomechanical corridor placed in a giant Tentacle tower, that rises from the earth. It might take more than a minute of real-time to resolve that.

That is part of why I brought up Scouting. In my experience, Scouting has always been a contentious issue, and depending upon the complexity of the scenario, the level of experience of the players, (and their level of inebriation), how long real time resolution takes will vary.

DM: You peek out of the chamber you are in, and you see a corridor made of segmented sections.
13 YO Rogue: Ooh, cool! What do the segments do?
DM: You need to investigate to find out.
Rogue: Awesome, I investigate!
DM: You can do that, but let's see what the others are doing first. (Pauses to wait for the cleric and paladin to finish their shots.) Anyone else want to do something here?
Paladin: Hold up, I'm out of beer. Seems like a good time to round up more - anyone else?
Cleric and Ranger: Absolutely!
DM: Wizard - how are things for you?
Wizard: A little overwhelming, but OK.
DM: Anything you want to do while Rogue is exploring?
Wizard: I don't know, I'm trying to figure it out.
DM: Sure, no problem. Ranger, can you help them out while we deal with the scouting?
Ranger: I've never been a wizard before!
DM: I know, but at least this isn't your first session.
Wizard: It's OK, I just don't know what I can do while I wait - do I have to do anything or can I just see what Rogue finds?
DM: You can just wait for Rogue if you want, but there are some things you can do in that amount of time, like ritual casting, reading some of the books you picked up, or maybe using your skills.
Wizard: Can I investigate the stuff in this room?
DM: Sure. Ranger or Cleric?
Cleric: I'm rolling the bones.
Ranger: Nah, I'm good. But I really want to get to doing something again - it's been a half an hour without a fight!
DM: No problem. Cleric, what are you going to ask?
Cleric: What are the segments for?
DM: Sorry, that doesn't fit the Augury spell. Do you want to try something different - different spell, different question?
Cleric: Oh, yeah, weal or woe. OK, how about what happens if we walk down the corridor?
DM: That will work, but it will take 10 minutes until the ritual is done, so we'll get back to you.
Rogue: Should I wait until they're done?
DM: Up to you - Cleric hasn't said what they are trying to figure out, so you don't know.
Rogue: Can I ask?
DM: Yes.
Cleric: I can't interrupt the ritual to answer!
Rogue: So do I just wait, or can I investigate the segments?
DM: You can investigate the segments if you want.
Rogue: OK, I'll do that.
Paladin, returning with beer: What'd I miss?
Ranger: Rogue's about to investigate the segments, Cleric's rolling the bones, Wiz is checking out the stuff in the room. I'm just waiting for a fight.
Paladin: Cool. Beer while we see what they find?
Ranger: Absolutely.
DM: Rogue and Wiz, give me investigation checks.
Wiz: 19!
Rogue: 13.
DM: Wiz, you check the strange formations on the walls, and they remind you of tendons. You trace them and find that they converge to points surrounding the door. It looks like they could expand or contract, but you don't see a mechanism. Rogue, you can tell that the segments are made to move against each other, with a lot of side to side motion and a small amount of up and down. You are confident the corridor could loop into a circle if it's long enough, although you can't tell why.
DM: Cleric, your ritual completes. What is the question?
Cleric: Um, what were we doing?
Everyone else: Checking out the corridor.
Cleric: Oh, yeah - weal or woe for going down the corridor!
DM - hunching over and using a squinty eye: The bones tell you... nothing!
Cleric: Well that was a waste, but you got your Willow quote in, so it's cool. Should we head into the corridor, or see if these tendons do something?

Now, I have no idea how long that would take. I do know that I've been there before, with drunk players and with children, and the DM can keep it on track if everyone wants it to be kept on track. If the DM makes sure that they keep it engaging for everyone, and you don't have a group of players that cannot stand the thought of not being the center of attention, then scouting is fine. If the DM plays it as a normal game just with one player, then the DM is screwing up. If the DM provides the information they could find quickly and efficiently, then the scouting works and is a good part of the game.

It's also a situation where the area is homogeneous with everything they've seen before -- I assume, there's no description. All the doors are closed. There are no branches in the path or obstructions. There's no wandering monster, the rogue doesn't trip a trap. Nothing changes in the time the rogue is out. It's just a hallway.

