What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Witty Username]

But before we even go there, I'd wonder why multiple triple deadly encounters back to back to back are the standard anyone should go by to determine how a class performs in the game. Like... I get Ludic and his buddies really like that style of game but... why should I judge a class by that metric if my table doesn't play that way, or if that's not what the designers intended?

Well, generally, easy encounters don't give much information on what a particular classes strengths and weaknesses are. Generally the more dangerous the encounter, the more pronounced strengths and weaknesses are going to be.

Like for example, if you wanted to check how long a classes staying power was, you wouldn't use a 1-encounter per long rest set up because every class hopefully can manage that, 4-6-8 encounters per long rest would start to have greater stresses. And that does a much better job screening for strong nova potential.


I will admit I am not a big fan of the Gauntlet in specific to this conversation, I mean, in the opening of the monk video it was stated the Gauntlet isn't intended to provide direct comparisons between Classes and Builds. And it doesn't do a great job of its intended purpose of showing off the strengths and weaknesses of different classes, at least in my opinion.

The monk video did convince me that some characters like fighter and rogue could have a solid time of it, and TMs run was pretty fun to watch (I rather liked also his commentary on his run going over his time of it, stuff at work and assessing his own play mistakes). I don't think its changed my opinion of any of the builds presented (Zealot sucks when it is in a locked room with more enemies than its attack bonus without allies, much insightful, Gun is really good if you have a surprise round against an enemy and crit twice, etc.)

[Snails]

Getting back to the OP's question, I would boil it down to two main issues:

(1) The Rogue and most martial classes lack the broad flexibility of the spellcasters. And while these classes play just fine for the first 5-6 levels, once you reach late T2 the spellcasters do not find it difficult to pace themselves to have a juicy spell for most encounters. We can cook up all kinds of Schrodinger arguments, but ultimately in the 6+ encounter day that is supposed prove the worth of these inflexible classes, we expect many more encounters where a Fireball, Banish, Invisibility, Hypnotic Pattern, Spirit Guardians makes the win easy, than we expect to see an emergency with a special locked box or other social situation where the Rogue will shine so brightly (or the endless stream of mooks that will showcase certain martial builds). It is not as if non-Rogues cannot be good at Stealth and face skills, too.

(2) The Rogue and most martial classes lack strong burst abilities. The Wizard has the option to lay down 2 or 3 Fireballs when the moment is ripe, understanding the consequences later in the day. The Paladin has landed his sword stroke and can choose to pump up the damage and drop a foe quickly. And here I think lays the bigger quandary. The Paladin is a well loved class in spite of not being top shelf in a discussion about topic #1 above. We do not want to make the Rogue and martials just like full spellcasters -- we want them to be different. But we also want to be careful about not making everyone just like the Paladin.

On a positive note, I would rate Uncanny Dodge and Evasion as practically iconic abilities that are very useful. But ultimately these are defensive "anti-burst" abilities and an array of defensive abilities does not stack up as well as offensive/proactive options usually can.

[LudicSavant]

I can't speak for everyone, but my objections about Assassin have nothing to do with the fact that Disguise Self exists

Same here. I regard Disguise Self as a relatively flimsy disguise that falls apart relatively easily to security countermeasures I'd expect to find if I wanted to infiltrate someplace that's actually difficult to infiltrate, like pulling a heist on House Kundarak. It's more of a spell that you use to get into very low security areas or make someone have to spend a round or two letting you get into patdown range before they notice something's amiss. Which is why it's a first level spell.

[Psyren]

Same here. I regard Disguise Self as a relatively flimsy disguise that falls apart relatively easily to security countermeasures I'd expect to find if I wanted to infiltrate someplace that's actually difficult to infiltrate, like pulling a heist on House Kundarak. It's more of a spell that you use to get into very low security areas or make someone have to spend a round or two letting you get into patdown range before they notice something's amiss. Which is why it's a first level spell.

Disguises are also useful even when you're dealing with exotic infiltrations like mindflayers. They have to concentrate on you specifically for multiple rounds in order to probe deeper than surface thoughts, and if you look just like every other muddy emaciated thrall they should have little reason to do that. Both a true thrall and an infiltrating adventurer's surface thoughts being some variation of "please don't notice me" would be pretty reasonable.

(Note that Soulknife gets yet another advantage here, that being not needing to try smuggling a weapon into such a secure area under their rags.)

[LudicSavant]

Getting back to the OP's question, I would boil it down to two main issues:

(1) The Rogue and most martial classes lack the broad flexibility of the spellcasters. And while these classes play just fine for the first 5-6 levels, once you reach late T2 the spellcasters do not find it difficult to pace themselves to have a juicy spell for most encounters. We can cook up all kinds of Schrodinger arguments, but ultimately in the 6+ encounter day that is supposed prove the worth of these inflexible classes, we expect many more encounters where a Fireball, Banish, Invisibility, Hypnotic Pattern, Spirit Guardians makes the win easy, than we expect to see an emergency with a special locked box or other social situation where the Rogue will shine so brightly (or the endless stream of mooks that will showcase certain martial builds). It is not as if non-Rogues cannot be good at Stealth and face skills, too.

(2) The Rogue and most martial classes lack strong burst abilities. The Wizard has the option to lay down 2 or 3 Fireballs when the moment is ripe, understanding the consequences later in the day. The Paladin has landed his sword stroke and can choose to pump up the damage and drop a foe quickly. And here I think lays the bigger quandary. The Paladin is a well loved class in spite of not being top shelf in a discussion about topic #1 above. We do not want to make the Rogue and martials just like full spellcasters -- we want them to be different. But we also want to be careful about not making everyone just like the Paladin.

On a positive note, I would rate Uncanny Dodge and Evasion as practically iconic abilities that are very useful. But ultimately these are defensive "anti-burst" abilities and an array of defensive abilities does not stack up as well as offensive/proactive options usually can.

Yeah -- the Rogue isn't all that glass (in fact, one of my preferred ways to build and play them is as a sort of switch hitter tank), but they're also not all that cannon.

In combat, their contribution is mostly limited to single target output -- even moreso than most martials, because most of their output comes in a single chunk per turn (meaning they're unusually lossy to overkill and the like).

And when your job description is putting down the scariest single target in the room, being able to inflict burst is a highly-sought-after commodity, since every round that a challenging boss monster is alive and free to act has consequences.

