What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[JellyPooga]

Rogue, as noted, is a "selfish" class (while also relying on others to give them space to work!)

Can you point me to where the Rogue has any rule that is more selfish than any other class? I've already noted several specific abilities the Rogue has that are explicitly the opposite, geared specifically toward team play. So far, the only evidence that the Rogue is selfish I've seen is based on individual playstyle (which is a player issue, not a class one) or baseless expectation.

I only contest the claim because it is obviously part of the Rogues poor reputation, but I've yet to be convinced it's based on anything but stereotypes rather than rules.

[Skrum]

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

This is something to talk about because it might be the single biggest reason why I personally don't think rogue is very good.

Affirmed vs Implied Abilities
A simple comparison: aura of protection vs expertise in stealth
The aura is clearly defined ability with explicit rules about what it does, when it works, etc. A DM might try to "work around it" by...creating lots of threats that split the party up. Or, showering the party with AoE effects that punish them for grouping around the paladin. But regardless of how the DM responds (or don't respond), the paladin has an aura that provides a very powerful buff to anyone within 10 ft of them. It's a fantastic ability.

Compare that to a 9th level rogue with +13 in stealth. Hell, let's say they have Boots of Elvenkind too, so most of the time they're rolling a +13 with adv. There's essentially no stealth roll they can't succeed at. What does that give them? Well...they can sneak around, I guess?

Some things they could very plausibly do, considering the supernatural levels of stealthiness -
1) Hide in Plain Sight. Wood elves get a conditional version, but short of that, there's no RAW way to do this. If the rogue is caught out in the open, they don't even get to roll. They just get seen
2) Straight up Invisible. There could be a rule wherein if a creature's stealth roll exceeds a perception check by 15 or more, they're effectively invisible, regardless of conditions (gloom stalkers have a cool version of this that they don't even have to roll for; they're just invisible to dark vision. Rogue? crickets)
3) Make hide checks as part of your movement. This is what cunning action is supposed to do, but in reality the rogue just gets jammed up on bonus actions. If they disengage as a bonus action, they can't hide, even in perfect conditions. It doesn't matter that they have an average stealth roll of 27; they just can't get away.

Of course, any DM can add something like this, and many will do an ad hoc version when someone rolls a nat 20 on their skill check. But the base game doesn't say anything about it. Ergo, the DM has to constantly work, be reminded, and think of good things to happen when the rogue has a crazy roll. But it's never going to be consistent or something the rogue can look at their character sheet and go "oh, perfect, I can do X."

The inertia of the rules is against rogues. Rogues are supposed to be the skill class, but skills barely do anything at all, RAW. It's up the DM to do all this fill work to make the class work how it probably should. When the DM does that work? Rogue works amazing! Practically gods. When the DM is running a tough encounter and has a million things to track? Yeah sorry rogue, I don't have time for that right now. What does your sheet say?

[Dr.Samurai]

Can you point me to where the Rogue has any rule that is more selfish than any other class? I've already noted several specific abilities the Rogue has that are explicitly the opposite, geared specifically toward team play. So far, the only evidence that the Rogue is selfish I've seen is based on individual playstyle (which is a player issue, not a class one) or baseless expectation.

I only contest the claim because it is obviously part of the Rogues poor reputation, but I've yet to be convinced it's based on anything but stereotypes rather than rules.

It's baseless.

Fighter: Stand back, I'll keep them from reaching you guys.
Wizard: No need Fighter, I have summoned a creature to do the fighting for you. That way, your hit points are protected, and I get the glory.
Bard: Okay, I'll make sure to provide any healing.
Wizard: At ease Bard, I dipped Life Cleric and grabbed Goodberry with Magic Initiate. Everyone can keep themselves topped off, thanks to me, and you don't have to do anything.
Rogue: Alright, well I'll scout ahead and make sure the way is clear of traps or hidden enemies.
Wizard: Master yourself Rogue, you are not needed here. I will make sure the way is clear with my familiar, or my Arcane Eye. That way you remain safe, and I once again beat the challenge for us.
Rogue: It's okay, I don't mind, this is what my expertise is in. Keep your familiar safe, and don't waste your spell slots.
Wizard: You selfish piece o--- !

[Dr.Samurai]

3) Make hide checks as part of your movement.

There must be something in the air because I was thinking about this earlier this morning; that martials should be able to do things as part of their movement, or by spending some of their movement. That would allow them to do more without gunking up the action economy.

Of course, any DM can add something like this, and many will do an ad hoc version when someone rolls a nat 20 on their skill check. But the base game doesn't say anything about it. Ergo, the DM has to constantly work, be reminded, and think of good things to happen when the rogue has a crazy roll. But it's never going to be consistent or something the rogue can look at their character sheet and go "oh, perfect, I can do X."

The inertia of the rules is against rogues. Rogues are supposed to be the skill class, but skills barely do anything at all, RAW. It's up the DM to do all this fill work to make the class work how it probably should. When the DM does that work? Rogue works amazing! Practically gods. When the DM is running a tough encounter and has a million things to track? Yeah sorry rogue, I don't have time for that right now. What does your sheet say?