Yes, it is just a hallway. The next one is a biomechanical tentacle coming out of a creature with a bunch of people who are drunk. Is there a particular scenario you want me to write up that can keep everyone in the party engaged? As I said, I can add in descriptions of anything there, and I don't consider that to be a time detriment - you can tell the whole table what things look like as the Rogue explores, or when they are back, either way the time would be the same. You're right, the rogue didn't trip a trap, or run into a wandering monster.

DM: You find a trip wire on this door, but you can't tell what it does.
Rogue: OK, I have time. Can I investigate it further.
DM: Give me an investigation roll.
Rogue: 14.
DM: You see that the wire goes into a small hole in the wall, but can't see anything beyond that. The wire is under extreme tension.
Rogue: OK, I'll attempt to disarm.
DM: Without knowing more about it, this is going to be difficult - you can't even be sure what will disarm it.
Cleric: Oh, crap, what's he going to do, guys?
Wiz: I know what I would do, but he's off on his own!
Rogue: Settle down, guys, I've got this. Sleight of Hand roll - uh oh. Hey, um, that becomes a 10 with reliable talent, and with my bonuses it gets to an 18.
DM: Everyone, you hear a faint noise coming from down the hallway in the direction Rogue went. Rogue, you secure one end of the wire and remove your wire cutters. You smoothly cut the wire at the wall while the wire is held taut, but you realize immediately that you guessed wrong - the wire was holding something in place rather than pulling something out if tugged. You hear a snapping sound - give me a DEX save.
Rogue: What is wrong with my rolls! 14.
DM: A massive slab of rack falls from the ceiling, hitting you for 38 points of bludgeoning damage and trapping you. Everyone else - you hear no further noise from outside the room.
Cleric: Well, if he's not back when the ritual ends, we'll start looking.

And there we are, the Rogue ran into a problem and something changed in the hallway. And still only a few minutes total time to deal with the scouting. This is fine if the other players do not hate having even a moment when they are not the center of attention. It is no worse than when the bard gets to be the focus as the face of the party while negotiating with the local manor lord. When those scenes happen, the face often ends up doing pretty much all of the talking for an extended period, because they are the ones with the good bonuses. The others wait and listen. But I rarely hear people complain about how social interactions are bad because only the party face gets to do something.

[Psyren]

I don't think it's really the game design's fault if it breaks down when you're playing with drunk people and children. A lot of far less complex boardgames than D&D would break down under those circumstances - the solution is to either tailor your game to that audience, or tailor the audience to the type of game you want to play, not to expect the devs' design to fit every possible table configuration.


RE: solo-scouting ahead - yes, mechanically it's not very well supported and even dangerous for that player, but it's still a popular class fantasy for a reason. "There's 8 hobgoblins in the outpost ahead arguing over a dice game with a haunch of boar on the line, they wouldn't notice an angry ankheg charging through here. No, they didn't notice me, and I disabled that crappy tripwire alarm one of 'em strung outside the door. Do you blokes wanna leave them alone or mop 'em up? I'm good either way." {Flourishes daggers briefly.}

[KorvinStarmast]

It's very simply obvious that an encounter intended for 4+ players is going to absolutely slaughter a lone scout that isn't strictly optimized for combat, and while rogues are 'good' at stealth, they lack a lot of the best stealth tools and they will eventually mess up or get caught out and then

They are also good at running away. Dash.

solo scouting is just a stupid meme.

No, it isn't. I've seen it work very well. It can be done. Given how stealth works in this game, I usually suggest two person scouting efforts.

DM: You peek through the doorway and see a passage stretching into the darkness.

Spoiler: Nice example

Show

Wiz: I need ten minutes to get telepathic bond back up.
Cleric: Good idea, I'll take the time to roll the bones and see if we can get any information.
Rogue: I'm going to scout the corridor, checking for traps along the way, and see what I can map out while they are doing a ritual.
DM: OK. Cleric, what course of action are you looking at?
Cleric: Can I make that decision when the Rogue gets back?
DM: You can if they're back in time, otherwise you'll need to make a call at the end of the ritual time.
Rogue: I'll be back.
DM: OK, Rogue, what is your plan? And give me a stealth check.
Rogue: 22. Scout ahead, checking for traps along the way. I'll note any doors, but I won't go in. I'll just listen at the doorways for anything obvious, then move on. I'll turn back with enough time to make sure I'm there.
DM [draws on map]: You make your way down the hallway, using your passive investigation to check for traps along the way. You pass doors here, here, and here. At this one, you spotted a trip wire, although you don't know what it will set off without further investigation. Do you do so?
Rogue: I'm on a time limit, so nothing beyond the basics.
DM: OK. You hear some noises behind this door, but you can't tell what it is. You don't get anything from this door. Going any further risks not making it back in time.
Rogue: OK, heading back.
DM: Cleric, he'll be back in time, so what will you ask about?
Cleric: How about if we open the trapped door?
DM: The bones reveal both weal and woe - you sense great danger but great reward.

