What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Trask]

What's so bad about that? It's a feat to get 1 expertise, while the rogue gets 4 of them for free as well as a bonus feat (and Reliable Talent/Stroke of Luck to boot.) They're still king.

And yes, there are multiple feats that grant it now - but frankly, if a player wants to burn their ASIs on Skill Expert + Prodigy + Keen Mind I say let them.

When I think back to the original design notes for D&D Next and how Expertise was this feature that was supposed to, in a limited way, break bounded accuracy and how that was a Big Deal to the class it makes me think that letting feats provide Expertise is bad power creep at the expense of another class. Yes even with these feats Rogue is still the best and Rogue can benefit from them too. but there are only so many skills worth having Expertise in. I think I could be convinced on this issue but for now I still think it should've been a class-exclusive feature.

Flexible...how? Because they can bonus action dash and disengage? Because they switch from melee to range fairly easily? IME rogues are incredibly limited. Can they tank? Can they heal? Can they CC? Can they buff? Can they debuff? Can they AoE? Basically, no. They can't do any of that.

If skills were better developed, I'd be far more likely to believe that rogues are "completely fine." But I'm really not understanding how rogue skills are this amazing skeleton key of untapped power.

I'm not sure if you and I want the same things out of a skill system so I'm not going to "go there", but I think rogues are flexible and versatile. They have the ability to deal damage from melee or ranged, as you mentioned (which is worth mentioning not every class can do optimally at the same time). They have good mobility, solid resilience, they CAN heal actually if you play a Thief for Healer shenanigans. They get an extra feat not being so dependent on the power feats (though they still benefit from them) lets them branch into stuff like Lucky, Resilient, even Inspiring Leader, Observant, Ritual Caster, etc. These things aren't going to get anyone to make a clickbait Youtube thumbnail but they will make a solid and well-rounded character with a lot to offer.

Also I would quibble with your language. Can they "tank"? What class "tanks"? Don't we spend a good chunk of time on this forum chiding newcomers that "tanking" doesn't exist in D&D? If you want to "tank" as a Rogue go for high Con with your Dex and pick up Sentinel, and because you get 1 more free ASI than non-fighters its easier to do that. I DM'ed for a character once, a Fairy Barbarian/Rogue that filled the "tank" role pretty well. Can they "CC?" Sure, if you go for grappling which Rogues can actually do. Sure, it isn't "You send out spectral chains that completely lock down everyone and turn them into meat pinatas" but I didn't claim that Rogues have uber gimmicks, I said they are very versatile and can do a lot of things. In my experience this is true, and in my experience also it is enough, and with some of the stronger subclasses its more than enough.

You can check out Person_Man's Rogue guide, came out almost when Next was first released, he largely agrees and makes a good case, a lot still applies even in a post-Tasha's world.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...5E-Rogue-Guide

[Skrum]

I'm not sure if you and I want the same things out of a skill system so I'm not going to "go there", but I think rogues are flexible and versatile. They have the ability to deal damage from melee or ranged, as you mentioned (which is worth mentioning not every class can do optimally at the same time). They have good mobility, solid resilience, they CAN heal actually if you play a Thief for Healer shenanigans. Also I would quibble with your language. Can they "tank"? What class "tanks"? Don't we spend a good chunk of time on this forum chiding newcomers that "tanking" doesn't exist in D&D? If you want to "tank" as a Rogue go for high Con with your Dex and pick up Sentinel, and because you get 1 more free ASI than non-fighters its easier to do that. I DM'ed for a character once, a Fairy Barbarian/Rogue that filled the "tank" role pretty well. Can they "CC?" Sure, if you go for grappling which Rogues can actually do. Sure it isn't "You send out spectral chains that completely lock down everyone and turn them into meat pinatas" but I didn't claim that Rogues have uber gimmicks, I said they are very versatile and can do a lot of things. In my experience this is true, and in my experience also it is enough.

