What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Keravath]

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

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

I'm a bit confused. Using that tool, level 8 barbarian and level 8 rogue, 20 in primary stat, +1 greatsword for the barbarian, +1 short bow for the rogue, no GWM or SS, 8 required roll to hit (eg 16 AC target), both attacks with advantage from either reckless attack or steady aim.

The numbers the calculator seems to give are:

Barbarian: 24.18 from two attacks
Rogue: 22.33 from one attack

At level 9, the rogue goes to 25.74 with the increase in sneak attack.

So, baseline, the rogue is comparable to any other martial if you leave out GWM/SS/PAM/XBOW.

The problem would appear to be the damage increasing feats rather than the rogue itself in terms of damage comparisons between martial classes.

When looking at the monk in these comparisons, the value of stunning strike can't be underestimated. DPS may be a bit lower but crowd control is exceptional in many cases though until recently the monk was further penalized due to the lack of a magical weapon (+to hit/+dam) for their unarmed strikes.

[Dr.Samurai]

In actual gameplay... it's not so simple.

The rogue's features are meant to allow it to stay mobile and out of danger, and to hide. If you're using Steady Aim to generate Advantage, you're assuming you have no need to move. Which is a GIANT assumption.

Secondly, without Sharpshooter, you're not ignoring Cover. If you're aiming for enemies engaged in melee combat with your allies, so you can get your Sneak Attack off, you may be taking a penalty to hit.

It's just not so easy to peg how the rogue is going to work out generally. If you have stuff to hide behind, you may be ducking in and out of hiding and will have Advantage from being an unseen attacker. But if the terrain doesn't allow for it or enemies are harassing you, then you need to use that bonus action to Disengage, or Dash. Then you might have to target someone next to an ally instead and won't have Advantage. Maybe the terrain favors you and you can Steady Aim all you want, maybe not.

If you do include Sharpshooter, then you really need to be able to Hide or stand still for Steady Aim if you want that bonus damage because you NEED the Advantage. And don't forget that two attacks+GWM means the barbarian not only has the potential to do that damage twice, but also proc a bonus action attack if they kill someone.

[Witty Username]

There is also a note a rogue with 20 Dex and a shortbow is less optimized rogue, and more minimum viable rogue.

To quick adjust for advantage (as a aside I don't do crits in my averages, the math rarely checks out to be worth):
84 % accuracy for rogue, 22.5 for an average damage hit, 18.9
64 % accuracy for barbarian 22 flat per hit with GWM for a 44 for the whole attack line, 28.16 that isn't including rage but it is about half a +4 bonus, 30.72 after the quick add


Now, there is a thing of crits, I don't like them in averages, but there is a thing to be said here

Barbarian crit, average damage 29, 31 with rage
Rogue crit, average damage 40

now this is only ~ 10 % of the time, which is why I don't bother with it in the average, but it is a thing with rogues, most of their damage is dice, so they gain a lot of damage on crits.

So we are doing at least an mildly optimized build vs this rogue, so let's toss in a couple things:

Elven accuracy is a fair pick on a rogue since they like their advantage and doesn't throw off the Dex gains, and elf allows proficiency in long bow or heavy crossbow(I like that second one)

So let's work those in:
Accuracy goes to 93% about, damage changes slightly 24.5, in the aggregate 22.93

And then that crit stuff,
14% so, one in every seven attacks is a crit now for them and the average damage goes up a little 44 damage

This also is very consistent damage, about half the barbarians attacks are missing, almost all of the rogues are hitting. this matters quite a bit if we don't have advantage for whatever reason or dealing with a high AC enemy.

A quick thing that doesn't come out well in this snapshot, the Barb is peaked, they pretty much peaked at 5th level,

A quick trip to say 15th level:
Barb pre accuracy adjustment, 22 per, 44 total, 25 and 50 with rage
Rogue same 33 damage average ( and this is the short bow one)

A nice thing in the crits though, Barb gets brutal critical twice, that brings it up to
36, 39 with rage
Rogue
61 damage ( for you see, rogue got brutal critical at 1st level, and 3th, and every other odd numbered level in the game

[Skrum]

In actual gameplay... it's not so simple.