For my part, I am not moved much by these arguments. On either side. Would I like more granularity in the rules, and explicit abilities? Yeah, for sure. I wasn't phased by 3rd edition or 4th edition, as opposed to some of the visceral reactions people have when discussing those editions.

But the problem is people will complain that it's too much for the players to keep track of and you need system mastery and you'll forget your little bonuses etc etc.

So we get 5E, which is more vague and leaves everything open. And now we get complaints that the DM has to do too much.

For me... playing D&D is a commitment to play the freaking game, whether as a DM expanding on what the rules already say, or as a player keeping track of all their features. So I can only shrug my shoulders.

[Witty Username]

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

Rogue also has built in mitigation with uncanny dodge.

Let's use a monster as a reference, let's go with a fire elemental. It has a +6 attack, rogue will have an AC of about 17. That gives the fire elemental a 50/50 hit rate.
Dealing an average of of 10 damage a turn.
Rogue has uncanny dodge, which will only be 1 attack.
But notably here that is usually sufficient for this attack line, 2 attacks with a 50/50, the majority of the time it will be one hit. So the break down is something like 0-25%, 5-50%, 15 -25%. 6.25 is the average being taken a turn.
This will get worse if we are fighting multiple of these, which we probably are by 8th level, but this is just a snapshot.

For barbarian, I am being mean and picked an enemy that does fire damage, so unless bear that will be 10 or 15 (5-7.5 if we are a bear) received dpr depending if they are using reckless.

Steady aim does have the cost of possition, but not AC, Uncanny dodge is also weaker, but I would also note more reliable as it doesn't have issues with damage types, doesn't use a resource, and the caviot that it needs to be an attack is pretty easy to make.

[Dr.Samurai]

Yes but Rage is protecting you from all the other BPS damage you are taking in that encounter or throughout the day, so it's still not really apples to apples.

And sometimes you are using Reckless Attack when enemies already have Advantage. My barbarian, right now as we speak, is currently in a life or death battle against a pack of wolves, backed up against a tree lol. He's using Reckless Attack and it functionally has no drawback in this case because of Pack Tactics.

Not to say your observations are wrong, but the game is really more complex than our comparisons can capture.

[stoutstien]

Yes but Rage is protecting you from all the other BPS damage you are taking in that encounter or throughout the day, so it's still not really apples to apples.

And sometimes you are using Reckless Attack when enemies already have Advantage. My barbarian, right now as we speak, is currently in a life or death battle against a pack of wolves, backed up against a tree lol. He's using Reckless Attack and it functionally has no drawback in this case because of Pack Tactics.

Not to say your observations are wrong, but the game is really more complex than our comparisons can capture.

Why not climb the tree and avoid the attacks all together?

[Dr.Samurai]

Why not climb the tree and avoid the attacks all together?

I took a bad risk. We have many encounters in the day and they can be quite challenging in this game. I had already used 1 rage against a bunch of swarms. I have an AC of 21, and thought I could risk some attacks and not Rage, since I'd be up in the tree in a single turn and be making ranged attacks.

Well... 4 hits later and a failed Strength save and I'm at the foot of the tree but prone. Since we're playing on a grid, I can't climb up into the 3rd square because I don't have enough movement after standing up. If I survive this round (unlikely) then I will hopefully not be prone on my following turn and I'll Disengage and climb. Fingers crossed!

[stoutstien]

I took a bad risk. We have many encounters in the day and they can be quite challenging in this game. I had already used 1 rage against a bunch of swarms. I have an AC of 21, and thought I could risk some attacks and not Rage, since I'd be up in the tree in a single turn and be making ranged attacks.

Well... 4 hits later and a failed Strength save and I'm at the foot of the tree but prone. Since we're playing on a grid, I can't climb up into the 3rd square because I don't have enough movement after standing up. If I survive this round (unlikely) then I will hopefully not be prone on my following turn and I'll Disengage and climb. Fingers crossed!

Ouch lol. Well if anything it's true to troupe.

[Dr.Samurai]

Ouch lol. Well if anything it's true to troupe.

When I saw the results of the wolf attacks I was like "Mistakes were made" lol. Why didn't I just rage?!

[stoutstien]

When I saw the results of the wolf attacks I was like "Mistakes were made" lol. Why didn't I just rage?!

I might have just dodged delayed them if I wanted to give the party a round to get in position if I had that kind of AC. Without pack tactics you could probably safely eat more actions then you'd save by trying to bring a few down.

[Skrum]

When I saw the results of the wolf attacks I was like "Mistakes were made" lol. Why didn't I just rage?!

It is in the barb handbook....First, rage xD

My barb died once in similar circumstances. Surrounded by harpies, already pretty hurt, I used Reckless for (well I can't even remember my reasoning, but it was bad reasoning, even without the benefit of hindsight). Harpies attacked me back and the advantage they got turn what would've been like 2 hits into 4 hits and 2 crits. Died immediately.