It also means that the consistency with which you can deliver your output is important, because scary single targets also tend to have good counterplay options, and Sneak Attack is basically a normal attack with extra steps for a smart foe to throw a monkey wrench into.

On a positive note, they at least lose less of their output on a readied attack than if they relied on Extra Attack -- provided the Rogue still qualifies for SA.

Out of combat, they are pretty well off, but not so well off that they're making classes that aren't named Barbarian, Fighter, or (non-Shadow) Monk weep with envy. Especially with quite a few of those classes getting much better at non-combat stuff post-Tasha's, while Rogues mostly stayed the same in terms of non-combat prowess (unless they're a Soulknife, of course). And of course the Bard has just as much Expertise, and Expertise isn't even the Bard's best noncombat feature.

[Snails]

And when your job description is putting down the scariest single target in the room, being able to inflict burst is a highly-sought-after commodity, since every round that a challenging boss monster is alive and free to act has consequences.

Obviously, it is conceivable to "fix" the Rogue by various means that result in additional DPR and/or burst damage. I would suggest that Debuffs are a design space that could be explored for the Rogue: hamper movement, apply Disadvantage to a certain check, suppress a Reaction or Bonus Action, etc. On the downside, it becomes mechanically fussy and not the best fit for 5e mechanics. On the plus side, it could give the Rogue effectiveness that brings a lot of style.

[Kane0]

Obviously, it is conceivable to "fix" the Rogue by various means that result in additional DPR and/or burst damage. I would suggest that Debuffs are a design space that could be explored for the Rogue: hamper movement, apply Disadvantage to a certain check, suppress a Reaction or Bonus Action, etc. On the downside, it becomes mechanically fussy and not the best fit for 5e mechanics. On the plus side, it could give the Rogue effectiveness that brings a lot of style.

Post 745.

Wait, i forgot the styles! Adding those in.

[Witty Username]

I think every subclass should have a feature to apply advantage in an additional circumstance.
Sneak attack is, at least intended to be, reasonable to apply every turn. And rogue does have some means to generate advantage in combat, but the primary method of sneak attack is nearby allies which I think isn't consistent enough across tables.
Swashbuckler gaining advantage in dueling or inquisitive gaining advantage with their observational skill would smooth over those classes pretty nicely. Assasin's best feature partially is advantage on first turn, which can smooth over a lot of less ideal scenarios.

For additional notes on the damage side,
I am not convinced the once per turn restriction is needed, but Rogue is already encouraged to use TWF in a weird way for damage consitency.consistency.
An alternative to the up top bit on subclasses would be improving the non-sneak attack damage of rogue. Extra attack could be this, essentially sneak attack would be circumstantial burst on top of already consistent danger.
Don't combine these to points, sneak attack on a 2-3 attack routine would probably break the bank a bit, sneak attack is already essentially a smite, if paladin had 4th level smites for free it would be too much, as to it would be for rogue.

[LudicSavant]

If I were designing the Rogue (and indeed, the way I *have* designed roguish sorts in some past games I have worked on), I might give them a bunch of ways to inflict or exploit status effects (e.g. not only could they inflict them, they could capitalize on those who have them better, too). Basically really good at fighting dirty.

Sneak Attack sort of does this (in that Advantage is granted by a lot of status effects, and enables SA), but that's more of a permission to do normalish attack damage, rather than like, say, enabling a daisy chain of executions that finishes off everything in the room once you have a setup.

[Witty Username]

Sneak Attack sort of does this (in that Advantage is granted by a lot of status effects, and enables SA), but that's more of a permission to do normalish attack damage, rather than like, say, enabling a daisy chain of executions that finishes off everything in the room once you have a setup.

For a given value of normalish, at say 5th level this is definitely true. As time goes on this is a lot more dependent on what class it is being compared to.
And this is at least by my standpoint due to how feats interact with most martials.

At later stages of the game sneak attack is only really behind fighter, paladin and things that incorporate SS and GWM style build paths. (And not very far behind, from what I recall crunching these numbers)
Which does lead me to some trepidation with adding extra attack specifically, since that potentially adds those sharpshooter style paths on top of rogue's already decent but uneventful damage. Only really held back by some of the mechanics related to paladin, where individual attacks are good enough that things like GWM are more of a liability because of the attack penalty.

[Psyren]

If I were designing the Rogue (and indeed, the way I *have* designed roguish sorts in some past games I have worked on), I might give them a bunch of ways to inflict or exploit status effects (e.g. not only could they inflict them, they could capitalize on those who have them better, too). Basically really good at fighting dirty.

Sneak Attack sort of does this (in that Advantage is granted by a lot of status effects, and enables SA), but that's more of a permission to do normalish attack damage, rather than like, say, enabling a daisy chain of executions that finishes off everything in the room once you have a setup.

What could be good for them is some kind of benefit if you both have advantage and qualify for sneak attack normally (ally next to the target), or if you have advantage from another source + take the Steady Aim penalty of giving up your movement to line up your attack - or even both. A simple one would be to increase their crit range - 19-20 for meeting one of those conditions, or 18-20 for meeting them both.

I worry though that this won't actually add much DPR to them overall while simultaneously feeling very spiky when it works, leading to the perception that it's overtuned when in reality it's anything but.

[Witty Username]

What could be good for them is some kind of benefit if you both have advantage and qualify for sneak attack normally (ally next to the target), or if you have advantage from another source + take the Steady Aim penalty of giving up your movement to line up your attack - or even both. A simple one would be to increase their crit range - 19-20 for meeting one of those conditions, or 18-20 for meeting them both.

If build guides are anything to go by, auto crits have proven pretty nice on Assassin, more of that could be a potent damage buff since rogue already crits hard.

Steady aim, while having advantage already probably doesn't happen often. Increased crit range is neat but one needs a significant amount for it to matter. 18-20 might be enough with a consistent source of advantage (that would get it to a little over 25%).

[LudicSavant]

Some more thoughts in no particular order:

* Rogues aren't all that fragile, so you can play at flex range, moving into melee, absorbing what you can, and then relatively easily disengaging when you want someone else to be targeted.