The rogue's features are meant to allow it to stay mobile and out of danger, and to hide. If you're using Steady Aim to generate Advantage, you're assuming you have no need to move. Which is a GIANT assumption.

Secondly, without Sharpshooter, you're not ignoring Cover. If you're aiming for enemies engaged in melee combat with your allies, so you can get your Sneak Attack off, you may be taking a penalty to hit.

It's just not so easy to peg how the rogue is going to work out generally. If you have stuff to hide behind, you may be ducking in and out of hiding and will have Advantage from being an unseen attacker. But if the terrain doesn't allow for it or enemies are harassing you, then you need to use that bonus action to Disengage, or Dash. Then you might have to target someone next to an ally instead and won't have Advantage. Maybe the terrain favors you and you can Steady Aim all you want, maybe not.

If you do include Sharpshooter, then you really need to be able to Hide or stand still for Steady Aim if you want that bonus damage because you NEED the Advantage. And don't forget that two attacks+GWM means the barbarian not only has the potential to do that damage twice, but also proc a bonus action attack if they kill someone.

All entirely correct; I'm just being as generous to the rogue as I can be. They have the ability to generate their own adv, same as barb, so I'm giving 'em credit.

In play, you're right; the rogue is a lot less likely to have advantage as automatically as the barb does.

I'm a bit confused. Using that tool, level 8 barbarian and level 8 rogue, 20 in primary stat, +1 greatsword for the barbarian, +1 short bow for the rogue, no GWM or SS, 8 required roll to hit (eg 16 AC target), both attacks with advantage from either reckless attack or steady aim.

The numbers the calculator seems to give are:

Barbarian: 24.18 from two attacks
Rogue: 22.33 from one attack

At level 9, the rogue goes to 25.74 with the increase in sneak attack.

So, baseline, the rogue is comparable to any other martial if you leave out GWM/SS/PAM/XBOW.

The problem would appear to be the damage increasing feats rather than the rogue itself in terms of damage comparisons between martial classes.

I mean...most people play with feats. Including them in the comparison is hardly a wild leap. And the fact that rogues aren't greatly equipped to use those feats, that's obviously gotta count against them.

When looking at the monk in these comparisons, the value of stunning strike can't be underestimated. DPS may be a bit lower but crowd control is exceptional in many cases though until recently the monk was further penalized due to the lack of a magical weapon (+to hit/+dam) for their unarmed strikes.

Similarly, the table I play at also made monk-friendly charms that enhancement bonuses and extra damage dice. It's a big help to the monk.

Stunning Strike is...yeah I just hate this ability lol. Low percentage move that will also jack up the encounter when it works. I really wish monks had a different version, like it slows instead of stuns. I don't like it as a DM and I don't like it as a player.

[Witty Username]

All entirely correct; I'm just being as generous to the rogue as I can be. They have the ability to generate their own adv, same as barb, so I'm giving 'em credit.

In play, you're right; the rogue is a lot less likely to have advantage as automatically as the barb does.

Eh, the barb is also less likely to deal damage at all, because of the need to close distance

Not to mention reckless goes both ways, overusing it is a great way to take a bunch of unnecessary damage, with rogue you at least don't often reduce your defenses, and in the case of hiding, actively contribute to them.

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

So, I want to show a thing math wise, we are going to not use advantage more for math simplicity

So we have that barbarian attack line:
40% accuracy on them GWM hits, 22 as discussed 8.8, 17.6 average

Rogue (soul knife)
First the two attacks
1d6+5 and 1d4+5 averages 8.5 and 7.5, 65 % accuracy, average 10.4

So we are about 7 points behind, but we haven't put in sneak attack yet
8th level so 4d6
87 % accuracy, since we have to chances to make this connect with the two hits
12.3 extra damage to that adjusted average

we hit 22.7 damage,

Any additional attacks on rogue makes its DPR go up very significantly

And we haven't even gotten into homing strikes yet.