You can check out Person_Man's Rogue guide, came out almost when Next was first released, he largely agrees and makes a good case, a lot still applies even in a post-Tasha's world.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...5E-Rogue-Guide

In the last game I played the party got into a fight with a large amount of skeletons of various types. My barbarian got a decent initiative roll, raged, and ran into the middle. The skeletons mobbed him, and he took a TON of damage. By combat's end, he had taken 184 damage (before resistances). But he was still standing, and more importantly, because he was in the middle of the field being threatening and easy to attack, the other party members could do their thing.

That's what I mean by tank. No it's not sticky-tanking in the MMORPG sense, it's "can you wade into the direct line of fire and absorb a ton of attacks/damage." Rogue can take a hit, thanks to uncanny dodge. But that's about bailing themselves out, it's not suitable for actual tanking.

Rogue grappling is incredibly oversold, as talked about earlier in this thread. With expertise their athletics will roughly equal a str-based fighter. But they don't have extra attack, so it's a far bigger commitment of action resources to grapple, and they're worse at it than basically any class with extra attack.

[Trask]

In the last game I played the party got into a fight with a large amount of skeletons of various types. My barbarian got a decent initiative roll, raged, and ran into the middle. The skeletons mobbed him, and he took a TON of damage. By combat's end, he had taken 184 damage (before resistances). But he was still standing, and more importantly, because he was in the middle of the field being threatening and easy to attack, the other party members could do their thing.

That's what I mean by tank. No it's not sticky-tanking in the MMORPG sense, it's "can you wade into the direct line of fire and absorb a ton of attacks/damage." Rogue can take a hit, thanks to uncanny dodge. But that's about bailing themselves out, it's not suitable for actual tanking.

Rogue grappling is incredibly oversold, as talked about earlier in this thread. With expertise their athletics will roughly equal a str-based fighter. But they don't have extra attack, so it's a far bigger commitment of action resources to grapple, and they're worse at it than basically any class with extra attack.

Not being able to out-tank a Barbarian is no sin, that's what that class was designed to do. And in general, yes I agree it's not the place where the Rogue shines. Same goes for grappling, if it could completely outshine the Fighter that wouldn't really make sense, but while perhaps overrated it holds it own and if you add some strength to the class it can be a solid grappler, especially if you dip 1 into Barbarian. Or if you go Arcane Trickster and grab enlarge.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm never one to suggest that the martial's features get handed out like candy but... if the wizard and bard and warlock can get Extra Attack with their subclass features, why not the Rogue? I would seriously consider playing one if it got Extra Attack.

A conversation that just happened in one of my games:

Me: Can't wait until level 5 when I get Extra Attack.
Warlock: Yeah, I'll get 3rd level spells.
Bladesinger: Yeah, I get 3rd level spells at level 5 and Extra Attack at level 6.
Me: *facepalm*

[Skrum]

Not being able to out-tank a Barbarian is no sin, that's what that class was designed to do. And in general, yes I agree it's not the place where the Rogue shines. Same goes for grappling, if it could completely outshine the Fighter that wouldn't really make sense, but while perhaps overrated it is not a non-option.

I'm not saying rogue needs to be as good as the barb at taking a beating - I'm saying that's what tanking is, and I don't think rogue is very good at it. Like, below average among all classes. Rogue has relatively poor AC options, a medium hit die, and their only melee defense tool takes their reaction and works against a single attack. Their main defense is "don't be there." But that's literally the opposite of tanking/drawing fire.

They're somewhat better at grappling - it taking their entire action is really punishing and crummy, but sure, I'll give 'em credit. It's a tool in the toolbox.

I'm never one to suggest that the martial's features get handed out like candy but... if the wizard and bard and warlock can get Extra Attack with their subclass features, why not the Rogue? I would seriously consider playing one if it got Extra Attack.

A conversation that just happened in one of my games:

Me: Can't wait until level 5 when I get Extra Attack.
Warlock: Yeah, I'll get 3rd level spells.
Bladesinger: Yeah, I get 3rd level spells at level 5 and Extra Attack at level 6.
Me: *facepalm*

Rogue should absolutely positively without question get extra attack. They're a flippin' martial class!! I would throw extra attack, medium armor prof, and shield prof at them in a heartbeat. Give them options beyond dex-based builds.