* Rogues don't seem to benefit from magic items as much as other classes. Magic weapons in particular tend to scale better the more attacks you have... and the Rogue has the least of any martial. The Monk tends to scale better off magic weapons than the Rogue does (both on average, and also in terms of what their best items available are -- I can't readily think of anything that's as good for a Rogue as, say, the Gloves of Soul Catching are for a Monk. If someone else can, please tell me). Well, at least the Rogue can still make fun of the Monk for not being able to wear +3 Studded Leather.

* Dex martials tend to be better than Str ones, but every martial (and gish) can very easily go Dex-based except the Barbarian (I mean, Barb has Dex-based builds too but they're... less convenient).

* Ranged martials tend to have a higher performance ceiling than melee ones. And when it comes to the ranged route, Rogues are a bit unusual in that their output often doesn't actually improve from a -5/+10. In one sense, this can be seen as freeing them from the need to spend a feat on that, but in another... well, let me put it this way. Let's say a Rogue takes Crossbow Expert instead of Sharpshooter, hungry for the greater consistency that comes with a bonus action attack (similar to why many Rogues choose to TWF in melee). Well, now they're at -4 (compared to a Fighter with the Archery style) against anyone in half-cover, -7 against anyone in 3/4 cover, and worst of all will get Disadvantage with a hand crossbow if they're ever more than 30 feet away (and Rogues haaate Disadvantage). Or they could grab the Archery Style from a feat instead, but then they wouldn't have the consistency of being able to attempt to land a sneak attack twice, and even a heavy crossbow has just a 100 feet before it has to worry about disadvantage, which is sometimes relevant if we're comparing kiting potential.

In other words: It's not just the -5/+10 part of Sharpshooter that's really good, so skipping it isn't painless even for a Rogue, even if it's considerably less of an auto-pick for them.

* Rogues are not necessarily as good at ranged kiting as they may appear to be on paper, because they have to balance their need for keepaway against their need to qualify for sneak attack as consistently as possible, and they only have so many bonus actions to spread around.

* I wish more of the Thief was half as good as their level 17 feature. Speaking of thieves, is 2024 5e still removing the thief healer from the game? I haven't been keeping up with the updates.

[Snails]

If build guides are anything to go by, auto crits have proven pretty nice on Assassin, more of that could be a potent damage buff since rogue already crits hard.

So many factors decide whether it is excellent or worthless or where in between it falls.

I do not rate it because it is "free burst damage" in a combat that was probably destined to be easy anyway. If my Rogue achieves surprise, it is likely all or most of the party also has the drop on the enemy. While dramatic, Assassinate when used is likely overkill that saves a modest dollop of resources. Or I could do everything right and roll low on initiative, nullifying the subclass' best ability completely -- I prefer abilities that provide more control.

Of course if your Rogue often wanders ahead solo or as a pair of stealthy PCs, and you need to take care of business for a couple round before help arrives, then maybe this one works for you. Or maybe your entire party is so strong at Stealth that Surprise is a common occurrence.

All these things are highly dependent on party composition and preferred tactics, of course.

[Skrum]

Or I could do everything right and roll low on initiative, nullifying the subclass' best ability completely \.

This alone makes assassin extremely suspect. Finally get the opportunity, finally line up the surprise round, and roll a 3 on initiative. It's utterly toxic.

Little aside, surprise rounds are just not handled properly at all. If I sneak up on them, like my stealth has already beaten their perception, how are they getting another bite at the apple in the form of beating my initiative? Them clearing surprise amounts to them noticing me.

Totally agree about the "probably going to stomp that encounter anyway" point. Assassin, up and down, is far more suited for NPC's.

==============

My thoughts on rogue and potential rogue improvements -

- Rogue is an excellent dip class, especially for martials. Cunning action on a barb or fighter is amazing. Expertise, who doesn't benefit from expertise. Uncanny Dodge on top of 20-something AC is awesome. Steady Shot, somewhat niche but useful. Evasion, very good ability (that frankly you don't even need a good dex save to benefit from). And that's just base rogue; some of the subclasses have further synergistic goodies. In my mind, rogue has a lot of gravy - but not enough meat or potatoes. Adding the nifty features they get to another class, great. But the nifty features by themselves, doesn't quite cut it.

- That implies to me that rogue needs to be brought closer to those other classes that it synergizes so well with. I know this is somewhat contentious, but I think Extra Attack is a no brainer. Would this make them the best out of the box martial damage dealer, especially at high levels? Yeah, probably. And I don't see what the problem is. Lol. While rogues aren't glass, they aren't all that tough either, especially by the standards of "nearly unkillable PCs" that 5e sets. At least they'd get good damage (that'd still be limited in all the ways single target damage is limited).

- That said, I would like to see sneak attack deemphasized. Not removed, I get it's a legacy thing, but changed to maybe 1d6/3 levels or something. And then give rogue resources to spend. I think 3e's factotum is the perfect model, but it could be simpler too: auto crits, maneuver-type debuffs, short-ranged CC, invisibility/misdirection; something for them to play with beyond a rather binary "qualify for SA? Y, SA, No, cunning action run away."

- Skill tricks. My preferred route would be to create special uses of skills for characters that have expertise in that skill (and rogue would be the main beneficiary since they get a lot of expertise), but giving them straight to rogue would be OK too. A greater sense of "yeah it's worth it that you have a +13 modifier, that means something."

[LudicSavant]

This alone makes assassin extremely suspect. Finally get the opportunity, finally line up the surprise round, and roll a 3 on initiative. It's utterly toxic.

You know what else bothers me about it, is that their arguably best subclass feature is at level 3. Why do some martial routes actually get worse abilities at later levels?

Rogues tend to get their best features by level 2 or 3. Fighter is usually at least an 11-level-long class, and some of the subclasses make it longer. And half casters and casters scale. But Barbarians and Rogues sometimes seem to forget that they're supposed to get better features at higher levels. What's with that?

Like, what makes these higher levels worth more, level per level, than the lower ones? I can't just say "sneak attack progression" because they got that at level 3, too.

Like, Blindsense? Elusive? Even Slippery Mind? These are lower level features... but at high level. What am I missing?

It's inconsistent, too. Like, Thief Rogue gets a genuine high level feature at level 17, but Assassin Rogue gets Death Strike. Death Strike.