[Amechra]

It's funny to me that the comparison is "Barbarian who is fighting with the best combat-boosting feat for their class and has both Rage and Reckless Attacks already active, which maximizes the benefit of said feat, which is already an outlier" vs. "a Rogue using a fighting style that favors safety over damage". Of course the Rogue's going to look bad with that comparison.

I'm also not surprised that optimizers, who tend to go for an interpretation of the game that heavily favors classes that can nova are down on the Rogue, the class that has no real ability to nova (outside of a couple subclasses). The thing is that the Rogue shines in fights where you aren't free to dump your resources, because it doesn't cost them anything to sneak attack someone in the face.

...

Personally, I wish that they put in specific advice on how to treat Expertise and Reliable Talent when it came to skills, because boy howdy are those features powerful if the DM isn't inflating DCs to try to keep up. Seriously, look at these benchmarks:

Level	8 (-1)	10/12 (+0/+1)	14 (+2)	16/18 (+3/+4)	20 (+5)
11-12	Auto-pass Medium checks	Auto-pass Medium checks	Auto-pass Hard checks	Auto-pass Hard checks	Auto-pass Hard checks
13-16	Auto-pass Medium checks	Auto-pass Hard checks	Auto-pass Hard checks	Auto-pass Hard checks	Auto-pass Very Hard checks
17-20	Auto-pass Hard checks	Auto-pass Hard checks	Auto-pass Hard checks	Auto-pass Very Hard checks	Auto-pass Very Hard checks

Sure, it uses the loose-y goose-y-est part of the system, but Expert skills on a high-level Rogue should effectively be treated like low-grade superpowers by the party. Barring really extreme cases, the answer to whether or not the T3 Rogue with Acrobatics Expertise can do something acrobatic is an emphatic​ yes.

[JellyPooga]

Sneak Attack is a Cantrip.

That's the problem with common perception of the Rogue Class; everyone is judging it by one of it's (arguably) weakest features. No-one would think much of the Wizard either if they weren't looking past the Firebolt cantrip they got at 1st level as if it were their primary function in the game.

That and poor assumptions about how the Class functions, what it's supposed to do and what it's capable of doing. Statements like "Rogues are squishy" and "your average Rogue dumps Strength" and the like are based on such assumptions. Rogue is one of the more modular Classes, allowing for a variety of play styles and builds; Dex is an obvious primary for them, but by no means the only one in the same way that, for instance, Int is for the Wizard or Str for a Barbarian. Likewise, nothing dictates a Rogues AC is capping at light armour; one feat upgrades them to medium armour and shield; arguably an obvious choice for a character that gains no bonus from 2-handing weapons and wants to be in melee.

[Snowbluff]

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

4e rogues are pretty decent with some nice attacks, but it's also where the "can only use dinky weapons" rules come from. They also were no ranger, as they only had a limited number of additional taps and a more conditional damaging feature.

[stoutstien]

Rogues, and monks for that matter, are frequently singled out as being poor choices once you eliminate all the the things that can't be accounted for due to being table level elements. Artificer occasionally get added as well.

Monks and rogues are singled out as amazing when you instead focus on those table level factors because they have tools to circumvent or otherwise deal with challenges that impede the ability to apply the damage in the first place or when damage isn't the method needed.

[Kurald Galain]

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

Rogues in 1E/2E are fairly weak in combat (they have low numbers for basically everything), but they have better skills than anyone else, and gain XP faster than every other class (along with the bard).

Rogues in 3E are considered pretty bad, first because lots of things are immune to sneak attack; and second because they have more skills but aren't better at those skills. PF mitigates these issues somewhat but the result is still not stellar.

Rogues in 4E are a competent and high-damage frontliner, and are close to the top when it comes to melee strikers, outclassed mainly by the ranger. They are not noticeably more or less skilled than other classes.

...does that help? Rogues are the "skills guy" but haven't been particularly good at that except in 2E; and they are the "melee striker" but haven't been great at that except in 4E.

[Skrum]

It's funny to me that the comparison is "Barbarian who is fighting with the best combat-boosting feat for their class and has both Rage and Reckless Attacks already active, which maximizes the benefit of said feat, which is already an outlier" vs. "a Rogue using a fighting style that favors safety over damage". Of course the Rogue's going to look bad with that comparison.

