What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Psyren]

My personal opinion on why I as both a player and a DM dislike rogue is as follows:

It's just so boring and repetitive. You do the same thing every turn in combat, hiding, sneak attacking and then hiding again. from a DM's point of view, again, it's sad just watching a player never different in what they do.

This also strikes me as a failure of the player to do anything creative or engaging. The Rogue has far more to offer than Sneak Attack (see my previous posts for suggestions).

Indeed - if you don't reward your players for improvising then, shock and awe, they won't see the value in improvising. Rogue is better positioned for it than most other classes due to things like Reliable Talent, Expertise, and enough proficiencies to grab the ones that are likely to come up in combat like Acrobatics.

With that said, I'm very glad that they're adding in Cunning Strike as a tactical "button" rogues get to press.

[Blatant Beast]

Hence why I said "favoured or optimal". Players stick to what they know and/or like, not necessarily what's best. Moon Druids are going to Bear, regardless of whether or not they "should" cast Entangle because that's why they chose to be a Moon Druid. Every Class gets immense value from adapting to their moment to moment situation and Rogue is no different or deficient in that regard.

This would seem to make your argument: "all classes are equal, when played, poorly".
Which is not a particularly encouraging sentiment.

Unfortunately, baring a few Rogue subclasses, the Rogue class has the same tactical complexity as the old Detroit Lions American Football team, that had as the sum total of it's offensive options:

1. Run Barry Sanders straight ahead
2. Run Barry Sanders to the right side
3. Run Barry Sanders to the left side.

Whichever option you chose, you are running Barry Sanders.

1. Sneak Attack with Aim
2. Sneak Attack with Hiding
3. Sneak Attack with Friends

[JellyPooga]

This would seem to make your argument: "all classes are equal, when played, poorly".
Which is not a particularly encouraging sentiment.

Doesn't make it less true. No matter how S-tier the Wizard or Druid might be, they're E-Rank in the hands of an E-Rank player.

Unfortunately, baring a few Rogue subclasses, the Rogue class has the same tactical complexity as the old Detroit Lions American Football team, that had as the sum total of it's offensive options:

1. Run Barry Sanders straight ahead
2. Run Barry Sanders to the right side
3. Run Barry Sanders to the left side.

Whichever option you chose, you are running Barry Sanders.

1. Sneak Attack with Aim
2. Sneak Attack with Hiding
3. Sneak Attack with Friends

And we're back to "all Rogues do is Sneak Attack". Didn't I only just say this strikes me as a failure of the player to do anything creative or engaging? I'm sure I just said that.

Let me rile up the ol' "let's make bad assumptions" argument again. Consider the following statements;
- Wizards are one dimensional because all they do is cast firebolt once they're out of spell slots and their blasting damage is pretty subpar.
- Polearm Master is a waste of a Feat because you're better off two weapon fighting.
- Bards aren't worth playing because their DPR isn't worth squat.

Do you see a common thread? Would we like to apply it to Rogues and Sneak Attack? Are we starting to see the failure of the player in assuming that the sum total of Rogue experience is "I Sneak Attack" and nothing more? Look beyond the shiny damage points and really look closer at the Rogue suite in practice. If you must compare it to other Classes, compare it in good faith. You might be surprised.

[Blatant Beast]

And we're back to "all Rogues do is Sneak Attack". Didn't I only just say this strikes me as a failure of the player to do anything creative or engaging? I'm sure I just said that.

The structural arguments against the Rogue class have already been discussed in the thread. I see no reason to waste time on repeating what has already been stated against a charge that "all class are equally bad in the hands of bad players".

Barry Left, or Barry Right is what you get with that criteria, hence my prior post.

The real issue is the disparity that happens when you have different classes being played in the hands of good players.
As Skrum stated in the beginning of the thread, all 5e classes are playable, that has never been in dispute.

[Snowbluff]

Indeed, all of the classes function and are playable, which is a big leg up on even my favorite edition. Of course, I think a bad reputation is a matter of perception rather than reality, and the two can be very different.

With that said, I'm very glad that they're adding in Cunning Strike as a tactical "button" rogues get to press.

Definitely. On top of access to weapon masteries, it is going to lively up the tactical value and action economy of the rogue. I'm very excited to play an Arcane Trickster with the new changes. It sounds like it is going to be a blast.