That entire exchange would take about a minute of real-time, and a big part of it is what the cleric is doing. If you don't think that was "worth it", then so be it, but it would be in my games. Three characters did something effective, one of them only because the rogue was allowed to eat up almost a minute doing some scouting. Could there be more descriptive dialogue? Sure, and it would take up more time. But unless the DM and the rogue go to a different room to have the DM give just them the descriptive dialogue, there is no difference between the DM describing it to the rogue and describing it to the whole party. All the descriptions are given, and when the scout returns, they share it, so it all works out. The number of decisions that have to be made just don't need to be that many - here we had the rogue give some parameters at the beginning, and the DM clarified once. Then they just had it done. If the DM describes every step the rogue takes, having them roll for investigation for every floor tile, then, yeah, scouting would be a huge waste for everyone else. But why would anyone run it that way? If the scout is wary of danger, they will very likely be able to recognize it and pull back before something happens that they cannot deal with, so let them do it and find out what's ahead. I've had a scout in my game (a bard rather than a rogue, but they still performed the function) turn being ambushed into surprising the enemy, and their total time of being focused on to do so was about 5 minutes.

There are plenty of ways for this to play out, but it also takes players who play as a team.

RE: solo-scouting ahead - yes, mechanically it's not very well supported and even dangerous for that player, but it's still a popular class fantasy for a reason. "There's 8 hobgoblins in the outpost ahead arguing over a dice game with a haunch of boar on the line, they wouldn't notice an angry ankheg charging through here. No, they didn't notice me, and I disabled that crappy tripwire alarm one of 'em strung outside the door. Do you blokes wanna leave them alone or mop 'em up? I'm good either way." {Flourishes daggers briefly.}

And yes, you need overwatch. The old "send in the elf" joke is a joke for a good reason. In 5e, guidance is one of many tools available to assist the scout ... if the players choose to play as a team.

[Dr.Samurai]

There's a conflict between in-game and table time here. Ritual casting takes ten minutes in-game, but it's essentially instant at the table. Clearing 2,000 feet of corridor might take ten minutes in-game, but at the table it requires rolls, descriptive dialogue, clarifying questions, and player and character decisions. If there's nothing in that 2,000 feet, then there's no value in the rogue clearing it; every thing in it, whether a door or a trap or a monster they find or whatever, adds extra table time to the task.

It's an interesting point that I think comes down to more how the table plays than anything else. How much time do you think this would take up? Because in my experience it doesn't take up too much of the table time. You're using Passive Perception/Investigation, and you've rolled 1 Stealth roll. Doesn't seem like much. If you do spot stuff, you make note and return to the group with your findings. Knowing you're about to enter an encounter is especially useful for buffing/surprise.

I mean, then, I don't think we disagree at all?

I don't know, I haven't been disagreeing with you so far lol. I don't consider the feature a ribbon, I think it is a lot stronger than people give it credit for, they're just not interested in the slower paced, out of combat/downtime game that would make use of this feature. That's fine, but it doesn't make it a ribbon feature.

Nobody has said that its useless, just that its not a strong feature relative to what you can otherwise get at level 9.

If you could move it to level 3 and give the assassin some new feature at level 9 instead, without making assassin ridiculously overtuned, i think that indicates that at a baseline assassin isn't very strong.

I think people get their hackles up when I say that something is 'relatively weak' as though we're suggesting that people shouldn't play with these classes or try to make them work.

I appreciate you Strangebloke but, respectfully, people have been saying that the assassin's features are just things you can normally do with skill/tool checks, and do them better. So maybe the word "useless" wasn't used, but certainly that's what is being said, that you basically don't have subclass features at those levels.