I'm also not surprised that optimizers, who tend to go for an interpretation of the game that heavily favors classes that can nova are down on the Rogue, the class that has no real ability to nova (outside of a couple subclasses). The thing is that the Rogue shines in fights where you aren't free to dump your resources, because it doesn't cost them anything to sneak attack someone in the face.

OK so in my first damage comparison, I gave rogue 18 dex and sharp shooter, the ranged counterpart to GWM. And it did LESS damage. Rogues only get 1 attack, so increasing the chance to miss that attack and not trigger their sneak attack makes them a bad candidate to use let's see, basically the only feat that can increase weapon damage in the game.

I also want to point out that my criticism of rogue damage is contextual: they don't do anything else. If rogue did exactly the damage it did now but could also tank - I'd like them more. If, more fitting to their class theme, they did the damage they did now but also had good CC options - I'd like them more. But they don't do either of those things. They have poor map presence; yes they can skirmish, but as a member of a team, they are bringing very little except damage. And if that's all they're doing, well the damage should be good! And it's...kinda not.

Finally, barb is not a nova class either. In fact, barb is also widely considered a bottom 3 class and suffers from a multitude of their own problems. The fact that rogue compares poorly to barb is not a good look for rogue.

Sure, it uses the loose-y goose-y-est part of the system, but Expert skills on a high-level Rogue should effectively be treated like low-grade superpowers by the party. Barring really extreme cases, the answer to whether or not the T3 Rogue with Acrobatics Expertise can do something acrobatic is an emphatic​ yes.

Absolutely, there's some version of the game where rogues' skills are a major boon and worth the build resources the class spends on being good at skill checks. But that's not 5e. Skills as a whole are grossly underbaked and thus just aren't that interesting or impactful. Thus the rogue, who is good at skills, gets shafted. Yes it's crappy. But that's unfortunately how the game was written.

[Theodoxus]

What drives a poor reputation (for the Rogue class)?

Expectations vs reality. That's 100%, always the reason. It's pure psychology. It's why there's debate over the 'bottom of the barrel' class. If you expect the Rogue to work like the expectation from thief-like video games or roguish movies, you're going to be sad and call it the worst. If you expect the Monk work like the expectation from Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan movies, you're going to be sad and call it the worst. If you expect the Ranger to work like the expectation from Robin Hood or World of Warcraft, you're going to be sad and call it the worst.

That's the primary drawback of a class based system - you see a name, it conjures a memory of something likewise named that class and it either matches your memory, or it doesn't. It reminds me of switching from 3rd to 5th editions. There are a lot of similarly named classes, abilities, spells... but there are subtle differences - and if you're bringing in the same mindset because the name is the same, you're going to have at best, not as good a time, and at worst, think the game is broken.

The best and quickest fix is to remove prior expectations and look at the class as it is in 5E, build to support what it does and stop trying to make it do what it's not good at.

The slower fix is to wait for the 2024 patch, I guess... though, because people are people, it'll just cause a shift in perception of what is worst.

[Dalinar]

Rogues are pretty popular at my table, and I've put some thought into why there's a gap between that and the perception here. Comes down to a few things:

1. We have a couple players who are enamored with what the Rogue represents narratively, without regard for its mechanics;
2. Cunning Action is very useful (I have joked that it is addicting);
3. Our DM puts a lot of work into making sure skill proficiencies are useful (we put a LOT of miles on Arcana in particular; and we're also blessed with robust homebrew systems for travel and crafting, both of which are great ways to turn skill proficiencies into combat advantages);
4. Our DM also very rarely ever gives us a white-room encounter, and when secondary objectives are present the Rogues tend to be really good at accomplishing them (like the one a couple months ago that involved disarming bombs);
5. We also get long rests quite infrequently, which lowers the value of long-rest resources like most spellcasting, and of course Rogues don't really care much about that;
6. While Sneak Attack is bad on paper, it puts out big individual damage numbers, which feels good despite the inconsistency inherent to Rogue damage. One crit for 30+ tends to be a session highlight, even if the average gets dragged down by all the misses

IMO if you're making a tier list of most generally useful classes at most tables, you're going to have the most trouble selling Barbarian, Rogue, or Monk. I think Monk is probably the worst off of those three on average, but there's a lot of individual table reasons that it might be any of those (having lots of single-target fights favors Monk because of how big an action economy swing Stunning Strike is in those types of encounters; Barbarian is carried by Great Weapon Master in some respects, so absent that it can be a struggle, or against enemies that deal damage types Rage doesn't help against).