[stoutstien]

It is in the barb handbook....First, rage xD

My barb died once in similar circumstances. Surrounded by harpies, already pretty hurt, I used Reckless for (well I can't even remember my reasoning, but it was bad reasoning, even without the benefit of hindsight). Harpies attacked me back and the advantage they got turn what would've been like 2 hits into 4 hits and 2 crits. Died immediately.

It's always been my hang up with the barbarian. it's looks relatively straightforward on paper but it actually takes a good eye to toggle your rage and RA to get the most out of it and not get nuked in a single round if you get it wrong.

It's also why I consider alert or increasing your Dex modifier low key one of the best things you can do on a barbarian. Going first pulls double duty in getting someplace to be annoying and getting your primary ability online before they eat into you.

[Aimeryan]

A consideration is that AC17 makes sense if fighting one monster at level 8 (although it can still be on the high end), it makes far less sense when fighting more than one monster due each being of a lower CR. The effect of SS/GWM is far stronger on lower AC, while ranged extra attacks also have multiple enemy potential.

For a ranged level 8 Fighter (standard XBE/SS, probably also 20 Dex still thanks to the extra ASI and VH/CL choice) the extra survivability over melee is great. If going against lower AC targets or Advantage is obtained from some source (we shouldn't just be thinking about being solo) then the damage is also comparable, or better when accounting for rounds where the melee is not able to attack (possibly because their dead, but maybe they just can't reach - especially if talking about multiple enemies).

Meanwhile, ranged Rogue can't add Shadow Blade and/or Booming Blade - but ranged Fighter still has XBE/SS.

[Skrum]

It's always been my hang up with the barbarian. it's looks relatively straightforward on paper but it actually takes a good eye to toggle your rage and RA to get the most out of it and not get nuked in a single round if you get it wrong.

I see what you're saying but do we need a literal faceroll character? I like the idea of simpler and more complex character options, does barb have to be even more straightforward to qualify?

In any case, my feeling is the "complexity" of barb, such as it is, comes back to their janky character design. Decisions for a barb revolve around some rather gross deficiencies, like being essentially useless if they not raging (and rage only activating on their turn AND being annoyingly easy to drop). If barb didn't live and die by rage, they'd have less glaring weaknesses and thus the player wouldn't have to sweat every use of rage or reckless attack in the same way.

It's also why I consider alert or increasing your Dex modifier low key one of the best things you can do on a barbarian. Going first pulls double duty in getting someplace to be annoying and getting your primary ability online before they eat into you.

Totally agree; an easy way to vastly improve barb would be to give them extra ASI's. They are feat AND attribute starved relative to fighter and even paladin.

Can you point me to where the Rogue has any rule that is more selfish than any other class? I've already noted several specific abilities the Rogue has that are explicitly the opposite, geared specifically toward team play. So far, the only evidence that the Rogue is selfish I've seen is based on individual playstyle (which is a player issue, not a class one) or baseless expectation.

I only contest the claim because it is obviously part of the Rogues poor reputation, but I've yet to be convinced it's based on anything but stereotypes rather than rules.

It's not a rule, it's about what they bring to the party. Can they cast bless? Can they cast healing word? Can they cast silvery barbs? What about faerie fire? Can they use runic shield? Ancestral guardians? Aura of protection? Thunder gauntlets? Twilight Sanctuary? Balm of Peace? Web? Darkness? Plant Growth? Hold person? Bardic inspiration? Flash of insight? Can they run up to a pack of enemies and just soak hits for the team? Etc etc etc

Do they act as a force multiplier, or are they just kinda doing their thing? That's what I mean by selfish.

Not to say they have NO abilities like this, but not very many, and not very good ones.

EDIT: arcane trickster gets some of the spell goodies, so I'll admit that what I said doesn't apply to that particular subclass very well. But, ranger isn't a good class just because gloom stalker exists. Rogue isn't a good class just because arcane trickster exists.

[LudicSavant]

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

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

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

Blatant Beast is referring to the fact that there are a large number of mechanics that make stealth rolls auto-fail, regardless of how high said rolls are.

As they put it:

a Giant Spider's Websense still defeats a Stealth Ability Check of 42.

[Dr.Samurai]

I might have just dodged delayed them if I wanted to give the party a round to get in position if I had that kind of AC. Without pack tactics you could probably safely eat more actions then you'd save by trying to bring a few down.

I thought about it.

I had 4 wolves next to me when my turn came up. We all agreed to get into trees (there are 26 wolves in total), but artificer failed her Athletics check and was still on the ground. So I thought I'd move to another tree and try to draw the wolves away from her direction. Dodge probably would have been the better move, but I was worried that a lucky hit would keep me from moving. Would up being too conservative in the end.

It is in the barb handbook....First, rage xD

I know, I know! I think I got greedy, hoping to escape up the tree and avoid spending a second Rage use.