[JellyPooga]

The structural arguments against the Rogue class have already been discussed in the thread. I see no reason to waste time on repeating what has already been stated against a charge that "all class are equally bad in the hands of bad players".

Which begs the question of why you brought up the structural argument of the Rogue Class in relation to the a statement of player proficiency?

Barry Left, or Barry Right is what you get with that criteria, hence my prior post.

No. That's what you get when you only allow a Class to spotlight one of its features, which is what you seem intent on doing.

The real issue is the disparity that happens when you have different classes being played in the hands of good players.
As Skrum stated in the beginning of the thread, all 5e classes are playable, that has never been in dispute.

Indeed. Yet so many people seem intent of disparaging the Rogue Class based on poor player skill rather than the Class itself. So many comparisons and arguments in this thread have been on biased terms favouring the other; "Rogues are one dimensional because all they do is Sneak Attack", "Rogues do poor damage; here's a comparison of a single turn nova DPR", "Schrodingers Wizard can do everything a Rogue can and more" and so on and so forth.

[Blatant Beast]

If 21 pages in on this thread, you think all the arguments presented are just variations of people calling out bad Rogue play, then there is no value in trying to rephrase the volume of material for you.

Have a good day.

[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)
- 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.

Cunning Strike
When you damage a creature with a Sneak Attack on your turn, choose one of the following:
- You gain advantage on your next attack roll against that creature until the end of your next turn
- That creature suffers disadvantage on the next attack it makes until the end of your next turn

Devious Strike
When you damage a creature with a Sneak Attack on your turn, choose one of the following:
- That creature must make a Constitution saving throw or be Weakened until the start of your next turn
- That creature must make a Wisdom saving throw or be Dazed until the start of your next turn

Insidious Strike
When you damage a creature with a Sneak Attack on your turn, choose one of the following:
- You can apply both options of your Cunning Strike feature
- That creature suffers disadvantage on the saving throw of your Devious Strike feature

Me, on pages 4 and 6.

[Dr.Samurai]

Me, on pages 4 and 6.

Spoiler

Show

[Theodoxus]

Me, on pages 4 and 6.

I feel your pain. Also, I like your ideas on this.

[Just to Browse]

If 21 pages in on this thread, you think all the arguments presented are just variations of people calling out bad Rogue play, then there is no value in trying to rephrase the volume of material for you.

Haven't been in the last 20-odd pages, but your comment struck a chord in me. My experience is diametrically the opposite of JellyPooga's: The better the player & DM, the worse the rogue becomes by a huge margin. It's when my party is at their most creative, when they're adapting moment to moment as much as they can, when they're pushing themselves to the absolute limit, that is the rogue is weakest. In those situations, it becomes obvious how fragile the rogue's game plan is, and how easily its skill-based schtick can be replicated or obviated.

[Psyren]

I don't understand how more creative players and DMs hurt the rogue, unless you're letting people just do most things they want to do without needing to roll - but that's going to hurt rogues out of combat too. (Why invest in Expertise if you can, say, disarm a trap by RPing at it, or sneak past a watchpost by describing it?)

[Dr.Samurai]

I mean... the idea that some classes are just soooo versatile and can do a million different things is also a matter of "reputation".

And, it isn't just a player facing issue. If your wizard and cleric and druid are really going to be so incredibly versatile, then your DM has to consistently create encounters that can allow that versatility to shine.

And, well... that takes work and deliberate effort. And I'm not sure that most tables see that kind of output. Maybe they do, but I'm skeptical.

Instead, dead is almost always the best condition to impose, and there are some tried and true methods at getting that done efficiently. So I agree with JellyPooga that "other classes are soo versatile" is more like "in theory". Unless your DM is making it so and the other players at the table are buying in as well.

[Witty Username]

I don't get how the repetitive argument doesn't apply to every martial.
Rogue has play patterns sure, but when it is being compared to the standard barbarian or fighter I certainly don't see how it is less.

[Schwann145]

I don't get how the repetitive argument doesn't apply to every martial.
Rogue has play patterns sure, but when it is being compared to the standard barbarian or fighter I certainly don't see how it is less.

Fighters and Barbarians have to decide when to use GWM and when not to.
It's really in-depth and super complex gameplay, yo.

[JellyPooga]

I don't get how the repetitive argument doesn't apply to every martial.
Rogue has play patterns sure, but when it is being compared to the standard barbarian or fighter I certainly don't see how it is less.