Ranger gets cited a lot, too, though I think it's propped up by a few things, such as the stellar post-PHB subclasses and Goodberry being a pretty efficient use of low-level slots.

[Skrum]

Rogues are pretty popular at my table, and I've put some thought into why there's a gap between that and the perception here. Comes down to a few things:

1. We have a couple players who are enamored with what the Rogue represents narratively, without regard for its mechanics;
2. Cunning Action is very useful (I have joked that it is addicting);
3. Our DM puts a lot of work into making sure skill proficiencies are useful (we put a LOT of miles on Arcana in particular; and we're also blessed with robust homebrew systems for travel and crafting, both of which are great ways to turn skill proficiencies into combat advantages);
4. Our DM also very rarely ever gives us a white-room encounter, and when secondary objectives are present the Rogues tend to be really good at accomplishing them (like the one a couple months ago that involved disarming bombs);
5. We also get long rests quite infrequently, which lowers the value of long-rest resources like most spellcasting, and of course Rogues don't really care much about that;
6. While Sneak Attack is bad on paper, it puts out big individual damage numbers, which feels good despite the inconsistency inherent to Rogue damage. One crit for 30+ tends to be a session highlight, even if the average gets dragged down by all the misses

Makes sense. Love to see homebrewed crafting and traveling. That's stellar stuff that I can't believe 5e has never offered good rules for.

IMO if you're making a tier list of most generally useful classes at most tables, you're going to have the most trouble selling Barbarian, Rogue, or Monk. I think Monk is probably the worst off of those three on average, but there's a lot of individual table reasons that it might be any of those (having lots of single-target fights favors Monk because of how big an action economy swing Stunning Strike is in those types of encounters; Barbarian is carried by Great Weapon Master in some respects, so absent that it can be a struggle, or against enemies that deal damage types Rage doesn't help against).

I will defend barb slightly by saying they're almost a "good" class. Like, give them some help in the saving throw dept (a bonus ASI at 6th wouldn't go amiss, considering the feat tax of GWM) and they might not be a top class but they'll at least be exactly what they're advertised as. Tough, hard to stop, and hit hard. Like, not optimal compared to a wizard or paladin or something, but they'll do what they're supposed to, at least through t2 (they still have scaling problems).

Monk and rogue can also be good, but it takes some working and game knowledge. Barb is much closer to being the newb friendly, out of the box basic character that still pulls their weight.

[Blatant Beast]

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

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

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

rogue: 23.09
barb: 32.09

Not so good!

The above is a great example of someone putting their finger on a scale.

An 8th level Arcane Trickster, has 4d6 damage from Sneak Attack (14 damage avg) + 2d8 Psychic from Shadow Blade (9 damage avg)+2d8 Thunder from Booming Blade (9 dmg avg).

The Arcane Trickster in this example is doing the around the same gross damage as your sample Barbarian that has a Feat and a Magic Greatsword, but with a greater diversity of damage types.

Spells are overpowered, so it is not surprising that the subclass that seem to be the most popular Rogue Subclass, (Arcane Trickster for those not following along at home), features them, but other Rogue Subclasses, like the Inquisitive are also surprisingly good.

The Inquisitive subclass eliminates the need for friends to enable Sneak Attack, and Ear for Deceit, Eye for Detail, and Steady Eye where all very useful abilities in play in a Lost Mines of Phandelver campaign that later transitioned into Curse of Strahd.