My barb died once in similar circumstances. Surrounded by harpies, already pretty hurt, I used Reckless for (well I can't even remember my reasoning, but it was bad reasoning, even without the benefit of hindsight). Harpies attacked me back and the advantage they got turn what would've been like 2 hits into 4 hits and 2 crits. Died immediately.

Oof, it happens. One of my DMs LOVES telling me when an attack hits/crits specifically because of Reckless Attack. It makes him so happy. Unfortunately I don't get anything in return for delighting him in this way, except deducting hit points from my HP total lol.

Totally agree; an easy way to vastly improve barb would be to give them extra ASI's. They are feat AND attribute starved relative to fighter and even paladin.

Agreed.

It's also why I consider alert or increasing your Dex modifier low key one of the best things you can do on a barbarian. Going first pulls double duty in getting someplace to be annoying and getting your primary ability online before they eat into you.

Also agreed. I am very much looking forward to level 7 for Advantage on Initiative and moving as part of Raging.



With regards to Rogue, I'm not convinced that they need to cover ALL matters in order to be a valuable member of the party. I'm perfectly fine with the Rogue excelling at most checks and the spellcaster having to cast a spell here and there to overcome a harder challenge. That's fine.

I'm not convinced that 1. the rogue can't beat Websense with a mundane Stealth check, that's totally within the purview of the DM. Just like it's in the purview of the DM to use mostly challenges that REQUIRE spells to overcome. This is a game/play style, not a RAW thing.

"High OP" games are fine, but they're not a standard. Tables that want to use all the supernatural and magical things at their disposal that require all spells to overcome are fine, but that's not every game. And we have to remember that some of these opinions are coming from exactly this style of play where if you're not optimized to the gills, you're not going to do well. Like... I play regularly weekly and in PBP. And I haven't come across websense. And it's not to say that it will never happen or doesn't happen in other games. But an exception to the Rogue's ability shouldn't be used to denigrate the rogue's abilities.

[Waazraath]

Late to the party and not gonna go through all 7 pages of comments, so might adress something that has been said before. The only thing I saw in my games what would justify a poor reputation is the higher dependency on the RNG. If you can only make one attack (especially in low op environments where there are no reaction attack shenenigans and without bonus action advantage) and the rolls are unlucky, lets say, 3 times in a row in combat, the combat can be over without the rogue contributed hardly anything.

I've seen this happen, and it seriously deminished the the fun the player can have. High damage single attack is all nice an well, but not when you miss too many of those.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

It's not a rule, it's about what they bring to the party. Can they cast bless? Can they cast healing word? Can they cast silvery barbs? What about faerie fire? Can they use runic shield? Ancestral guardians? Aura of protection? Thunder gauntlets? Twilight Sanctuary? Balm of Peace? Web? Darkness? Plant Growth? Hold person? Bardic inspiration? Flash of insight? Can they run up to a pack of enemies and just soak hits for the team? Etc etc etc

Do they act as a force multiplier, or are they just kinda doing their thing? That's what I mean by selfish.

Not to say they have NO abilities like this, but not very many, and not very good ones.

EDIT: arcane trickster gets some of the spell goodies, so I'll admit that what I said doesn't apply to that particular subclass very well. But, ranger isn't a good class just because gloom stalker exists. Rogue isn't a good class just because arcane trickster exists.

And to piggyback -- often the things in the rogue class fantasy are individual actions. The whole party sometimes can't participate beyond waiting to see if the rogue gets caught or comes back safely. When the party needs to steal a letter, and the only way to get it is to get into the house, lift the letter from the safe, copy it, then return it to the safe and relock everything on the way out, sending the fighter along with the rogue is an active hindrance. A trickery domain cleric can help, but also a trickery domain cleric... maybe just doesn't need the rogue. It's like the reason the Flash has to be faster than Superman: if Superman's faster than the Flash, then you don't need the Flash.

[Theodoxus]

Late to the party and not gonna go through all 7 pages of comments, so might address something that has been said before. The only thing I saw in my games what would justify a poor reputation is the higher dependency on the RNG. If you can only make one attack (especially in low op environments where there are no reaction attack shenanigans and without bonus action advantage) and the rolls are unlucky, lets say, 3 times in a row in combat, the combat can be over without the rogue contributed hardly anything.

I've seen this happen, and it seriously diminished the the fun the player can have. High damage single attack is all nice an well, but not when you miss too many of those.

I'd add that that high damage single attack is also more than likely massive overkill. There's no difference in the end between dropping something with 3 HP with a 15 point attack, and a 4 point attack, other than the opportunity cost lost to big attacks. Rogues don't have any (currently) ways of curtailing their SA damage other than not using SA. Nor do they have any decent ways to go toe to toe with giant meatbags that require high damage single attacks... so, all around they're pretty poorly designed for a combat role they'd otherwise excel at: kill stealing.