[Witty Username]

My thoughts are more on the auto crit, less it's likely hood, with assassin.
Rogue has issues with damage seems like a really weird thing to go rogue needs nerfs to sneak attack.
So, at 1/3 sneak attack that would functionally, assuming they still get the first level gain would drop from 10d6 to 6d6 at later by the end point, and would drop sneak attack to 2d6 until 7th level. This would for the most part make sneak attack not worth using in favor of sharpshooter etc as losing sneak attack would be negligible in comparison 2d6 over 2 attacks puts that at comparable to rage or a fighting style which is pretty pittance for a damage feature.

Overall this would just eliminate the playstyle of rogue, which is the opposite of helpful.

[Skrum]

You know what else bothers me about it, is that their arguably best subclass feature is at level 3. Why do some martial routes actually get worse abilities at later levels?

Rogues tend to get their best features by level 2 or 3. Fighter is usually at least an 11-level-long class, and some of the subclasses make it longer. And half casters and casters scale. But Barbarians and Rogues sometimes seem to forget that they're supposed to get better features at higher levels. What's with that?

Like, what makes these higher levels worth more, level per level, than the lower ones? I can't just say "sneak attack progression" because they got that at level 3, too.

Like, Blindsense? Elusive? Even Slippery Mind? These are lower level features... but at high level. What am I missing?

It's inconsistent, too. Like, Thief Rogue gets a genuine high level feature at level 17, but Assassin Rogue gets Death Strike. Death Strike.

Oh yeah, preaching to the choir. Barb in particular is horrible for this; I can't possibly imagine going higher than barb 8 (and even that is only for the ASI; the last meaningful feature is feral instincts at 7...and even that is only situationally worthwhile). Barb 8 fighter (anything) 4 is for all intents and purposes strictly better than barb 12.

The only thing I can think of is these classes were made very early in the design cycle when bounded accuracy was more front and center. I can see some level of reasoning where classes are "complete" after 6-8, and then features are tapered off in an intentional attempt at more logarithmic scaling. Spellcasters don't do this of course...but they don't not do it either. High level spells are far more limited in use; even a 20th level wizard only gets to cast 4 spells of 7th level and higher.

If this was the thought process, they of course failed in some pretty obvious ways; starting with full casters who still scale to a very high degree, but also with monster hit point bloat. Character damage scales very oddly and randomly across the classes, but monster hit points smoothly get higher and higher and higher, meaning of course that the classes that aren't fighter or paladin do relatively less damage (rogue scales too but not well enough, and they suffer from not getting a lot from magic weapons).

5e core combat system is very good. The classes, more of a mixed bag.

[J-H]

Skrum pointed out that Rogue is a good dip for martials. I'll add that it's also a good dip for casters. In my BG2 game, we've had a Rogue 2/Wizard X NPC for a while. Sure, she has Fireball a couple of levels later (and I think delayed 3rd level spells are the only ones that truly matter), but there is a ton of utility for a caster in BA Disengage and BA Dash in terms of resource-free battlefield mobility. Being able to grab a shortbow and do 2d6+3 (avg 10.5) damage thanks to sneak attack also ties with most cantrips, or beats them once you add a +1 shortbow and some magic ammo (acid arrows +1d6 damage).

That fades out around level 11 when cantrip damage dice go up again, but for a low tier game... I would consider a rogue 2/caster X if it made sense for the character I was playing.

[Skrum]

My thoughts are more on the auto crit, less it's likely hood, with assassin.
Rogue has issues with damage seems like a really weird thing to go rogue needs nerfs to sneak attack.
So, at 1/3 sneak attack that would functionally, assuming they still get the first level gain would drop from 10d6 to 6d6 at later by the end point, and would drop sneak attack to 2d6 until 7th level. This would for the most part make sneak attack not worth using in favor of sharpshooter etc as losing sneak attack would be negligible in comparison 2d6 over 2 attacks puts that at comparable to rage or a fighting style which is pretty pittance for a damage feature.

Overall this would just eliminate the playstyle of rogue, which is the opposite of helpful.

According to my favorite DPR calculator....

7th level rogue (current) with a rapier and 18 dex does 14.43 DPR
if they attack with advantage (say, steady aim), it's 20.7

7th level rogue w/ d6/3 level SA and extra attack with a rapier and 18 dex does 21.07
if they attack once with adv and once without (again, steady aim), it's 25.18

Edit: did the calculation attacking AC 16
using that same hit chance, this trend continues all the way up to 20th (assuming the rogue's chance to hit scales equally with enemy AC), where a 1 attack per round rogue with 10d6 SA is doing 28 DPR and the extra attack rogue with 6d6 SA is doing 31. The extra chance to land the SA is that valuable - except now the rogue doesn't need to spend their BA and be locked into melee for it. This would be a hugely important buff to the rogue.

Extra attack makes up the difference and then some. Plus, yes, it makes rogue synergize better with feats like SS, or magic items for that matter. Which they should! Those things are core to the game. Rogue went off in their own direction and have no support. I guess you could try to add a ton of stuff that makes rogues' one-shot style work, but that just seems like a lot of trouble for not a lot of payoff. Better to tweak them so they are within the bounds of the other martial classes.

Skrum pointed out that Rogue is a good dip for martials. I'll add that it's also a good dip for casters.

Cunning action is honestly better for any class that isn't rogue - cunning action is literally a means to an end. It lets the character do more things. Problem is, rogue has hardly anything to do! They literally don't have resources, spells, buttons to press, whatever you want to call it.

I didn't add caster in my post because casters are generally loath to delay spells - that's the "curse" of having proper scaling, it's that much more painful to delay progression. But for a build that isn't looking to use the highest level spells, I agree, cunning action is great to have. It certainly makes casters even more slippery, which can add up to more longevity via spells saved.

[Witty Username]

Better to tweak them so they are within the bounds of the other martial classes.

I don't agree, for a few reasons.

I don't see getting rid of sneak attack in favor of extra attack as good. Because it wipes the playstyle, hiding during combat loses favor to XBE because your just better going for that sharpshooter. Or you still lose synergy with SS (paladin loses damage on GWM once it gets Imp. Divine smite for similar reasons and that is only 1d8 per attack). It's best case scenario is you lose out on rogue in favor of a fighter subclass.

I would prefer rogue not go the route of monk, where the optimized build is ignore the entire class fantasy in favor of a glock because SS is the happiest sadist.

--
A brief note to add both GWM and SS have lost the bonus damage aspects, which means this aspect of optimization will probably shake out very differently. At the very least reliance on strong synergy with a single feat isn't good game design.