My initial opinion about Rogues, was very similar to your own Skrum, I honestly did not think having a Rogue in the party was a big deal, ( I still sorta feel that way). A Rogue, certainly, is not essential for success. With that stated, throw a Guidance spell on a 9th level Rogue Inquisitive and have them investigate Castle Strahd, (or fight invisible/ethereal hags), and the results where impressive.

[Witty Username]

OK so in my first damage comparison, I gave rogue 18 dex and sharp shooter, the ranged counterpart to GWM. And it did LESS damage.

The easy solution to that is other options,
Use an access point for booming blade as an example. Soul knife has multiple attacks and works sharpshooter if you must, phantom has bolts from the grave as a simple damage multiplier.
AT and Thief have while admittedly late game options the ability to multiply their sneak attack with additional turns.

[Amnestic]

Outside of some subclasses, rogues get zero rest-based features with the sole exception of their 20th level capstone. This is both a positive (they're reliable and are limited solely by their hit points) and a negative (can be overshadowed by classes who can burn rest-based features without concern) depending on how many fights the party deals with between naps. If a lot of games frequently have 15 minute combat days, where short rests are absent and long rests are plentiful, the rogue's consistency doesn't get to shine quite as hard.

[Skrum]

The easy solution to that is other options,
Use an access point for booming blade as an example. Soul knife has multiple attacks and works sharpshooter if you must, phantom has bolts from the grave as a simple damage multiplier.
AT and Thief have while admittedly late game options the ability to multiply their sneak attack with additional turns.

Like what? Magic initiate to get booming blade? I guess that does work fairly well for rogue.

Psychic blades are bad. No way to give them an enhancement bonus, no way to make them any better than a mundane weapon. DND has historically loved abilities that give a character a weapon they can't be disarmed of, but it's not very good in practice. 99% of the time, characters have their equipment.

[Aimeryan]

They suffer from the same thing all the martial classes do; lack of agency and lack of interesting play (largely a result of the former, but also because the basic loop of 'I attack' is kind of dull).
That they also suffer on numbers is just the cherry on top.

If WotC developed the skill system both inside and outside of combat then this may all change. I would probably argue that Rogues shouldn't be the only ones with good skills out of the martials though, in that case (Bard not being martial). Expertise is really where all skills should be (i.e., proficiency should be doubled when applied to skills the character is proficient in); I would probably have that baseline and give Rogues something interesting in its place (this being in the aforementioned developed skill system, so what that would be is either non-skill related as it isn't needed or would be related to the new system preferably in a non-numeric function).

[JellyPooga]

They suffer from the same thing all the martial classes do; lack of agency and lack of interesting play (largely a result of the former, but also because the basic loop of 'I attack' is kind of dull).
That they also suffer on numbers is just the cherry on top.

If WotC developed the skill system both inside and outside of combat then this may all change. I would probably argue that Rogues shouldn't be the only ones with good skills out of the martials though, in that case (Bard not being martial). Expertise is really where all skills should be (i.e., proficiency should be doubled when applied to skills the character is proficient in); I would probably have that baseline and give Rogues something interesting in its place (this being in the aforementioned developed skill system, so what that would be is either non-skill related as it isn't needed or would be related to the new system preferably in a non-numeric function).

This here is a classic example of expectations colouring the Rogue in a worse light than they deserve.

Expertise raising the bar on what constitutes being good at a Skill absolutely should not make doubled proficiency the baseline available to all classes. Baseline Proficiency does that and your GM shouldn't be artificially raising that bar in an attempt to "challenge" the Rogue; they should be allowing the Rogue to be better than everyone else.

Martials doing no more than "just attack", meaning lack of agency, sounds more like a player and/or scenario issue. Just because there's no spell descriptions telling you what you can or can't do, doesn't mean you don't have agency.

[Psyren]

Rogues in 3E are considered pretty bad, first because lots of things are immune to sneak attack; and second because they have more skills but aren't better at those skills. PF mitigates these issues somewhat but the result is still not stellar.

I will say that 3.5e eventually printed things that help with this like Penetrating Strike. But I agree, it's an issue that PF1 did a much better job with.