Ideally, I'd give Rogues an attack (called something like 'Camel Breaking Straw' - where if the attack drops a foe to 0 HP, the Rogue gains 15' of movement that doesn't provoke OAs, and can make a second attack against another foe. They can make as many attacks this way, provided the attack drops the foe to 0 HP, as they have PB (though it would be listed in their class features, gaining an additional attack at 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels. (To curtail the 'then everyone would take a single level of Rogue' arguments.) CBS doesn't use a Bonus Action, so the Rogue would be free to use Cunning Action or an off-hand attack. What I'm not sure about is if the off-hand attack could trigger CBS; like you can have as many successful CBS attacks per turn equal to your PB (as listed on the class ability list). So, if your primary attack didn't drop the foe to 0, you could BA an offhand attack, and if that did, it triggers CBS. Or, if you're 9th level with 4 CBS strikes, and your first attack drops to 0, your second attack drops to 0, but your third attack doesn't. You could BA attack, dropping the foe to 0 for your third CBS, and move off to make a 4th attack.

I would swap out sneak attack for CBS, though I might keep the cunning strike dice as it opens up tactical options.

[LudicSavant]

Late to the party and not gonna go through all 7 pages of comments, so might adress something that has been said before. The only thing I saw in my games what would justify a poor reputation is the higher dependency on the RNG. If you can only make one attack (especially in low op environments where there are no reaction attack shenenigans and without bonus action advantage) and the rolls are unlucky, lets say, 3 times in a row in combat, the combat can be over without the rogue contributed hardly anything.

I've seen this happen, and it seriously deminished the the fun the player can have. High damage single attack is all nice an well, but not when you miss too many of those.

Adding to this:

- Since it's dealing damage in fewer chunks, sneak attack wastes more damage to overflow than the competition.
- Sneak Attack is vulnerable to counterplay.
- A need to consistently qualify for sneak attack can limit tactical options, such as party positioning and the like.

What do I mean by that? Well, let's say for example, say you want to do some ranged kiting. Well, you still need to qualify for sneak attack. If you do it by using your bonus action, you are not mobile. If you do it by using an ally in melee, they are not kiting (and you need turn order to line up in your favor too, or use readied actions, which have their own downsides). And if the enemy is inflicting Disadvantage, you need both.

In exchange for dealing with such things, a Rogue deals merely decent damage.

And remember, the point of burst output isn't just to show off, it's to save party resources by reducing the amount that enemy actions cost the party.

[stoutstien]

I mean if we're talking about making changes to the rogue I'd probably gut sneak attack all together as anything other than a nice little bonus based on what the enemy does rather than what you do. Cut the damage in half and only factor that it triggers 50% of the time and make it apply if you hit a Target that has not moved that round like a reverse booming blade.

Id knock reliable talents all the way down and make it scale with levels so it comes a line sooner to a lesser degree but also gets much more potent past level 11.

As for the rest of the filler damage it doesn't really matter how it's done and it's relatively easy to add damage. I probably give a short rest based resource that's applied depending on which cutting action option is used and add a specific option per subclass.

[JellyPooga]

It's not a rule, it's about what they bring to the party. Can they [list of things] Etc etc etc

Do they act as a force multiplier, or are they just kinda doing their thing? That's what I mean by selfish.

Not to say they have NO abilities like this, but not very many, and not very good ones.

[snipped for brevity]
So the Archery style Fighter just wailing away from range is less selfish? The Wizard who never casts buffs or control? The Cleric that spends all his slots buffing his own attacks? The Bard that uses all his BI dice on Cutting Words to save his own skin or Blade flourish to showboat his way through a melee? The Barbarian that charges recklessly into combat, regardless of whether it's conducive to the party? The Paladin that can't hold back that smite because "it's what his character would do"? I've seen far more selfishness from the stereotypical examples of other Classes "just kinda doing their thing" than I have from Rogues who, as I said before, actively desire and encourage good teamwork and party friendly tactics.

As for force multipliers, who better to cast Haste on than a Rogue? Who better to grant advantage on a single attack? Who better to grant a speed boost? Or one time, location based effect? Who better to carry the lantern to illuminate the enemy than the fastest and most able to reach a hard to get place? Who else is giving more pause for thought in regard to Opportunity Attacks (once the effect of one has been seen?) Give any other character "thing" and it remains "thing". Give a Rogue "thing" and they'll turn it into "more than thing". Give a Fighter an additional attack and he'll give you 2d6+15 damage; a figure that stays pretty much static for the entirety of the game. Give a Rogue that same additional attack and he'll give you (1+(lvl/2))d6+5 damage. Give a Rogue +10ft movement and he'll turn it into 20ft. Give a Rogue a crit and he'll give you a bucket full of dice that the party will talk about for the next three sessions. Let me put it another way; you're a Diviner Wizard and roll a nat 20 for one of your Portent dice. Who are you giving it to to give them that one clutch critical hit? Is it the Rogue? I think it might be the Rogue. It's that or the Paladin (assuming he has any spell slots left). In many regards, the Rogue is a strong contender for being the force that gets multiplied and that's not a selfish thing, it's an integral part of team play. After all, if everyone is multiplying the force, no-one is actually applying it; 2x2x2x0 is still zero.