[Dr.Samurai]

Spoiler: @Just to Browse, spoilering another wall of text lol

Show

That quote is intended as a direct rebuttal to your quoted comment, "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." So if you agree DMs don't have to "create encounters that can allow [flexible characters'] versatility to shine", and that in fact the opposite is true, then we don't have any disagreement

There really has to be a disconnect somewhere because I don't see how you're disproving that point at all. In fact, by providing a list of unique encounters each with their own quirks and threats that allowed the casters to shine, you are demonstrating that in fact the DM has a hand in allowing the versatility to shine. The parameters of the encounter are what provide that opportunity in the first place, which was the point.

Your entire point this entire time has been that you structure encounters in such a way to try and highlight certain classes, or to save certain classes from death or humiliation. How is this refuting that the DM is a part of this equation?

(though I'm awfully confused why you've written so much when you could just have written "good point jtb" a couples pages ago, but this is the internet).

Skrum made a claim that he can just throw any encounter at his party and if they're casters they'll win the day. You agreed with this. This was before you posted the examples. I was skeptical of this claim, and that is how I was viewing the examples given.

But your point all along was more that "it's easier for me to make encounters for casters than martials", and that's not really something I can speak to (your own experience).

Remember that one time in the gauntlet? The example you give in the gauntlet is actually what I consider pretty smart play to try and counter Nuke. The details you've chosen not to mention for whatever reason are:

• A single round of attacks from the objects is enough to make the Golem roll for Berserk, which would lock it into hitting the Warrior or animated objects, allowing trivial kiting. The DM chooses to position the Golem as close to Nuke as possible to avoid this trivial kiting.
• The golem wasn't actually just walking through animated shards, they were currently in the animated shards, which had already gotten a full set of attacks off last turn and would continue to do so. The golem had very few turns to act, and the DM pushed them for maximum potential damage on Nuke.
• The warrior was taking the Dodge action, making them a particularly bad target.

This is, if anything, the opposite of vibing. It was such an obvious play that I hadn't even considered it could be misconstrued until now.

The obvious play is the point. The player and DM are playing out of the same playbook. Not sure what is confusing here. The clay golem, as part of its lore, can't think for itself, so there is no reason for it make the smart play choices that you've provided; it's purely the DM's meta strategy, that is perfectly in line with the player's. They are playing D&D, optimizer version, and simply know what the right plays are. CMCC even narrates that Nuke lines up his animated objects for the maximum amount of opportunity attacks as the golem chases him down, and that is exactly what the DM does. The golem dashed the entire encounter until it got 1 single turn of attacks on Nuke before dying.

Assassin etc etc. I'm not sure why this keeps showing up in our conversations. Ludic seems like they answered these request 10 pages ago, and I've never really cared to engage because they seem to be on top of things.

You're not interested in defending Ludic, as you said before, and you don't care to engage... and yet here you are, again, lol. Let Ludic handle his own affairs. If you don't understand, don't worry about it.

No really JTB's players aren't being challenged. Fights are over in a couple turns, the players go to the next encounter, casters always run out of spell slots at exactly the end of the day. None of these things are true... I don't think I've ever said these things are true. ("Casters end the day out of slots" does not mean "they're only out of resources at the end of the day"! those aren't even close to the same thing!)

Can you clarify. So they run out of resources before the day is over, and are still defeating Deadly+ encounters? So they win with and without resources, right?

And they are challenged and running out of resources, but you still never have to worry because they somehow always still make it? Like... how does that work? You're so concerned about the rogue dying, but you are supremely confident your casters will be alright no matter what, but also they are challenged?

Doesn't this have a sense of a thumb being on the scale? Like... your players are perfectly challenged to the point that you can call it a challenge but not so much that you're ever concerned about them losing?

Why are martials succeeding in anti-magic rooms? I think you misread this comment. I include anti-magic tech in all sorts of places, but I don't run those exclusively. Sometimes there's anti-magic, sometimes there isn't, and on the whole, the occasional anti-magic scenario isn't remotely close enough to compensate for the vast gulf in breadth that flexible classes have over inflexible ones in most other scenarios.

I agree, and I'm not making that claim. So there's some anti-magic, but they can still use magic of some kind, and that's why they're still outperforming martials, correct?

RE: But what if X or Y? Then the rogue wouldn't die to a gelatinous cube! This is the most odd commentary. You and Jelly have been very adamant that the purported strength of flexible casters is all hypothetical, and it's just based on the assumption that they might have one spell on hand. But when I cede that entirely and base my comparison off a single arbitrarily-chosen cleric's spell list, all of a sudden we need to back up to hypotheticals, not just at the daily prep level, but hypothetical builds? Hypothetical feats? Hypothetical features that won't be available for 3 levels? Hypothetical features that probably might not even exist outside of a playtest?

When I say caster choices, I'm talking about when they choose to cast what spells. They could have all the perfect spells for every scenario, but they have to use them at some point. They may lose concentration. The spells that they cast and have prepared won't always line up with the encounters. I keep going back to Shield, Absorb Elements, and Silvery Barbs. All 1st level Reaction spells that are considered must haves. You get 4 a day.

But also, you're taking my point the wrong way. I'm not saying "oh well that guy built the rogue wrong, that's the only reason he failed".

I'm saying "look at all the rogue commentary in this thread about their features, and look how they might have helped this rogue". I'm not speaking to this encounter, I don't know the level, I don't know the details. I already said this.

But when the commentary is bad, and there is an opportunity to demonstrate that, I'm going to. "Winning more", as the rogue detractors have called it, would have allowed the rogue to actually win, as opposed to winding up inside of a gelatinous cube.

You don't get it both ways, my friend. Either rogues are evaluated based on choices that players make, in which case we can see their breadth of options are pretty limited, or everyone gets to be a magical quantum option-chooser, and the flexible classes' options massively explode. If "the relevant points" require the rogue existing in a quantum build state while the cleric sits around with her thumb up her butt, your opinions are gonna be misinformed, just by like, the nature of the real world.

The conversation moves quickly and lots of things are said, but to go back to a point being made before... the DM is a big part of this. JellyPooga was making the case that we shouldn't evaluate the rogue based on player choices, but simply evaluate based on the features alone. I tend to agree. And Skrum really devalues the rogue because the skill system is so sparse, and it requires a DM to really make use of it well for a rogue to capitalize on their skill features. Which is a point I made that the DM is a large part of this.