That was my point upthread, even for spellcasters. Honestly, how many different combat options is a Wizard really preparing or a Bard learning? Are you blowing it all on a multitude of combat functions or are you picking one or two of your favourite or best spells to use in combat and rounding out the rest with utilities and other pillars?

Short example; how many Wizards have Firebolt, Ray of Frost and Chill Touch as cantrips? I'm willing to bet the list is short. Yeah, they're more versatile in combat, but in practice they're far more likely to pick one, maybe two, then pick up Light or Mage Hand and just spam the one combat cantrip that works for them.

Apply that up the scale. How many spells is the Wizard actually dedicating to their combat versatity? How predictable and tired is their "routine" after the second or third combat in the day? Is it really and significantly more varied than anything the Rogue or Monk is doing, or capable of doing? Valid questions in my book.

[Skrum]

I don't often play spellcasters, but when I do, I like to have the following basic options -

Defense: shield, silvery barbs, and absorb elements top the list, and if they're available I'll try to get all three

Crowd Control: the options are several, but just for example, entangle, sleep, spike growth, web, binding ice, hypnotic pattern, spirit guardians, slow

AoE: thunderwave, dragon's breath, fireball, wall of fire

Movement: misty step, vortex warp, thunderstep

Buffs: bless, heroism, aid, haste, death ward

Obviously these spells are coming from different spell lists and one character can't take ALL of them. But even a sorcerer can take ~1 from each category and still have a few picks left to customize, emphasize a certain strategy, etc.

Where does that put casters? Well they're incredibly versatile. They have various options for a variety of situations and tactics. They can respond in a lot of different ways, making it challenging at times for the DM to really push them: they can respond instantly and organically with a different "optimal" spell, pushing the encounter hard in the player's favor.

Can the rogue also do that? Well...yes and no. A creative player that's good at ad-libbing skills and actions paired with a DM that's careful to add lots of interactive features and alternative goals, and is comfortable adjudicating a lot of stuff on the fly, the rogue can perform similarly. But I think the rogue defenders in this thread are seriously underplaying the inertia of rules: many classes have lots of options *because their class features say they have lots of options.* It takes little or no work on any particular person at the table's attention for those options to exist. The rogue is not so similarly blessed. Their options come from the player and DM working together to give them options, often on the fly and specific to the scenario.

And sure, all of those things will be true and the rogue will do well in an idealized version of the game where every DM is always performing at a high level and players are always feeling creative and engaged. But real world, that doesn't always happen. The inertia of rules are *against* rogues IMO. Kind of a opt-in vs opt-out thing - other classes, especially casters, get this stuff by default. The rogue player has to work at it, and the DM has to help them. This means yes, they will often regress to "different flavors of sneak attack." Because that's the one ability they explicitly get.

[JellyPooga]

Do you recognise how, even though you admit that no one caster will have all those spells on hand, you're skewing the argument in the spellcasters favour by listing all those spells? The point is that no one caster will have them so they don't have the versatility claimed outside of their own "idealised version of the game". The reality is that in most combats a Cleric, from level 1-4, is probably casting Bless and then hitting things with a stick and after level 5 it's Spirit Guardians instead. That's going to be a large majority of combats for a Cleric because the very specific encounter where whatever specific spell they chose as their "versatility" option might not come up at all and only if the GM has such an encounter in the bag.

[Amnestic]

I don't mind Rogues hide/steady aim+hit machines, but my 11th level forge cleric definitely has a few more turn-to-turn points to consider each turn.

Usually my turn's mental process goes as follows:-
A) Do I attempt Divine Intervention? It's always in the back of the mind, when it's not already expended.
B) What's my Concentration currently being spent on? Typically this'll be Summon Celestial but Wall of Fire, Heat Metal, Banishment, or Sunbeam come up too.
C) Do I want to expend a spell slot on a non-concentration spell. Top picks turn to turn are Spiritual Weapon, Cure Wounds, Healing Word, Command, Blindness, or Dispel Magic. Lesser Restoration crops up too.
D) If I don't, of the three attacking cantrips I have (Sacred Flame, Toll the Dead, Word of Radiance) do I use one, or swing my hammer for Divine Strike damage?

Forge Clerics don't have a combat-worthy Channel Divinity, but other clerics might do, so that would probably slot into the B-C area of priority. With 4/3/3/3/2/1 spell slots (plus Harness Divine Power if I need it), there's always a solid chance B+C are stuff to consider turn to turn, rather than just D.