[Dr.Samurai]

Rogue should absolutely positively without question get extra attack. They're a flippin' martial class!! I would throw extra attack, medium armor prof, and shield prof at them in a heartbeat. Give them options beyond dex-based builds.

I would immediately be interested in playing one with these additions.

Remember when Barbs, Rangers, and Paladins all got 4 attacks in 3rd edition? Those were the days.

Minus the awful movement mechanics lol.

[Trask]

I wouldn't go the Extra Attack route personally, not that I hate it. But if Rogues ought to do more damage, I think it would be neat if they got the expanded critical hit range of the Champion bolted on. I think that would fit really well with what they already get, and also simulates a bit of that assassin feel that many seem to desire with huge criticals.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm not suggesting Extra Attack as a "fix" or anything, just that if it had it I'd be more interested to play one. Having only a single attack in melee sucks.

[Skrum]

I wouldn't go the Extra Attack route personally, not that I hate it. But if Rogues ought to do more damage, I think it would be neat if they got the expanded critical hit range of the Champion bolted on. I think that would fit really well with what they already get, and also simulates a bit of that assassin feel that many seem to desire with huge criticals.

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

[Ignimortis]

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

And the identity of Rogue has been more and more diluted over the editions - currently it basically stands as a "DEX Fighter-like, but with more skills and less attacks", which is part of the martial class issue with how basically every martial (beyond perhaps Monk, and even that isn't as far out as it could be) is just "Fighter, but slightly different".

Add the fact that skills are wildly unreliable in 5e, being subject to GM's whims far more often than any other feature in the system, and you get Rogues being pretty low on satisfaction charts.

Personally, if I were to really do anything with D&D-likes, I'd just shove Rogue and Fighter together. Drop Sneak Attack as the "one big hit" and instead add a small, scaling "Efficient Fighting" bonus to all attacks to reward flanking and attacking weakened foes. Like, say, 1d6 per five levels. Still would give them a lot of skills, but all martials would get a lot of skills in this theoretical game, because skills are (IMO) a good place to put martials' answers to non-combat magic.

[JellyPooga]

It never ceases to amuse me when I see arguments like "Rogues aren't good tanks because they have low Con" or "Rogues aren't as good at grappling as Fighters because they have low Strength". No. That's not how you make a fair comparison. If you're putting the Rogue in the same arena as a Fighter or Barbarian, or whatever, then compare their differences when all other things are equal or at least the playing field is roughly level for whatever specific thing is being compared.

Comparing HP efficiency? You'd better be doing so in good faith and at least offering the Rogue the same Con as the Fighter or Barbarian. Comparing AC? Then allow the Rogue the liberty of having a build that cares about AC. Asking if the Rogue can CC or heal? Well we'd better look at the options available that might actually do so rather than blinding ourselves to the possibilities.

Part of the problem is that the Rogue chassis is flexible rather than specialised and stood next to any one other class, that makes them look inferior. If you stand them next to the entire rest of the party, though, they can and do have the ability to not only participate, but contribute meaningfully in any of the fields that almost any of the others do AND THEN, sometimes even on the same turn, turn around and contribute in another, entirely different way. Their flexibility also means they can do this reactively or opportunistically and that must have a cost. If Rogues maintained this level of cross-pillar, multi-role agency as well as competing with other, more specialised Classes in terms of raw numbers and nova capability, then they would be massively overtuned. Rogues aren't supposed to be as good at grappling as a Fighter, but they nearly are. They're not supposed to be as good at healing as a Cleric, but they can be built to help pick up some of the slack. Few Rogues are going to have the luxury of standing toe-to-toe with and tanking the onslaught of a horde of enemies like the Barbarian can, but they might still be standing after it when even a Fighter or Ranger might have fallen.