And when you say that Rogues don't have many abilities such as the ones you describe...how many of the things you listed belong to a single class? How many are being stacked on to one character? The Swashbuckler using Panache to give a foe Disadvantage against everyone but himself has got to be just about the least selfish ability in the entire game and it's not on your list? I'd say it's pretty effective at espousing team player vibes and is one of a mere handful of actual aggro features in the game. Having the mobility to block a foe from getting to a party member or to achieve the party goal by grabbing the macguffin, pulling the lever, closing the door or whatever it is the party is actually doing there besides standing there hitting each other is a lvl.2 feature all Rogues get, but that's not on your list. Hit point efficiency is apparently non-selfish and yet despite Rogues being the second most HP efficient class in the game next to Barbarians (outside of really, really engineered circumstances), Rogues are selfish and Fighters and Paladins are not?

I keep reading phrases like "it's self evident" and "not very good" without any actual proof. I'd like some, please. Caveat; that isn't related to Sneak Attack (because, as previously stated and I think thoroughly proven already, outside of optimisation for off-turn attacks and/or crit-fishing, Sneak Attack is their Cantrip damage and I don't hear anyone comparing Wizard to Ranger based on Firebolt vs longbow damage and judging the Wizard, as a whole, poorly as a result).

And to piggyback -- often the things in the rogue class fantasy are individual actions. The whole party sometimes can't participate beyond waiting to see if the rogue gets caught or comes back safely. When the party needs to steal a letter, and the only way to get it is to get into the house, lift the letter from the safe, copy it, then return it to the safe and relock everything on the way out, sending the fighter along with the rogue is an active hindrance. A trickery domain cleric can help, but also a trickery domain cleric... maybe just doesn't need the rogue. It's like the reason the Flash has to be faster than Superman: if Superman's faster than the Flash, then you don't need the Flash.

This has nothing to do with the Rogue Class and everything to do with sending a character on a solo mission. That character could be a Druid in Wildshape, a Warlock with Gaseous Form and Invisibility, a Fighter with Stealth proficiency or a Barbarian with a death wish. Again, I'll ask for any actual proof that the Rogue is in any way more selfish a Class than any other. Not, I'll add, more selfish as an individual character, player, party playstyle, GM fiat or stereotyped expectation made of fairy dust and wishful thinking that suggests it to be so...I want a rule or actual feature that makes the Rogue, one of the only Classes in the game that actively benefits as an actual rule from being a team player, selfish.

[Psyren]

Totally agree; an easy way to vastly improve barb would be to give them extra ASI's. They are feat AND attribute starved relative to fighter and even paladin.

Functionally, they have free Tough (which also stacks with Tough) due to being the only d12 HD class in the game.

I wouldn't have minded if their UD was Str+Con instead of Dex+Con though.

What do I mean by that? Well, let's say for example, say you want to do some ranged kiting. Well, you still need to qualify for sneak attack. If you do it by using your bonus action, you are not mobile. If you do it by using an ally in melee, they are not kiting (and you need turn order to line up in your favor too, or use readied actions, which have their own downsides). And if the enemy is inflicting Disadvantage, you need both.

^ Adding to this - even if turn order and the ally's own desired tactics line up with your own, the enemy they're standing next to might not be the optimal enemy for you to be targeting. If I'm up against an enemy necromancer, doing extra damage to his zombie ogre minions standing in the front isn't bad, but I'd rather be targeting the caster standing in the back, especially when a big burst of damage from me might break his concentration more easily.

[LudicSavant]

^ Adding to this - even if turn order and the ally's own desired tactics line up with your own, the enemy they're standing next to might not be the optimal enemy for you to be targeting. If I'm up against an enemy necromancer, doing extra damage to his zombie ogre minions standing in the front isn't bad, but I'd rather be targeting the caster standing in the back, especially when a big burst of damage from me might break his concentration more easily.

Yep, you got it!

The Swashbuckler using Panache to give a foe Disadvantage against everyone but himself has got to be just about the least selfish ability in the entire game

Panache takes a full Action, an all-or-nothing check, and breaks from distance (a la Witch Bolt) or... from an ally attacking or affecting the enemy with a spell.

[Psyren]

That's what's awesome about the new Swashbuckler! Their Panache (a) uses your Dex to set the Goad DC instead of Cha, and (b) instead of requiring you to give up your entire action, you just give up 1d6 of your SA, so even if it fails you still did 90% of what you'd normally do that turn. And whether or not you successfully impose the disadvantage buff to your entire party, you can still walk away from them without burning your BA thanks to Fancy Footwork (or just impose it from range.)

It only lasts a round instead of a minute, but you can reapply it at-will and there is no early cancellation due to range or when your allies attack it.

(EDIT: Granted, the above all depends on the Swashbuckler not having gotten the axe from the PHB in favor of the Soulknife...)

[Dork_Forge]

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

Completely agree, I don't really understand why Rogue so regularly gets shafted into a shortbow only box.