I want to stress that's not a hypothetical white room character, it's one I'm playing. All spells named are ones she has currently prepared/readied.

In another game, I do have a Fighter 1/Phantom Rogue 4. I don't anticipate his markedly more simple choice tree each turn will change between now and being Fighter 1/Rogue 10. That's not a bad thing for me. He puts out extremely consistent, solid damage and I'm eminently satisfied, but it is undeniably far less turn-to-turn decision making to be made than my Cleric in comparison.

[Xervous]

Coming to the tail end of another BG3 run I’m still amazed at how potent thief rogues are with Larian’s tweaks, to the point that I want one in the party even if there’s no gauntlet of sleight of hand checks to crunch through. The blend of extra bonus action, getting DEX to damage on offhand (item), combat hide being reliable, everything up to triple dash being an option (and most interactions not taking an action), and combat areas often presenting opportunities for LoS denial is wonderful. All of it adds up to a character that always finds something good to do with its turn, and has good reliable damage when not getting fancy with objectives or thrown item delivery.

I’m not quite sure what the breakpoint combo of those features would be for rogue still feeling worthwhile. Since we’ve got some example of a good (or overtuned if that’s your take) rogue it provides some guidance on what may be lacking for the tabletop version.

[Skrum]

Do you recognise how, even though you admit that no one caster will have all those spells on hand, you're skewing the argument in the spellcasters favour by listing all those spells? The point is that no one caster will have them so they don't have the versatility claimed outside of their own "idealised version of the game". The reality is that in most combats a Cleric, from level 1-4, is probably casting Bless and then hitting things with a stick and after level 5 it's Spirit Guardians instead. That's going to be a large majority of combats for a Cleric because the very specific encounter where whatever specific spell they chose as their "versatility" option might not come up at all and only if the GM has such an encounter in the bag.

Cleric in particular doesn't have a ton of stuff 1-6 (well, unless the subclass has a good channel divinity, which maybe half of them do). But cleric spells at 4th and up start get really good. Spirit guardians is very strong, mass healing word, mass cure wounds, aura of purity, aura of life, guardian of faith, holy weapon, insect plague....

But let's get specific about the spell list. A 7th level sorcerer knows 8 spells. Without any particular theme in mind, I would pick something like
1st: shield, absorb elements
2nd: vortex warp
3rd: slow, fireball
4th: sickening radiance

I'd also take Fey Touched and pick up Silvery Barbs and Misty Step. I've got defense, I've got mobility, I've got CC, I've got AoE, and I've got both with sickening radiance. I've also got 2 choices left (if for instance I knew the campaign would have lots of out of combat stuff going on, picking up disguise self and even major image would be strong considerations). And depending on subclass, race, and background, I might get a bunch more spells known.

That's a pretty complete package, tactics-wise. No I don't have the "perfect" answer to every single thing. But I have good answer to most things. This character can cast 1, maybe 2 spells in most combats and have an outsized effect on the outcome. We're trying to rescue a hostage? Fast enemy is kiting the barb? Vortex warp trivializes most hostage situations and can also deliver 250 lbs of angry orc right to your doorstep. Mooks giving us trouble? Fireball. Collection of really tough baddies? Not so tough when moving at half speed. And I'm nice and safe with the trifecta of shield, absorb elements, and misty step.

My point though isn't that sorcerer is better than rogue (I think we can all agree there and move on). It's that I don't need the cajole the DM to sign off on what I'm doing. My options are laid out before me, printed in nice even typeface. Can I get creative and make some cool tactical moves? Absolutely! But that only serves to enhance further my explicit ability to do A, B, C, and D (and E, F, G, H and I for that matter). Rogues are only cajoling. Well that and sneak attack.

[LudicSavant]

Coming to the tail end of another BG3 run I’m still amazed at how potent thief rogues are with Larian’s tweaks, to the point that I want one in the party even if there’s no gauntlet of sleight of hand checks to crunch through. The blend of extra bonus action, getting DEX to damage on offhand (item), combat hide being reliable, everything up to triple dash being an option (and most interactions not taking an action), and combat areas often presenting opportunities for LoS denial is wonderful. All of it adds up to a character that always finds something good to do with its turn, and has good reliable damage when not getting fancy with objectives or thrown item delivery.

I’m not quite sure what the breakpoint combo of those features would be for rogue still feeling worthwhile. Since we’ve got some example of a good (or overtuned if that’s your take) rogue it provides some guidance on what may be lacking for the tabletop version.