My hackles go up when I feel like the criticism is too strong or unwarranted, and trite. Because this stuff spreads all across the D&D community and makes people think that 80% of the player options are garbage and they don't give it a second thought because this is what everyone else is saying.

We are talking humans here There are debates that have gone on for millennia.
People often do the same silly thing, over, and over, and over, again.

Page 100 of the 1e Dungeon Master's Guide describes an attack on a gnome PC that had been hoisted up to investigate a elevated Secret Door, and by pounding a spike into the stone to attach a rope, alerted nearby ghouls.

"You hear some nasty rending noises and gobbling sounds, but they
end quickly"....time to roll a new character.

Keep in mind, the gnome in this example had PC overwatch, and was not entirely alone.
The example, made an impact on me.

It is not difficult to imagine, that a lone PC, sent on to explore 2,000 feet of corridor, or investigate 10 doors by themselves is even more at risk. The Paralyzed condition, prevents the subject from being able to move and speak, which could very well apply to being able to scream. Which means, the Rogue's disability/death is unknown to the group.

That seems bad to me now, and struck me as a bad outcome, even as a child.

I consider the type of rogue that would do this would have optimal Stealth/Perception, and so would not be surprised and would more than likely get the drop on creatures. The real dangers are the creatures that can't be spotted if they're not moving, like ropers and cloakers(?), or undead that just lie in wait for eternity until something disturbs them. But insofar as dungeon dwellers are not sneaking around in their own home, and if they are they can't beat an optimized Perception check, the rogue should be able to sneak forward and avoid conflict.

They won't each and every time, but I don't think it will happen enough times not to warrant the risk.

Sure, that describes a simple scenario, in a not too strange environment, with veteran players.

Now swap out the players for 13 year old players, or adults that are drinking alcohol, and swap the locale for something more exotic, such as a biomechanical corridor placed in a giant Tentacle tower, that rises from the earth. It might take more than a minute of real-time to resolve that.

That is part of why I brought up Scouting. In my experience, Scouting has always been a contentious issue, and depending upon the complexity of the scenario, the level of experience of the players, (and their level of inebriation), how long real time resolution takes will vary.

Yeah but if we consider this then a lot of this conversation in this thread is just meaningless. Because these objections are coming from veterans that play optimized play and chuck math at the computer screen and talk about averages and have really strong ideas about "how the game is played".

If we're just talking beer and pretzel games, and kid games, then like... play anything. You can play anything in this game and succeed.

EDIT: @Darth Credence, sorry I forgot to say you beat me to it! Thanks for providing those example dialogues. My experience has been it goes something like that at my table.

While we're on the topic of picking on classes for sucking up table time, how about those wizards scrolling through their spellbooks trying to pick out the perfect spell to have maximum impact? And then cycling through the same questions with the DM "can I hit all six of them here? what if I do this? if I put it here does that get my ally? etc etc".

[Psyren]

I appreciate you Strangebloke but, respectfully, people have been saying that the assassin's features are just things you can normally do with skill/tool checks, and do them better. So maybe the word "useless" wasn't used, but certainly that's what is being said, that you basically don't have subclass features at those levels.

Don't know if you mean me, but I never said the skill check method of persona creation is automatically "better" - though it actually could be better since there is no mandatory 7-day windup time, and it's obviously better for you if you're, say, a Bard or Ranger who has no chance of being an Assassin (subclass) anyway.

Rather what I've said is that, since you're using stuff built into the base class to do this, there's no opportunity cost and therefore you get the benefit of being able to make a persona (even one with a potentially higher chance of failure) but also with the benefits of having an actual 9th-level subclass feature that is useful even when 7-day infiltrations are not part of the campaign.

My hackles go up when I feel like the criticism is too strong or unwarranted, and trite. Because this stuff spreads all across the D&D community and makes people think that 80% of the player options are garbage and they don't give it a second thought because this is what everyone else is saying.

1) And I can somewhat sympathize, but I'm not going to let the potential perception of a feature at a table I'll never play with stop me from airing my opinions on said feature. That's that other table's problem.

2) 80% of rogue subclass features are.... well, not garbage per se, but certainly more of them could use a redesign than the ones that don't. Part of that is Sturgeon's Law, but the bigger part is just a general timidity that the designers had pre-Tasha's when it came to martial subclasses in general. Rogue is not the only victim of this, but they're one of the more prominent ones.