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

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

"Janky?" On average it's 30ft+, and even if you roll a one (10ft) that's still enough to get out of any grapple, difficult terrain, through hazards etc and still leave your action and move free.

They get TWF and Thrown for free/without a feat, reliable damage before magic weapons are available at most campaigns (and are no worse with magic weapons if you get those), Homing Strikes makes them much less likely to waste their turn than other rogues and costs them literally nothing if they still miss, and hour-long concentration-free invisibility multiple times per day. And the telepathy is very far from a ribbon, unless your party being able to coordinate quietly never comes up at your table; it definitely comes up at mine.

[J-H]

Did someone say Monks plateau post-11? Is that at 14 and get to be one of the top 3 classes in terms of saving throws (behind Paladins and probably Artificers)? Or at 18 when they can turn invisible and resist everything but force damage for 10 rounds?

I'd put Ranger at the low point because its spell list is lacking when compared to the Paladin or Artificer list and its damage is lower than the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster. It's basically the worst of the half-casters, and it doesn't have the inherent tankiness that all the others have. More of the Ranger's power is in the subclass than the base chassis, which is why Gloomstalker and Horizon Walker are so good (HW post-11 is AMAZING. 3 attacks and 30' of teleporting per round gives a rogue/monk grade mobility archer).

I have played a Rogue with a shield. It was really annoying to lose an action swapping back and forth between the shield or not to use a shortbow against a dragon, enough so that I'm just not bothering with shields on any future rogues I make.

[Dr.Samurai]

I will defend barb slightly by saying they're almost a "good" class. Like, give them some help in the saving throw dept (a bonus ASI at 6th wouldn't go amiss, considering the feat tax of GWM) and they might not be a top class but they'll at least be exactly what they're advertised as. Tough, hard to stop, and hit hard. Like, not optimal compared to a wizard or paladin or something, but they'll do what they're supposed to, at least through t2 (they still have scaling problems).

Monk and rogue can also be good, but it takes some working and game knowledge. Barb is much closer to being the newb friendly, out of the box basic character that still pulls their weight.

My barbarians are pretty stellar in tiers 1 and 2. Far from "almost" being a "good class", they excel and are usually tougher and hit harder than most.

I'm in a game now, tier 1, and my barbarian can one-shot some of the enemies, can one-shot tougher enemies on a crit, and resists a lot of damage. The casters are using cantrips and are rolling a single die. Sometimes they roll a 1 for damage. Many times the monsters make their saving throw just on the die roll, before even adding modifiers.

Some of these turns are brutal in how ineffective the casters are when they are trying to conserve their resources and rely on cantrips.

So I don't really see the "barbarians are at the bottom of the barrel" discussion, at least at the levels our games go to. In tier 2 we get Extra Attack, another ASI, and Initiative/Mobility boosts, plus your second subclass feature. Casters are catching up of course with level 3 and 4 spells, and more slots. But my barbarians have never felt "bottom of the pack".

[Psyren]

Did someone say Monks plateau post-11? Is that at 14 and get to be one of the top 3 classes in terms of saving throws (behind Paladins and probably Artificers)? Or at 18 when they can turn invisible and resist everything but force damage for 10 rounds?

I meant offensively, which none of the things you listed matter for. They do one point more damage per hit on average at 17th level though, so there's that!

I'd put Ranger at the low point because its spell list is lacking when compared to the Paladin or Artificer list and its damage is lower than the Eldritch Knight and Arcane Trickster.

Lacking? ...Have you read it? Spike Growth, Pass Without Trace, Aid, Goodberry, Conjure Animals, Steel Wind Strike, Absorb Elements, Swift Quiver... I'd put it above Artificer for sure, and honestly I think it's a toss-up with Paladin too.

[Skrum]

Barbs are very good in t1. Yes they're one note, but at no point in the game is that one note more applicable than in t1. They're tougher than everyone, hit harder than anyone, and it's a blast.

But they drop off badly and by t3 where they're playing the exact same game they played at t1 and even their numbers have barely changed (plus mental saving throws become more and more common), barb is not in a good place.