5e Rogues feel a lot to me like 3.5 Bards; the jack of all trades that most players feel is just bad at everything, but carefully curated without the baggage of assumption and played right can be far more effective than might appear at first blush.

Is the "plucky and irritating, definitely-not-a-kender halfling thief that's part lockpick, part coward, dealing little more than chip damage with his daggers before running away with the party loot" as much a liability as a useful companion? Well yeah, but so is the Con 8 Wizard who never prepares the right spells, or the Barbarian who picks a fight with everything because he doesn't have time for subtlty or social grace. None of these really say anything about the Classes they misrepresent. If we observe the class in the worst possible light, then of course we'll struggle to see through the gloom to what's actually there of value.

If instead, stood next to the aforementioned horrible "halfling thief" stereotype, was a strapping former imperial legionary; armoured and armed with sword, shield, bow and tools, with the wit to use them, fleet of foot, strong of will and a tongue that's at once honeyed and razor sharp. A reliable ally no matter the circumstance, always where he's needed, precisely when he needs to be there. That's a very different image that the Rogue is capable of portraying (and it doesn't even include his subclass ).

[Witty Username]

Rogue should absolutely positively without question get extra attack. They're a flippin' martial class!! I would throw extra attack, medium armor prof, and shield prof at them in a heartbeat. Give them options beyond dex-based builds.

I will go on record saying with these changes there would be no reason to play any other martial class than rogue.

[Kurald Galain]

If instead, stood next to the aforementioned horrible "halfling thief" stereotype, was a strapping former imperial legionary; armoured and armed with sword, shield, bow and tools, with the wit to use them, fleet of foot, strong of will and a tongue that's at once honeyed and razor sharp. A reliable ally no matter the circumstance, always where he's needed, precisely when he needs to be there. That's a very different image that the Rogue is capable of portraying.

That's indeed a very different image... and the question is if the rogue is actually capable of portraying it. In other words, do the rules back up what the flavor text suggests?

And the answer is, not really. The legionary is armoured but can only use light armor; has a shield but is not proficient in it; his strength of will is belied by his poor wisdom save; and he's not reliable with social skills until level 11.

So the rogue talks big, but his actions can't back it up. Huh, that just might be why people have an issue with the class.

[JellyPooga]

Rogue should absolutely positively without question get extra attack. They're a flippin' martial class!! I would throw extra attack, medium armor prof, and shield prof at them in a heartbeat. Give them options beyond dex-based builds.

I will go on record saying with these changes there would be no reason to play any other martial class than rogue.

Hard agree with Witty Username here. And for Skrum and Kurald Galain, here's a build for you to consider;

Race: V.Human
Class: Rogue
Standard Array: Str:15, Dex:13, Con:14, Int:10, Wis:12, Cha:8
[Feats/ASI:
1st: +1 Dex/+1 Con, Moderately Armoured (+1 Str)
4th: +2 Str
8th: Resilient (Con)
10th: +2 Str

Skills: Acrobatics, Athletics^x, Insight, Intimidation^x, Perception^x, Sleight of Hand, Survival^x
Equipment: Scale Armour (upgrading to Half-plate), Rapier or Shortsword, Shield, Hand Xbow
HP at Level:
1st: 10
5th: 38
9th: 75

This is one of my favourite baseline Rogue configurations that I'll adjust to taste and is largely my basis for comparison to other melee focused classes. Note also that I haven't included archetype into consideration. You don't need options to be baked into a class for them to be applicable and Moderately Armoured is actually a remarkably good feat for the Rogue if multiclassing isn't allowed and front-line combat is your desired goal. AC at level 1 is 18. Can any Fighter claim significant improvement on that (barring a ludicrously rich one that starts with full plate)? Is the (on average) additional 1+lvl hit points that a Fighter gets really that much of a game changer? Tack on the usual Rogue goodies and you do have a non-dex based, competent at a range of fields, front-line melee adventurer.