Yeah Thief Rogue is a lot better in BG3. It got a lot of buffs, some of them very obvious (new class features such as an extra bonus action), some more subtle (such as changes to basic actions and itemization).

In 2014 5e, I consider it one of the better 'resourceless' Rogues, though that still places it towards the lower end of the totem poll of classes.

Their level 3 ability has some decent tricks associated with it, using objects like ball bearings or healer's kits (with the Healer feat) as a bonus action. You can throw alchemicals Alchemist's Fire (which -- at least according to Crawford -- grants your Dex bonus on both the hit and the DoT), but you won't natively have proficiency, and the notion of picking up Tavern Brawler is just plain awkward. And you can't use magic items such as potions or the like with it.

Thief Healer provides a meaningful amount of healing and is a solid way to build a Thief, but the lack of status effect management and the like means it won't serve as a replacement for true healers.

Ultimately while nicer than the level 3 of some subclasses, it mostly is just adding a few more alternatives to Cunning Action. Additionally, a lot of the uses of Fast Hands (or actions of comparable value) can also be done by a familiar or via an Arcane Trickster's bonus action Mage Hand.

The climbing feature is useful too, and can be used for kiting up walls, especially when playing a ranged rogue. Though the practical limitations of ranged kiting on Rogues still apply.

Its level 9 feature, Supreme Sneak, is more mild than it may seem at first glance. Advantage on Stealth is something a Trickster Cleric was giving that away at level 1 without a speed penalty, and Advantage and Reliable Talent (which you get very shortly after Supreme Sneak) only barely stack (e.g. Reliable Talent grants an average +0.7 to an Advantage roll).

A tier 3 Rogue generally already beats the Passive Perception of most things; what they lack is the ability to bring their party with them, or hide while observed, or evade special senses, or divinations, or get through wards or walls, or other such things that don't result directly from a stealth roll. As such, it's often a bit of a 'win harder when you win' feature. Or to put it another way: the things that tend to beat tier 3 Rogue stealth still tend to beat Rogue stealth, and the variety of scenarios that can be solved with stealth doesn't expand very much.

Its level 13 feature, Use Magic Device, is again partially replicated by an Arcane Trickster, simply by virtue of being able to put on all of the magic items that require you to be 'a spellcaster.' And the race/etc restricted magic items aren't so valuable that they're providing a major bonus over just what an Arcane Trickster could wear. If you even find them in the first place.

Use Magic Device used to be a huge part of what made Rogues good in past editions, but here it's just not really doing much.

Now, the level 17 feature is great. It's basically a whole extra turn every combat. Extra turns are good. But it could really use more in the rest of the progression.

[Skrum]

I’m not quite sure what the breakpoint combo of those features would be for rogue still feeling worthwhile. Since we’ve got some example of a good (or overtuned if that’s your take) rogue it provides some guidance on what may be lacking for the tabletop version.

After playing BG3, I'm strongly convinced that
- potion use should be a bonus action
- shove should be a bonus action, and it should scale with your str score
- consumables are extremely underutilized
- non-weapon weapons like alchemist fire and acid need to be treated more like weapons that every character is proficient with
- drawing items from your bag shouldn't be tracked
- all spell components aside from the expensive ones are more trouble than they're worth

Even with all these changes though, I still think the rogue needs an overhaul for table top play. The main advantage rogues get in BG3 is the terrain is varied and detailed in a way that only a computer game can be. Height is super annoying to track, line of sight defaults towards everyone being able to see each other, and a room full of doodads and potentially useful levers isn't really feasible for a DM, working alone, to create.

[Blatant Beast]

I don't understand how more creative players and DMs hurt the rogue, unless you're letting people just do most things they want to do without needing to roll - but that's going to hurt rogues out of combat too. (Why invest in Expertise if you can, say, disarm a trap by RPing at it, or sneak past a watchpost by describing it?)

A common scenario in play is the Adventuring Group discovers something urgent that needs to be communicated to others: the Githyanki could be invading, the Beatles could be invading, giant ants could be invading, the white dragon that flies around could be on a rampage, or some other time sensitive piece of information that needs to be communicated.

A cleric can always take a long rest to to prepare Sending, (assuming the PC is 5th level). The Rogue, with Expertise in Persuasion, can write a letter, and then invent Fedex.