[Schwann145]

Nobody has said that its useless, just that its not a strong feature relative to what you can otherwise get at level 9.

Arguments in the vein of, "it's worse than X feat," or, "this background does the same thing," or, "it's no better than basic Skill rolls," are all arguments that work to seriously undervalue the ability and paint it as pretty useless.

No one has said the actual words, "it's a useless ability," but the dog-whistling about its uselessness has been pretty loud.

In truth, it's a very strong ability that just happens to be ill-suited to typical "adventure/combat heavy" D&D play. This makes it unpopular, but not weak or useless.

[Psyren]

Arguments in the vein of, "it's worse than X feat," or, "this background does the same thing," or, "it's no better than basic Skill rolls," are all arguments that work to seriously undervalue the ability and paint it as pretty useless.

No one has said the actual words, "it's a useless ability," but the dog-whistling about its uselessness has been pretty loud.

In truth, it's a very strong ability that just happens to be ill-suited to typical "adventure/combat heavy" D&D play. This makes it unpopular, but not weak or useless.

An ability that is inherently ill-suited to the way most people play the game cannot possibly be "very strong." That alone makes it situational at best, never mind the fact that even when the ideal situation for it arises, there are far less costly alternatives.

[Schwann145]

An ability that is inherently ill-suited to the way most people play the game cannot possibly be "very strong." That alone makes it situational at best, never mind the fact that even when the ideal situation for it arises, there are far less costly alternatives.

Treating the game as a table-top combat simulator is very popular in online optimization circles but that doesn't mean that it is the way "most people" play.

[Psyren]

Treating the game as a table-top combat simulator is very popular in online optimization circles but that doesn't mean that it is the way "most people" play.

You're the one who just called that playstyle "typical" and thus that a mechanic that doesn't fit said playstyle is "unpopular" - not me The "most" is coming from you.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

EDIT: @Darth Credence, sorry I forgot to say you beat me to it! Thanks for providing those example dialogues. My experience has been it goes something like that at my table.

While we're on the topic of picking on classes for sucking up table time, how about those wizards scrolling through their spellbooks trying to pick out the perfect spell to have maximum impact? And then cycling through the same questions with the DM "can I hit all six of them here? what if I do this? if I put it here does that get my ally? etc etc".

I don't get those questions from caster players hardly ever, and when I do they're new players. That might be because I run every combat on a map so players can make those calculations for themselves, and I expect them to do so. As for picking spells to prep, I find players do that without saying anything as the party is discussing what they're doing at the start of an adventuring day. So both of these things, at my table, take very little time. Certainly much less than moving through an unknown space.

[tokek]

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.

I stopped in amazement at this and then I thought it over and realised that you (when a DM or player) are just dealing with very different encounters to me. Certainly very different to encounters I run as a DM

I tend to run a good number of my encounters as "problem solving while being punched in the face". The encounter will have multiple often competing objectives and part of the design of it in the game is to see which objectives the characters choose to focus on. I very rarely run any encounter where the only objective is kill or be killed. I would definitely state that anything I regard as a centrepiece encounter will be like this, maybe the rather trivial ones that are only there to deplete a few resources don't have that level of thought going into them but the key important ones will be.

So when I am running things the flexibility, mobility and wide skill options of the rogue are all relevant not just outside combat but very often in combat. Rogues are excellent in that environment, they can do things resource-free that casters need to spend resources on doing should they even have an appropriate spell.

In anything resembling a white room environment I can see how Rogue would look the weakest of the classes. Its core class fantasy has been somewhat excluded from the encounter by encounter design.

[LudicSavant]

I'm in an infiltration focused game. Since this is an infiltration focused game, I am engaging in complex infiltration challenges, and enemies include counterintelligence agents and the like.

So say I'm an Assassin. I use Infiltration Expertise and now have a fake ID without needing to roll for it.

What it doesn't help me with is the ability to speak the local languages, or the ability to pass myself off as an exotic creature like a succubus or a giant, or to know things that someone in my position should know, or the ability to evade divinations or other forms of supernatural detection, or the ability to create new identities on the fly, or the ability to create identities for the party of renowned high level heroes that I'm traveling with, or for the VIP I want to safely smuggle out of the country, or the ability to just bypass all of the steps of a complex infiltration challenge that go much beyond 'okay, your letter of recommendation checks out, person I never met or heard of before.' And if you want to break into Faerie Fort Knox, you better believe that there's more to it than that.