As to this thread as a whole, like the rogue defenders have come out in force. And like... No one is trying to change y'all's mind lol. If you like rogue, continue to do so! One of 5e's greatest achievements is that each class is perfectly playable, and that includes rogue. But like I said up thread, SOME class has to be last, and personally I think that's rogue. They're just playing a different game, and if 5e wasn't 5e, I'm sure I'd change my mind.

Remember, the OP was "why do rogues have a bad rep." Reputation isn't the same thing as an objective evaluation of the class. Rogue in particular is reliant on the DM making sure what the rogue can do comes up and is valuable in the game. Lots of DMs don't do that, or don't do it though, thus rogues have a bad rep.

[Pex]

I have PTSD about rogues in social play. In the past if a player will be disruptive he'll be a rogue. He'll steal from party members. He will steal treasure meant for the party. He will kill NPCs we want to talk to. He will kill NPC enemies after we talk to them and agree to let them go. Nowadays the disruptive player is not necessarily the rogue and the rogue player can and has been a valuable member of the party engaging in great teamwork. Still, I can't help myself. When joining a game meeting new people I will get silently apprehensive about the player who plays the rogue. He can easily earn my trust while another player gets my stink eye when play begins, but in that initial introduction - "Hi, my name is John Doe. I'm playing a rogue." - I feel a moment of dread. It's not fair to John Doe, but there it is.

[Zuras]

The reason Rogue player experiences vary wildly is because DMs vary wildly in the opportunities they give Rogues to shine with their skills. They are competent contributors in combat, but if there aren’t any chandeliers to drop or MacGuffins to steal they won’t get true spotlight moments.

All the best Rogue moments in my campaigns have involved theft/replacement of MacGuffins or opening locks/freeing prisoners while under fire.

[Crusher]

Also, you're saying "from safety" like it's a merit to the rogue. One of my complaints about rogue is exactly that - they do their little sneak attack business, and then scram.

I don't disagree with your math, but I do feel like your assumptions are driven by thought-exercises rather than actual play. Like, sure, this is a good point if every fight starts with both sides within a single-round's move of being in melee, and that does happen a lot. But if its a weird situation or there's terrain considerations (for example, the party is climbing a tower and gets ambushed by monsters from above or the two groups start on opposite sides of a chasm or the monsters can fly or the party is attacked by multiple groups from different directions) then the rogue's range flexibility becomes gigantically more valuable.

The average fight lasts 4 rounds, maybe? If the Barbarian has to spend a single round not attacking for whatever reason, they take a 25% hit to their dps for the fight (and might lose rage, penalizing them further. They'll probably be able to throw a hand-axe at *something*, but it'll still be a substantial hit to their dps). Battlefield flexibility is really hard to quantify, but its a mistake to assume its value is zero.

[Rerem115]

Full disclosure, my experience may not reflect that of the general population here. The tables I play at tend towards low-medium optimization (no 'cheese' builds, an unspoken agreement to avoid scry and die tactics) but have higher power overall (1st level feats, rolled ability scores, or even gestalt rules).

For most of these games, I've been the Rogue player. Generally, what I've found has been discussed extensively upthread; reliable, if somewhat conditional damage, combat mobility, and enough skills to play a generalist role in multiple fields while still specializing in another. It's one of the few classes that can reliably 'dual-class'; Ranger 5-9/Rogue X is probably my all time favorite build, but you can swap Ranger for Fighter, Barbarian, or even Paladin and still have a great experience.

TL;DR, Rogue is best as a dual class, an enhancement to an Extra Attack martial (or gish!) who wants broad reliability over specializing/committing to a fullcaster track.

[Hael]

The reason Rogue player experiences vary wildly is because DMs vary wildly in the opportunities they give Rogues to shine with their skills..

Also what tier they are played in. If you mostly play in tier1 campaigns, rogues are perfectly fine. It just falls off a cliff after that point.

To the people defending Rogue damage. Which classes would you say the rogue can reliably outdamage (given sufficient optimization). I think you will find it quite difficult to best the optimum builds of the other classes, even when you take your best rogue builds and put them side to side (eg soulknife <lvl 5, arcane trickster/phantom > lvl 5 etc)