With regards to the point I was making here, again I reiterate that people were dismissing higher skill scores as "winning more", so it's useful to point out when and how a higher skill score can be useful, like canceling out Disadvantage from darkness. It's removing the conversation from theory craft. Saying "that's just winning more" doesn't actually help you against a gelatinous cube; advantage on Perception checks does though. You've just shared that with us.

JTB needs to track what he's saying. Ah, ah, ah! You don't get to slip away with that. You specifically said, in a reply to me, "we're sort of assuming an expectation that the characters have to have answers all the time for every encounter, or else its bad."

We are not assuming this. JTB has said lots of things, but he has not said this, is not saying this, and will not say this. And since you mentioned it - I don't particularly enjoy constantly reminding you of the words I wrote, but I have to do it or else you're going to use these fake versions of me as rebuttals! (See "No really JTB's players aren't being challenged [...]")

I'm not sure where we veered off that you appear to be taking everything I say in this way but... I'm inferring these things from what you've said. You have said that you're thankful a rogue wasn't in the party, because you would have to dial down the encounter, or if a rogue was in the encounter, you'd have to change it because it would have crushed them. And you don't want to have to accommodate the rogue but the game forces you to because it's so weak.

This seems to me like you don't want to run encounters where a rogue might have a difficult time. If a rogue is in the party, you HAVE TO make changes so that it can shine or not suck. That was why I gave my example of Mobile+Charger, because it was an example of me not being at pique efficiency. If you don't feel this way, then I am not sure why you are saying these things.

You can't cast wall spells blindly. Already addressed.

Not to my satisfaction but not really an important point. It worked for your players and that's fine. I can certainly see it working. But consistently placing down your AOEs when you're effectively blinded seems weird to me. Makes more sense as one-off's or coincidences, so I wouldn't really include it as part of the versatility of a casters.

Why is it so hard to add a locked chest somewhere? This was a published adventure using a pre-built VTT map that didn't have anything particularly cool for the rogue. So yeah, adding a chest means moving some of the existing loot into a chest and doing some VTT kitbashing, which for me is like 5 minutes of notes/keying and 10-15 minutes struggling with paint.net or foundry's active tile module. I don't put infinite time into my game, so that's 15-20 minutes I'm not spending on my factions, future scenarios, NPC writeups, one-shots, or just leisure reading. It's not back-breaking, but I would literally only put it there to help the rogue out, and it literally is harder than the alternative to the tune of 15-20min of work. Those two things are simply, factually true.

That makes sense; I wasn't thinking that you would literally have to add a chest to the VTT map, but yeah if you have to have it on the map that will take time.

Just don't highlight anybody, just put stuff places / Martials don't need to be highlighted. I think it's kind of funny that you claim this is the point, because it's fairly ancillary. What you're mentioning here is an actual difference in table style. At some tables, players & DMs feel bad when an inflexible character isn't getting highlighted. At tables like your own, people might not! Neither one is bad.

But those preferences don't change actual point at the root of our back-and-forth, which is that it simply takes less effort to highlight flexible classes like most casters. Inflexible characters have narrow strengths, which can fit poorly with a not-insignificant proportion of scenarios. If a DM cares about showcasing player strength, they're going to have to put more effort into tailoring their scenarios to the rogue than to the cleric.

This is completely dependent on the person.

Highlight a rogue --> include traps, locked doors, stealth, secret doors. That doesn't seem that difficult to me. In fact, for some people, this is "the game" lol.

Now that we've sort of sifted through the confusion here, I do think the reality is the inverse to what you are saying, and maybe I didn't know how to articulate it further than the comment I made that you quoted. To highlight the strengths of a specialist character, you just have to include the things they specialize in. To highlight "versatility" you have to consistently make encounters that require that versatility. This is the point I made originally. You think the latter is easier than the former. Understood. I don't think I'm convinced yet. This is something like "loose arrows at monks" so that they shine, include chokepoints for the frontliners, etc. This doesn't seem as difficult or involved to me as "make sure every encounter guarantees the wizards and clerics can use their spells in different ways". JellyPooga made this point before, in that people will default to their familiar/optimized options. I made a parallel point in that "dead" is the best condition. The DM has to make the encounter something other than straightforward, otherwise players will default to damage/killing. To go back to the Gauntlet, the DM has to change the first encounter if he wants Nuke to do something other than blast everything into oblivion. Otherwise, blasting everything into oblivion is clearly the best move.

I will admit I am not a big fan of the Gauntlet in specific to this conversation, I mean, in the opening of the monk video it was stated the Gauntlet isn't intended to provide direct comparisons between Classes and Builds. And it doesn't do a great job of its intended purpose of showing off the strengths and weaknesses of different classes, at least in my opinion.

Well that's the rub. People say things, but they don't mean it lol. This is not the first time the Gauntlet has been brought up to demonstrate some "truth" about classes.

I think the Gauntlet is a lot of fun and a great idea, and I said as much when CMCC posted it here. But I don't think it can be evoked to "prove" anything.

Assassins need an initiative feature, as well as Advantage on the surprise turn. Presumably you're attacking from Hiding if you gained surprise, but being granted Advantage would also cover gaining surprise from being in disguise or something like that. Currently I think that's a dm call. Also, a garrote attack that imposes Suffocation would be interesting, with some way to maintain the grapple (maybe initiating grapple with Acrobatics, like some Black Widow stuff).

[Kane0]

Assassin
Level 3: Tools of the Trade
You gain proficiency in two tools and two languages of your choice.

Level 3: Assassinate
When you make a Sneak Attack you can Rogue level to the extra damage you deal.
In addition, you gain advantage on attack rolls against any creature that has not taken a turn in combat yet.


Level 6: Infiltration Expertise
You gain advantage on ability checks to pass yourself off as someone else.
In addition you cannot be detected by magical sensors, and you are immune to magic that reads your thoughts or determines if you are lying.

Level 10: Misdirection
When you use your Uncanny Dodge feature, you can choose one creature adjacent to you to receive the damage that you avoid.

Level 14: Death Strike
If you have advantage on an attack roll and both rolls would hit, that attack is treated as a critical hit.

[LudicSavant]

Cunning action is honestly better for any class that isn't rogue - cunning action is literally a means to an end. It lets the character do more things. Problem is, rogue has hardly anything to do! They literally don't have resources, spells, buttons to press, whatever you want to call it.