[Kurald Galain]

Hard agree with Witty Username here. And for Skrum and Kurald Galain, here's a build for you to consider;

Thank you for posting an actual build to discuss

Can any Fighter claim significant improvement on that (barring a ludicrously rich one that starts with full plate)? Is the (on average) additional 1+lvl hit points that a Fighter gets really that much of a game changer?

I'd say the rogue's defenses and hit points are really ok. Fighter gets Second Wind, rogue gets Uncanny Dodge, that's pretty much a wash. I agree that Mod Armor is a good feat, but even without that a dex-primary rogue has solid defenses.

It's intentional design that the rogue has less offense than a fighter or barb (no second attack, action surge or rage; rogue weapons don't work with GWM/PAM). This is a tradeoff. And the catch lies in what the rogue gets in return.

First, the rogue gets better mobility via e.g. cunning action. This is certainly a fun and flashy ability, but due to how 5E's movement and OA rules work, it's just not very valuable. Some players enjoy dashing into and out of combat, but it's not a particularly effective strategy.
And second, the rogue gets better skills via expertise. Well, 5E's skill system has been debated to death several times over. So let me just say that mechanically speaking, at levels most commonly played at, the rogue gets +15% on most of his skills. And that tends to get drowned out by the variance on 1d20.

So that's the deal. The rogue loses a lot, in trade for things that can be made to shine by the DM, but it appears most DMs don't actually do that. And if they don't, well then the rogue has made a pretty bad tradeoff.

[JellyPooga]

So that's the deal. The rogue loses a lot, in trade for things that can be made to shine by the DM, but it appears most DMs don't actually do that. And if they don't, well then the rogue has made a pretty bad tradeoff.

Therein lies the argument, I suppose. In my opinion, the Rogue loses a little in the numbers game (a little less AC, HP, to-hit bonus, etc.) to gain a lot in opportunity/versatility. Yes, that gain is GM dependent to an extent but so is, for example, including the social and exploration pillars at all, running intelligent NPCs, sandboxing a campaign vs. railroading it, variety of enemies and all manner of factors that might impact how effective a character or class is. Just saying "it's DM dependent, so isn't good" doesn't hold much water because everything always is and if the Rogue has an ability that makes them good in X circumstance, it very much can be comparable to the Fighter being good in Y, even if Y is more common in some games.

[Kurald Galain]

Just saying "it's DM dependent, so isn't good" doesn't hold much water because everything always is

Certain parts of the game are much more DM-dependent than other parts. That is why we're hearing this complaint about the rogue, but not about (e.g.) the barbarian or the cleric.

[JellyPooga]

Certain parts of the game are much more DM-dependent than other parts. That is why we're hearing this complaint about the rogue, but not about (e.g.) the barbarian or the cleric.

Except we kind of do. Few Barbarians are mentioned in discussions about the Social Pillar, except with regard to their ineptitude at it. Similarly for Clerics in discussions about stealth and scouting (outside a couple of domain options), or the exploration pillar as a whole.

The whole "GM dependent" argument suggests to me that, perhaps, there's less at fault with the Rogue Class so much as there is how games are being run. I'll compare it to the Long Rest vs. Short Rest argument; in a game with no short rests, Warlocks and Monks are severely underpowered compared to what should be expected. If a majority of players run 5-min adventuring days that's a player problem, rather than those Classes being weak.

"I only value X, so things that do Y are weak" should not apply if Y is an expected part of the game. That a large number of players aren't utilising Y might colour common perception, but actually only means those players are missing an aspect of the game from their play experience. Compare it to a statement like "Ancient Red Dragons aren't enough of a threat because we don't use Legendary or Lair Actions". Those Legendary and Lair Actions are there for the express purpose of making ancient dragons more challenging foes; if you're not using them, that's a you problem. Same goes for the Rogue; if you're not including terrain, distance and other interactive elements to your combats, as well as minimising non-combat encounters and removing consequence from rests, then of course your perception of the Rogue will be lacking because, arguably, your campaign/game style is lacking in aspects the game rules expect you to engage with.

[Aimeryan]

Certain parts of the game are much more DM-dependent than other parts. That is why we're hearing this complaint about the rogue, but not about (e.g.) the barbarian or the cleric.