It is a rather narrow feature, even within in its niche.

And since this is a level 9 party, we're at a point where the opposition that might actually worry a competent party (especially if it's for more than a week) is stuff like illithids and archmages and angels and such. And the competition for your job is something like an Eloquence Bard.

The most vehement defense just seems to amount to 'well the ability isn't useless!' But a 'very strong' subclass is bringing more than 'not useless.' It's bringing 'amazing!'

And the Assassin just isn't bringing amazing.

[Psyren]

So say I'm an Assassin. I use Infiltration Expertise and now have a fake ID without needing to roll for it.

What it doesn't help me with is the ability to speak the local languages, or the ability to pass myself off as an exotic creature like a succubus or a giant, or the ability to evade divinations or other forms of supernatural detection, or the ability to create new identities on the fly, or the ability to create identities for the party of renowned high level heroes that I'm traveling with, or for the VIP I want to safely smuggle out of the country, or the ability to just bypass all of the steps of a complex infiltration challenge that go much beyond 'okay, your letter of recommendation checks out, person I never met or heard of before.' And if you want to break into Faerie Fort Knox, you better believe that there's more to it than that.

It is rather narrow feature, even within in its niche.
And since this is a level 9 party, we're at a point where the opposition that might actually worry a competent party (especially if it's for more than a week) is stuff like illithids and archmages and angels and such. And the competition for your job is something like an Eloquence Bard.

The most vehement defense just seems to amount to 'well the ability isn't useless!' But a 'very strong' subclass is bringing more than 'not useless.' It's bringing 'amazing!'

And the Assassin just isn't bringing amazing.

They're just going to tell you that "unfailing" means it beats all that stuff - language/species barriers, divinations, special senses, all of it. Never mind that what counts as an "obvious reason" to somebody who can read minds or who should personally know everyone in attendance or who is from an extraplanar culture or even who can see the future is very different than what would be obvious to someone who can't do those things, just ignore that clause entirely, it's flavor text. Why do you hate martials?

[Schwann145]

What it doesn't help me with is the ability to speak the local languages...

...or the ability to pass myself off as an exotic creature like a succubus or a giant...

Welcome to 5e D&D, where certain character considerations (like the above) are only granted to (certain) spellcasting classes, or specific magic items, and if you're not a spellcasting class or don't have access to the right magic item(s), get F'd.
Assassin is not immune to this.

...or the ability to evade divinations or other forms of supernatural detection...

Rogues get Slippery Mind, which covers this concern. Sure, they don't get it until quite late, and it's not an amazingly strong feature for evading magic, but it's about as good as anybody else (who isn't a high level spellcaster) gets.

...or to know things that someone in my position should know...

That's gonna be determined, case-by-case, between you and your DM. Do you just lazily say, "I use Infiltration Expertise and have this new fake identity I'd like to use now," or do you discuss the nitty-gritty of it and hash these things out? If the former, sure, you're right. If the latter, no, you're wrong.

...or the ability to create new identities on the fly...

True. You can create new identities on the slow. If you're forced to do so on the fly, you gotta do it the regular way, with skill rolls, and it will be an inferior identity with many more holes to potentially see through.

...or the ability to create identities for the party of renowned high level heroes that I'm traveling with...

...or for the VIP I want to safely smuggle out of the country...

Well sure. The subclass is "Assassin," not "Imposter Specialist," or something. You're supposed to be able to get in, murder your target, and get out without being caught. Now, as a whole, is the Assassin good at this? Not really, but that has a lot more to do with D&D being very resistant to lethality.

...or the ability to just bypass all of the steps of a complex infiltration challenge that go much beyond 'okay, your letter of recommendation checks out, person I never met or heard of before.' And if you want to break into Faerie Fort Knox, you better believe that there's more to it than that.

True. This one ability does not, in fact, play the whole class/game for you. You do indeed have to rely on your other Rogue (and non-Rogue character) abilities in order to... play the game.


Soulknife has repeatedly come up as a much better subclass than the Assassin. I won't disagree with that, generally speaking, but I would like to know how a Soulknife handles your list of critiques? How would a Soulknife:
•Learn relevant languages.
•Pass themselves off as exotic creatures like succubi or giants.
•Know things that the fake identity should know.
•Evade divinations or other means of supernatural detection.
•Etc.