The way I tend to think of it is that Rogues need to keep meeting extra conditions to press their Normal Attack button, and Cunning Action often gets eaten up by this hunger.

People who instead dip Rogue don't need to be so worried about that, and can Cunning Action Dash to their heart's content without needing to worry about things like 'well, now I'm not using Steady Aim to generate Advantage,' or 'well, I might be kiting, but my ally in melee to help me qualify for sneak attack isn't kiting.'

[JellyPooga]

I don't agree, for a few reasons.

I think I've well established my position on the Rogue, but if Rogue is going to be given an upgrade, I might as well weigh in on that and I totally agree with Witty Username here; Rogue doesn't need to be "upgraded" by being made the same as other Classes with Extra Attack, nor do I think it necessarily needs limited resources to draw upon, not at least in the way that Monk has Ki or spellcasters have spell slots. What I do think it needs is to lean in to the Class identity and in doing so, I think it would find its niche better. The argument goes that Rogue isn't very good at what it does, but I think the real problem is that all the Rogue does best is survive. This is also where I think the Rogue gets its bad reputation as being "selfish" because the Rogue is the Class that survives whatever comes their way (and in my estimation, that's why they get the job done; they're alive to do it, but I digress); Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion; these are the defining and (largely) unique features of the Rogue in Tier 1 and 2 that speak to what the Class does and they're all about reducing damage or getting the heck out of Dodge.

Think about the "Rogues" in fiction and what it is they do for the narrative; it's not always pretty and it's often selfish (or has the appearance of being so), but they do it not necessarily to win the day at the end for themselves, but to be the clutch assist for the MC in the finale; Han Solo taking his reward money, then turning up at the last minute to distract Vader so that Luke can take the shot, Bilbo Baggins stealing the Arkenstone so that Gandalf has the leverage he needs to bring the factions to table (and ultimately reconcile the Dwarves, Men and Elves in the region), so on and so forth. They're not the big damn hero, there to fight the Big Bad; that's the Knight in Shining Armours Job. The Rogue is there to make sure the BDH gets to the BBG in one piece and that he has the Sword of Truth needed to finish the job. No-one really wants the Rogue to be there and they rarely even realise that they even need them until the final act is over, but they're invariably recognised for their contribution in the Epilogue. They need to survive, yes, but they also need to be able to give that clutch assist.

So to that end, I would heartily support Sneak Attack being reduced in its damage potential in favour of "combat tricks"; inflicting status effects is way more Roguish than just dealing damage and contributes better to party dynamic (and Class fiction) by helping others do what they do best. I would also see the Rogue becomes the best "second" or "assistant" type class; gaining or offering bonuses for being in the right place at the right time. This could be tied to a "skill trick" type system, which itself could be gated by Expertise, offering the Rogue unique skill uses above and beyond the flat numeric bonus, or it could be gated by feature or resource pool, much like Battlemaster Manoeuvres are (though I would tend to steer clear of emulating the features of another class like that).

Where I would peg the standard would be in "last minute save" or "in the moment" type reactive effects rather than active "this is what I do" effects (like spells and most other features). For example, Expertise in Arcana might offer the Rogue a counterspell type effect that offers an adjacent ally (or themselves) advantage on a spell saving throw, or to replace a saving throw vs. spell with the Rogues Arcana check result. Similarly, Athletics Expertise might offer the Rogue or adjacent ally to replace a Str or Dex save with their Athletics check result as a kind of "Whoops! I got you!" grab-save. The list is as long as the skill list of course, but just to throw out some ideas, Stealth offering bonuses on Perception to search for traps and secret doors is an obvious one for the "explorer Rogue" trope (or vice versa as a "don't step there!" effect), Insight giving a bonus to social rolls, Medicine for saves vs. poison or disease, so on and so forth. More advanced effects or even conditional combat effects could become or be made available at higher levels e.g. Perception offering a "sniper" effect of using your Perception check result in place of a ranged attack roll made against an enemy that is not aware of your presence. That said, however, I would tend to steer clear of involving too many combat effects, if any, in this design space; I think that should be reserved for the space that Sneak Attack currently occupies.

I also think that Uncanny Dodge and Evasion could be expanded at higher levels to become a sort of "in-harms-way" effect to provide damage reduction or cover to allies, turning them into the Class equivalent of The Bodyguard while still maintaining their identity as a Rogue; self-sacrifice is, after all, a defining trait of a diamond-in-the-rough type character.

[LudicSavant]

I think I've well established my position on the Rogue, but if Rogue is going to be given an upgrade, I might as well weigh in on that and I totally agree with Witty Username here; Rogue doesn't need to be "upgraded" by being made the same as other Classes with Extra Attack, nor do I think it necessarily needs limited resources to draw upon, not at least in the way that Monk has Ki or spellcasters have spell slots. What I do think it needs is to lean in to the Class identity and in doing so, I think it would find its niche better. The argument goes that Rogue isn't very good at what it does, but I think the real problem is that all the Rogue does best is survive. This is also where I think the Rogue gets its bad reputation as being "selfish" because the Rogue is the Class that survives whatever comes their way (and in my estimation, that's why they get the job done; they're alive to do it, but I digress); Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion; these are the defining and (largely) unique features of the Rogue in Tier 1 and 2 that speak to what the Class does and they're all about reducing damage or getting the heck out of Dodge.

Think about the "Rogues" in fiction and what it is they do for the narrative; it's not always pretty and it's often selfish (or has the appearance of being so), but they do it not necessarily to win the day at the end for themselves, but to be the clutch assist for the MC in the finale; Han Solo taking his reward money, then turning up at the last minute to distract Vader so that Luke can take the shot, Bilbo Baggins stealing the Arkenstone so that Gandalf has the leverage he needs to bring the factions to table (and ultimately reconcile the Dwarves, Men and Elves in the region), so on and so forth. They're not the big damn hero, there to fight the Big Bad; that's the Knight in Shining Armours Job. The Rogue is there to make sure the BDH gets to the BBG in one piece and that he has the Sword of Truth needed to finish the job. No-one really wants the Rogue to be there and they rarely even realise that they even need them until the final act is over, but they're invariably recognised for their contribution in the Epilogue. They need to survive, yes, but they also need to be able to give that clutch assist.