One of these actions may help save the world, immediately. The other wrote eloquent, evocative, and convincing words on parchment, then spent a week training a wild sparrow they captured to be a courier animal, and then sent the sparrow to go off to some location the bird has never been before with the message. Luckily, the sparrow was an African and not a European Sparrow so it has a faster air speed. ;)

When the group is sitting around trying to engineer a solution to an impending doom that is going to affect the local region/ a major country/ or the world or Prime Material Plane itself, (depending upon group level), solutions that require an A-Team like building/training montages might be too slow.

Martials as a group, have fewer built in Narrative affecting options, meanwhile, seemingly innocuous spell options like Unseen Servant, provide substantial boosts in labor energy without placing further demands on food and housing resources. Unseen Servant, on a societal scale is practically free energy.

The Jason Bourne film franchise solution to this type of dilemma, is that Jason Bourne has access to contacts that can provide information and resources, which allows Bourne to transcend his limitations of being a single solitary, (though admittedly badass), super-spy. Alas, the Rogue class for D&D does not have such a quality built in.

To Skrum: Grognards, (like myself), have been pointing out that games should use more consumables and magic items almost since 5e's publication, and that doing so would help martial characters out. The great thing about consumables is that even if the DM homebrews something way overpowered, it is just a single use.

I, personally, do use elevation in my games and varied terrain, because well life is a lot like cat furniture, it has levels. Tracking Elevation is simple and easy to do on a large sheet of graph paper, or even with just a sticky index arrow with the elevation written on it being stuck to the miniature.

[Skrum]

To Skrum: Grognards, (like myself), have been pointing out that games should use more consumables and magic items almost since 5e's publication, and that doing so would help martial characters out. The great thing about consumables is that even if the DM homebrews something way overpowered, it is just a single use.

The table I play at doesn't lean into consumables all that much (just a couple of potions taken from official sources), but we do have a lot of magic item availability. Weapons that add damage dice are essentially basic equipment for martials, and it really helps them continue to be good at what they're supposed to be good at.

I, personally, do use elevation in my games and varied terrain, because well life is a lot like cat furniture, it has levels. Tracking Elevation is simple and easy to do on a large sheet of graph paper, or even with just a sticky index arrow with the elevation written on it.

I mean, I strive to use those things too. I play on VTT only, and I use one of the 3 circles that each token gets to track numbers to denote how far above the ground the token is. But I'm not going to flatter myself and say I can track this as cleanly as a computer can, or make maps with as fine a detail as BG3. In fact, I'm nowhere near a computer in those categories. I don't see how someone possibly could be.

[Blatant Beast]

Yeah, I hear you, Skrum. One of the reasons I am not so fond of the VTT experience, as a DM, is often times it takes longer to create the maps then it does coming up with the Adventure/Encounters themselves.

[Just to Browse]

And, it isn't just a player facing issue. If your wizard and cleric and druid are really going to be so incredibly versatile, then your DM has to consistently create encounters that can allow that versatility to shine.

IME it's very easy to highlight someone flexible like a caster. You just put a goal in front of them (locked up loot, hidden information, an attacking monster, escaping with a time limit) and give them some tools (cover, elevation, some NPCs to talk to, other monsters, exotic flora), and they'll figure out something to do.

When I'm spending time on encounters, it's usually because:

• I want to highlight someone inflexible like the party rogue, without allowing a more flexible caster to obviate the challenge.
• I want a scenario that acts like a twist on the usual campaign, targetting one of the flexible party member's weaknesses and forcing them on the backfoot.

Both require planning out coincidental / contrived restrictions, which is a lot of work. It's easier to just set up a scenario and let the players be creative; and I'd do it all the time if I could guarantee that the poor martials in the party wouldn't feel bad.

[Psyren]

A common scenario in play is the Adventuring Group discovers something urgent that needs to be communicated to others: the Githyanki could be invading, the Beatles could be invading, giant ants could be invading, the white dragon that flies around could be on a rampage, or some other time sensitive piece of information that needs to be communicated.

A cleric can always take a long rest to to prepare Sending, (assuming the PC is 5th level). The Rogue, with Expertise in Persuasion, can write a letter, and then invent Fedex.