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

So I see two issues here then:

1) Your actual complaint seems to be the perceived fragility of Sneak Attack.
2) For some reason you have pigeonholed the Rogue into nothing but maintaining distance with a shortbow.

to address that:

1) Sneak Attack is not that fragile, you seem to be acting like they need Advantage, they don't they just need an ally next to the target. If there are mitigating circumstances to give disadvantage, they still have tools to negate that and still get their SA damage. No, Rogues won't always get their SA and that's fine, but I've never encountered a Rogue who fails it so often I would label it 'ideal conditions' nor are the actual conditions so narrow that it requires that label. Especially since this is being contrasted by the incredibly situational GWM.

On top of that multiple subclasses focus on making Sneat Attack more reliable.

2) I'm going to assume this is based off your experiences, but I don't know why you're pressing it at this point in the discussion. None of the examples I gave you for competitive damage were using a shortbow. Outside of my examples, the Swashbuckler wants to be in melee and it's incredibly trivial to upgrade the 1d6 crossbow to a 1d8 longbow or 1d10 heavy crossbow.

Saying a Rogue must use a shortbow and then 'stay mobile at all times' (which... doesn't make that much sense since they're already at range) is not a requirement of the Rogue, it's something you're pushing onto them.

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

Any Dex based Rogue that was trying to play keep away and failed for some reason can just stay still, pull out a rapier, and fight whatever ran them down toe-toe, likely until it's dead. Their actual damage output won't just magically fall off a cliff unless they're in a particularly bad situation, at which point you can literally apply 'worst case scenario' to any class. Like oh no, the stereotypical Barbarian is stereotypically removed from combat by a single Wisdom save.

(Bonus! The Rogue, by class defaults, is one of the most mobile classes in the game. Getting chased down can literally be 'I run away from you and Uncanny the single OA then Attack when it makes sense.')

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

They don't rely on that and it's a leap to say that any class, or even character, has no presence never mind one doing consistent damage like a Rogue.

I'd also like to stop pretending that Sneak Attack is difficult to get or has a lot of hoops. In most actual parties some characters will want to be in melee because it's what their character does.

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

Even when the situation is so broad they're doing their damage more often than the GWM Barbarian? Because, realistically, they're hitting their SA damage more consistently than a Barbarian is hitting a GWM hit, and if the table does several combats a day, more likely than they are Raging/using Reckless 'safely.'

Sorry, I know this is a couple pages back (I'm just getting caught up), but this jumped out at me a bit for a couple reasons:
•Would the Barbarian in question have survived without the DR from Rage? If not, that means no one else would have either, regardless of their "tanking" capability (such as a Fighter or Paladin or such).

I like Barbarians and they are incredibly hearty, but this is just not remotely true. But let's address that below >

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

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

So, I don't have full details here but you said skeletons and 184 damage, so let's see what kind of tank would have been able to survive that otherwise. I'm pretty sure that you're playing in tier 3, and this is the kind of damage I'd expect from a higher level game, so I'll (most likely lowball) a level 11 character here as an example:

Fighter, Psi Warrior Str-based, sword-and-board plate. Fighting Style Dueling

20 10 16 14 10 8 ASIs: HAM, +2 Str, Telekinetic (Int)

HP: 91 AC: 20(21)

Itemwise I think you've mentioned before about how you picked up a Luck Stone, and this is tier 3, so let's just assume a +1 weapon and a +1 AC, X of Protection, +1 armor or shield, whatever.

So, you said different kinds of skeletons so the attacks are probably a mix of values, but for the sake of comparison let's say that the combat took 4 rounds and that 184 damage is reduced to 120 by the higher AC of the Fighter alone.

If we assume that there's at least 8 hits (conservative) then HAM is reducing the damage by 24, to 96.

So the damage taken is greater than the Fighter's HP by 5. Second Wind at this level is a minimum of 12, let's assume he gets unlucky and flubs the heal roll.

Combat lasts 4 rounds, let's be conservative and say he uses Protective Field 3 times. That's a minimum of 9 damage reduced, average of 22.5.

So a Psi Warrior with some inclination to tank, but not really built specifically for it, survives the encounter with ~25HP left assuming the worst on the Second Wind roll and the damage only coming from 8 hits.

The Barbarian is impressive, but surviving that scenario is by far not a case of only a Barbarian can do it.

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

I don't think anyone has said the Rogue can be built to be a primarytank as well as a Barbarian, but they are certainly capable of tanking on occasion for 2-3 rounds, which is all you really need to ask of an off tank anyway.

I also think a situation where an entire encounter is attacking a single target is probably pretty niche. Even with tanks in place they're typically taking the brunt of the attacks, not 100% of them.

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

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

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

A Rogue is going to be more consistent in doing what they do in general compared to a Barbarian dependent on Rage and GWM. Which is one of their Strengths.

If a particular Rogue build, in this case an AT, can only burst up for two encounters a day, then why isn't that okay? Their damage isn't falling of a cliff by not using SB and the majority of encounters should not require everyone going as hard as possible.