Which is largely the problem with Rogues in a nutshell, yes. WotC designed a class that excelled at the entirely uncodified portion of the game.

[Kurald Galain]

Except we kind of do. Few Barbarians are mentioned in discussions about the Social Pillar, except with regard to their ineptitude at it. Similarly for Clerics in discussions about stealth and scouting (outside a couple of domain options), or the exploration pillar as a whole.

That's a red herring. There's nothing about barbarians or clerics that makes them worse at social skills or stealth (resp.) than other classes. Barbs and clerics clearly don't have the poor reputation that rogues have (which this thread is about).

I'll compare it to the Long Rest vs. Short Rest argument; in a game with no short rests, Warlocks and Monks are severely underpowered compared to what should be expected.

However, this is a fair point. Warlocks are often called problematic because many DMs don't give out short rests all that often. I think we had a thread about that just last week.

And this is not a player problem. This is a inherent in the rules: short rests take an hour, and for most characters it doesn't make sense to sit still for that long after every combat.
Likewise, that rogue mobility is largely pointless is not a player problem. Rather, it is inherent in the movement and OA rules that cunning action isn't very useful (although it's fun and flashy).

"I only value X, so things that do Y are weak" should not apply if Y is an expected part of the game.

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

Which is largely the problem with Rogues in a nutshell, yes. WotC designed a class that excelled at the entirely uncodified portion of the game.

Precisely.

skills are wildly unreliable in 5e, being subject to GM's whims far more often than any other feature in the system, and you get Rogues being pretty low on satisfaction charts.

And that, too.

[Skrum]

@Jelly

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

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

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

[Amnestic]

IME melee characters really need AC in the low 20's.

Yeah but your games run high powered - a discussion we've had before re: hexblades, so the rogue would either have magic items (+1 shield and +1 armour brings them to 21, for example) or everyone would be in equally the same boat.

[Dr.Samurai]

First, the rogue gets better mobility via e.g. cunning action. This is certainly a fun and flashy ability, but due to how 5E's movement and OA rules work, it's just not very valuable. Some players enjoy dashing into and out of combat, but it's not a particularly effective strategy.

Can you elaborate on this? Because our monk dashes in and out of combat and it's quite effective. Even my fighter has Mobile and being able to "Disengage", while not a part of his strategy every turn, is useful at times.

And second, the rogue gets better skills via expertise. Well, 5E's skill system has been debated to death several times over. So let me just say that mechanically speaking, at levels most commonly played at, the rogue gets +15% on most of his skills. And that tends to get drowned out by the variance on 1d20.

I'm definitely in camp "the skill system needs work", but I agree with Jelly that this is a game/DM/Player issue, not a Rogue issue.

Taking the time to achieve Advantage on the roll goes a long way, either through making the circumstances yourself, someone using the Help action, or through Tool/Skill proficiency combos ala Xanathar's. Expertise closes the gap further. Better guidance on setting DCs would also help a lot, so not everything encountered is 15+ (Mearls' comments on this would make it a non-issue). In tier 3, Reliable Talent means you're auto-passing Hard DCs on your best skills, and Medium DCs with your lesser skills.

I think the issue is more that combat is a disproportionate part of the game, and rogue's are perfectly mediocre here. For someone like me, I can't get over the single attack roll on a weapon class, and using your Bonus action for a second attack means you're not using Cunning Action or Steady Aim.

EDIT: Re - ACs in the low 20s

I agree with Amnestic. I am currently playing an Armorer Artificer with an AC of 23 at level 10 and practically nothing hits me. It's obscene, and probably overpowered, but maybe in more difficult games it would be appropriate.

[Keltest]

@Jelly

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

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

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

At my table at least, AC in the high teens is generally good enough. 14 AC means only the chaff aren't regularly hitting you, but 17-18 is getting value out of the armor class. 20+ is nice, but not mandatory. And thats just with facetanking, which rogues aren't intended to be doing.