One of these actions may help save the world, immediately. The other wrote eloquent, evocative, and convincing words on parchment, then spent a week training a wild sparrow they captured to be a courier animal, and then sent the sparrow to go off to some location the bird has never been before with the message. Luckily, the sparrow was an African and not a European Sparrow so it has a faster air speed. ;)

Yes, if you contrive a scenario where instantaneous long-distance communication is the only feasible solution, then the party will need magic to resolve it. That's not a deficiency of martial class design, that's a deficiency in your narrative. Nobody who sits at a D&D table wanting to play a Fighter is thinking "Ugh, if only I had Sending, I'd actually be having fun in this campaign." They rolled Fighter because they don't care about needing that ability or not.

After playing BG3, I'm strongly convinced that
- potion use should be a bonus action
- shove should be a bonus action, and it should scale with your str score

I'd say these should be both (with Shove able to replace one attack if you have EA as normal) at the player's option.

- drawing items from your bag shouldn't be tracked

5.5e is making it so we can draw weapons during the attack action, that should help free up a lot of bandwidth for Object Interactions without totally trivializing item retrieval I'd say.

- all spell components aside from the expensive ones are more trouble than they're worth

For this one I think expensive spell components are necessary to help slow caster power progression a bit and limit particularly powerful spells, but certain spells indeed don't need them (like Stoneskin.) BG3 removing all of them completely was a bit much.

Even with all these changes though, I still think the rogue needs an overhaul for table top play. The main advantage rogues get in BG3 is the terrain is varied and detailed in a way that only a computer game can be. Height is super annoying to track, line of sight defaults towards everyone being able to see each other, and a room full of doodads and potentially useful levers isn't really feasible for a DM, working alone, to create.

Okay but like - maps with a bunch of terrain features are a dime a dozen online, including a bunch of free ones. And even if you play exclusively in meatspace, you aren't limited to D&D maps, Paizo and a bunch of other publishers sell them too.

[stoutstien]

Yeah, I hear you, Skrum. One of the reasons I am not so fond of the VTT experience, as a DM, is often times it takes longer to create the maps then it does coming up with the Adventure/Encounters themselves.

Aye. Even if you are fast and can make up for the loss time, I've found it stifles options because it doesn't leave enough blank space for the imagination to fill in.

I'm not against them as a tool but at what point they become a bigger priority than the game itself is something to consider table to table.

[Blatant Beast]

IME it's very easy to highlight someone flexible like a caster. You just put a goal in front of them (locked up loot, hidden information, an attacking monster, escaping with a time limit) and give them some tools (cover, elevation, some NPCs to talk to, other monsters, exotic flora), and they'll figure out something to do.

When I'm spending time on encounters, it's usually because:

• I want to highlight someone inflexible like the party rogue, without allowing a more flexible caster to obviate the challenge.
• I want a scenario that acts like a twist on the usual campaign, targetting one of the flexible party member's weaknesses and forcing them on the backfoot.

Both require planning out coincidental / contrived restrictions, which is a lot of work. It's easier to just set up a scenario and let the players be creative; and I'd do it all the time if I could guarantee that the poor martials in the party wouldn't feel bad.

Quoted for Truth

Yes, if you contrive a scenario where instantaneous long-distance communication is the only feasible solution, then the party will need magic to resolve it. That's not a deficiency of martial class design, that's a deficiency in your narrative. Nobody who sits at a D&D table wanting to play a Fighter is thinking "Ugh, if only I had Sending, I'd actually be having fun in this campaign." They rolled Fighter because they don't care about needing that ability or not.

Oh please-- as Just to Browse indicated above some of us like creating OPEN ENDED scenarios, that give the PCs Carte Blanche to do what they will. Psyren, you are essentially stating a DM should have everything planned out, which is limiting, (and frankly not always possible), to say the least.

The pitfall to the "plan everything" approach, is it often leads DM's to say "No" to unexpected solutions the PCs came up with, because it was not included in the "DM's plans of potential solutions" and would throw off the flow of their adventure.

I would even go so far as to state that high level play almost necessitates the DM not plan all adventure elements to the smallest detail, because the sheer number of potential action options that High Level groups have access to can render most railroad type restrictions moot.

Allowing multiple paths for success and failure in Encounter design is great, but forcing design so that all classes, at all times, have an equal chance of succeeding at a task, is a bit too much of an ask.

Sending as a form of communication has certain absolute advantages over even modern satellite communication, because it is magic. It takes a lot of time and preparation to use mundane tech to match magic...which is why magic is magic. ;)

To Stoutstein: Completely agree re: the utility vs restraining creative options threshold on VTT usage.