[Skrum]

that isn't related to Sneak Attack (because, as previously stated and I think thoroughly proven already, outside of optimisation for off-turn attacks and/or crit-fishing, Sneak Attack is their Cantrip damage and I don't hear anyone comparing Wizard to Ranger based on Firebolt vs longbow damage and judging the Wizard, as a whole, poorly as a result).

We keep talking about sneak attack because its all that rogue gets damage-wise. If they can't apply sneak attack, they're doing weapon + dex. And a small weapon at that. With no extra attack. I don't think your point about sneak attack being a cantrip is a bad one - but in this analogy, rogues don't get any leveled spells. And that's exactly their problem.

This has nothing to do with the Rogue Class and everything to do with sending a character on a solo mission. That character could be a Druid in Wildshape, a Warlock with Gaseous Form and Invisibility, a Fighter with Stealth proficiency or a Barbarian with a death wish. Again, I'll ask for any actual proof that the Rogue is in any way more selfish a Class than any other. Not, I'll add, more selfish as an individual character, player, party playstyle, GM fiat or stereotyped expectation made of fairy dust and wishful thinking that suggests it to be so...I want a rule or actual feature that makes the Rogue, one of the only Classes in the game that actively benefits as an actual rule from being a team player, selfish.

A wizard who asks "selfishly" will
- cast large AoE effects, dealing quite a bit of damage to multiple targets
- summon powerful creatures that act as great meatshields and will also do quite a bit of damage themselves
- counter or dispel annoying enemy magic
- provide many out of combat benefits to the party to themselves via ritual magic (scouting for traps, comfortable resting places, reading obscure texts, etc)

Each of the things the wizard does, even if they're only acting out of self-aggrandizement, will be a large boon to the party because the things they do are highly effective and it is highly likely the other members of the party can't do those things. A swordsman that does a billion damage per hit is going to spend a lotta turns attacking 25 enemies one by one. The wizard might wipe them out in one go.

I can repeat this with cleric - by just being a cleric, the party is going to gain many powerful spells and abilities that can swing encounters.

Even another contender for worst class, the barbarian, can provide the underrated benefit of just being able to throw themselves into the thick of things. Let's say the enemy is super dangerous and cooks the barb in 2 turns. Well yah know what? That's two turns the super dangerous bad guy wasn't closing the distance on someone else and wrecking them.

At this point, I'm really not sure what else to say. If you don't buy the argument, you don't buy the argument. If you think Panache, a 9th level ability, is really as good or better than an artificer's thunder gauntlets or a barb's ancestral guardians (stuff that's been in use since level 3 and is a simple rider on stuff those classes would be doing anyway, not their entire action), and further than that can't even understand why I'd say "that's a weak ability with limited use," I seriously doubt I'm going to convince you of anything.

(btw, rogue is about the last martial class I'd put haste on. They're already faster than most, can't SA more than once a turn, and very likely hit less hard shot for shot than other martial classes. And the +2 AC is only going to bring them to even with the plate guys, at best).

[KorvinStarmast]

Did someone say Monks plateau post-11?

Has not been my experience.

Can you point me to where the Rogue has any rule that is more selfish than any other class?

Nope. But they do have an archetype of Assassin that implies that they (the Assassins) like killing things.

It's baseless.

Fighter: Stand back, I'll keep them from reaching you guys.
Wizard: No need Fighter, I have summoned a creature to do the fighting for you. That way, your hit points are protected, and I get the glory.
Bard: Okay, I'll make sure to provide any healing.
Wizard: At ease Bard, I dipped Life Cleric and grabbed Goodberry with Magic Initiate. Everyone can keep themselves topped off, thanks to me, and you don't have to do anything.
Rogue: Alright, well I'll scout ahead and make sure the way is clear of traps or hidden enemies.
Wizard: Master yourself Rogue, you are not needed here. I will make sure the way is clear with my familiar, or my Arcane Eye. That way you remain safe, and I once again beat the challenge for us.
Rogue: It's okay, I don't mind, this is what my expertise is in. Keep your familiar safe, and don't waste your spell slots.
Wizard: You selfish piece o--- !

Laughed, I did.

Why not climb the tree and avoid the attacks all together?

Please don't tell Pex about this thread.

[J-H]

I have a bit of an odd party in my BG2 campaign. We have an AC 21-22 storm cleric with about 50hp, and an AC 17 Arcane Trickster with over 70hp (16 con, an item with +5 hp, and I think the Tough feat). The cleric gets knocked to 0 a lot more often.

(btw, rogue is about the last martial class I'd put haste on. They're already faster than most, can't SA more than once a turn, and very likely hit less hard shot for shot than other martial classes. And the +2 AC is only going to bring them to even with the plate guys, at best).

Last game, rogue drank potion of haste. He could drop a healing potion on a downed party member AND sneak attack on the same turn. Also, while hasted: Hasted action attack once. Regular action ready an attack to attack the enemy when the enemy does anything. Result: Off-turn sneak attack.