[Skrum]

Yeah but your games run high powered - a discussion we've had before re: hexblades, so the rogue would either have magic items (+1 shield and +1 armour brings them to 21, for example) or everyone would be in equally the same boat.

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

======

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

If I was playing a rogue and get my moment to shine, but then the paladin player gets three moments to shine because they're playing a much better class, well, it's gonna cross my mind that maybe I made a poor choice.

And that's the crux of "weak class, strong class" discussions. Rogue isn't weak in an absolute sense (like literally unplayable like some 3e classes were), but weak relatively is still gonna feel weak.

[Dr.Samurai]

I don't have a tremendous amount of experience with rogues at the table, but I do always wish there was a skills guy in the group to handle that part of exploration.

And I do think youtube optimizers drive a lot of the reputation of virtually all parts of the game, and are often misguided.

[Skrum]

I don't have a tremendous amount of experience with rogues at the table, but I do always wish there was a skills guy in the group to handle that part of exploration.

And I do think youtube optimizers drive a lot of the reputation of virtually all parts of the game, and are often misguided.

Like, what does it mean to be a skills guy? Having a decent survival and perception check? Clerics do that just fine, as do druids, by dint of having way higher wisdom.

Scouting is...well it's a contentious topic. But I personally don't think the value of scouting is such that it's worth whatever rogue is paying for it. Not even close.

[stoutstien]

I've never understood the complaint that classes that focus on ability checks are somehow worse due to GM fiat. It's not like it's any different from any other part of the game.

[Dr.Samurai]

Like, what does it mean to be a skills guy? Having a decent survival and perception check? Clerics do that just fine, as do druids, by dint of having way higher wisdom.

Scouting is...well it's a contentious topic. But I personally don't think the value of scouting is such that it's worth whatever rogue is paying for it. Not even close.

Actually I think there is value in having a set of critical skills on one single character, as it means they can accomplish more and make use of these skills together.

As an example, our current tier 3 game, the monk has Stealth and Perception. But he doesn't have Athletics, Investigation, or Thieves' Tools. So even if he scouts ahead, what he can accomplish while out ahead is limited. He may be able to make some checks and succeed at them, but not consistently, and the chances go down as the DCs go up.

If we had a rogue, their minimum roll on Stealth and Perception would be somewhere around 18, or 22 with Expertise. And it can be 15 with Investigation and Thieves' Tools, or 19 with Expertise (depending on ability scores of course).

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

I can't assist the monk when he goes ahead, despite having +5 on Investigation, because I have -1 and Disadvantage on Stealth checks. So I do think that splitting skills across a party can sometimes cause deficiencies, and I think there is value in a character that starts with at minimum 6 skill proficiencies and that also has native Expertise.

[Kane0]

Hmm, i'm pretty sure I stole some concepts from UA, or was it elsewhere? To touch up the Rogue a bit without just leaning into being more of a fighter.

*Digs through notes*
Ah here we go!

- Give them a fighting style, but not Extra Attack (natively, maybe as part of one or some subclasses)
- Somewhere in Tier 2 tack on a rider to Sneak Attack that gives you the choice of advantage on your next attack or disadvantage on theirs
- Somewhere in Tier 3 tack on a rider to sneak attack that offers a save or be either dazed or weakened (both new conditions derived from mind whip and ray of enfeeblement respectively) until the start of your next turn
- Somewhere in Tier 4 provide both of the Tier 2 rider and/or disadvantage on the save of the Tier 3 rider
- Expand reliable talent to be any ability check and not just proficient ones, maybe starting at a floor of 7 in tier 2 then rising to 10 in tier 3 and 13 in tier 4.
- Expand Slippery Mind to also include Cha saves, split into an earlier tier even
- Expand Stroke of Luck to also be usable on saves or to make attacks that hit, crit. Basically just turn any d20 test into a nat 20 once per short rest.

Basically, give combat options that make sneak attack a more helpful tool beyond straight damage (without eating up actions) and actually go all-in on hitting those ability checks, plus a few quality of life items.