So to that end, I would heartily support Sneak Attack being reduced in its damage potential in favour of "combat tricks"; inflicting status effects is way more Roguish than just dealing damage and contributes better to party dynamic (and Class fiction) by helping others do what they do best. I would also see the Rogue becomes the best "second" or "assistant" type class; gaining or offering bonuses for being in the right place at the right time. This could be tied to a "skill trick" type system, which itself could be gated by Expertise, offering the Rogue unique skill uses above and beyond the flat numeric bonus, or it could be gated by feature or resource pool, much like Battlemaster Manoeuvres are (though I would tend to steer clear of emulating the features of another class like that).

Where I would peg the standard would be in "last minute save" or "in the moment" type reactive effects rather than active "this is what I do" effects (like spells and most other features). For example, Expertise in Arcana might offer the Rogue a counterspell type effect that offers an adjacent ally (or themselves) advantage on a spell saving throw, or to replace a saving throw vs. spell with the Rogues Arcana check result. Similarly, Athletics Expertise might offer the Rogue or adjacent ally to replace a Str or Dex save with their Athletics check result as a kind of "Whoops! I got you!" grab-save. The list is as long as the skill list of course, but just to throw out some ideas, Stealth offering bonuses on Perception to search for traps and secret doors is an obvious one for the "explorer Rogue" trope (or vice versa as a "don't step there!" effect), Insight giving a bonus to social rolls, Medicine for saves vs. poison or disease, so on and so forth. More advanced effects or even conditional combat effects could become or be made available at higher levels e.g. Perception offering a "sniper" effect of using your Perception check result in place of a ranged attack roll made against an enemy that is not aware of your presence. That said, however, I would tend to steer clear of involving too many combat effects, if any, in this design space; I think that should be reserved for the space that Sneak Attack currently occupies.

I like the line of thinking with regard to how the Han Solo archetype comes through for their friends in the end.

I also kind of like the idea of giving benefits from Expertise in a given skill that isn't just about boosting the skill roll itself.

Rogue doesn't need to be "upgraded" by being made the same as other Classes with Extra Attack, nor do I think it necessarily needs limited resources to draw upon, not at least in the way that Monk has Ki or spellcasters have spell slots.

Agreed. Diversity in playstyles is important, and there's nothing wrong with being resourceless -- the resourceless features just need to have sufficient impact.

The argument goes that Rogue isn't very good at what it does, but I think the real problem is that all the Rogue does best is survive.

Yeah. The Rogue is plenty capable of running away -- they are somewhat less capable of running away while simultaneously maintaining the kind of offensive (or supportive) pressure that makes the enemy want to chase after them rather than the party members who are not hiding.

Or to put it another way: The value of increasing your personal survivability above that of other party members is proportional to your capacity to give enemies good reasons to go after you instead of someone else. The age old tanking principle.

So to that end, I would heartily support Sneak Attack being reduced in its damage potential in favour of "combat tricks"; inflicting status effects is way more Roguish than just dealing damage and contributes better to party dynamic

I historically like making Rogues play with status effects

[Skrum]

Well, I just so happen to have a WIP for a skill trick list. Some of these I really like, some a little uninspired, but I gotta say, I love the idea of the knowledge skills giving special reactions against appropriate effects. That is way better than what I have. I'm definitely going to be exploring that.

Spoiler: Skill Tricks

Show

Skill Tricks
The following represent special applications of particular skills that especially skilled individuals may use. To use a skill trick, you must have expertise in the skill. If more than one skill trick is associated with a skill, having expertise in that skill gives access to all of the associated skill tricks

Str
Athletics (Keep Your Feet): when you gain the prone condition, you may spend your reaction to end the condition
Athletics (Countergrapple): when a creature attempts to grapple you, regardless of the outcome, you may spend your reaction to attempt to grapple them. You must meet all requirements of starting a grapple, and it is resolved normally

Dex
Acrobatics (Tumble) Once per round, you may move through a space occupied by an enemy. That space counts as difficult terrain, and you must make a DC 15 Acrobatics check or the creature whose space you are moving through may make an opportunity attack against you. You must have enough movement remaining to move all the way through the occupied square(s). If the opponent occupying the square entirely occupies the space, like a Gelatinous Cube, this ability may not be used to move through that square.
Acrobatics (Slippery) As a reaction to being grappled or restrained, you may make an Dex (Acrobatics) check to escape
Sleight of Hand (Mosquito’s Bite): You may strike so fast and precisely the target doesn’t realize they’ve been attacked. As part of an attack with a light weapon, make a Dex (Sleight of Hand) check. The target makes an opposed Perception check, as does any observer that was specifically watching you. Anyone who fails does not realize you’ve made an attack. Additionally, you may choose to delay the effects of the attack until the beginning of your next turn. That is, the target suffers no damage or any other effect of the attack until the beginning of your next turn. If they succeeded on their Perception check to notice the attack and you delayed the effect, they believe the attack missed
Sleight of Hand (Conceal Spell): When you are casting a spell while being observed, you may make a Sleight of Hand check opposed by the onlookers Perception check. Succeed, and they are unaware you are casting a spell and cannot use a reaction in response to it
Stealth (Vanish): If you are standing in dim light or darkness, you may take the Hide Action, and if you succeed, you gain the Invisible condition until the beginning of your next turn. The condition ends early if you attack, force a saving throw, enter an area of bright illumination, or take some other action that would immediately give away your position, at the DM’s discretion.


Int
Knowledge (Student of War): When entering combat, you may attempt a knowledge check to know information about particular creature types, and how best to fight them. The DC is 8 + the creature’s CR. Succeed on the roll, and you gain a +1 bonus to your attack, damage, and saving throw rolls when attacking that creature type or making a save against one of their effects for the remainder of the encounter. To attempt this check, you must have expertise in the knowledge skill associated with the creature’s type. If there are multiple creature types, you may make a roll for each one, assuming you have the associated expertise.
Arcana (aberration, dragon, construct, ooze)
History (humanoid, monstrosity)
Religion (undead, celestial, fiend)
Nature (beast, elemental, fey, giant, plant)

Wis
Animal Handling (Leap from the Saddle): When you dismount, you may leap from the saddle and land up to a distance away from your mount equal to the amount of movement you spent to dismount. The distance traveled does NOT count against your total movement for the turn. Moving in this way does not provoke opportunity attacks, and you move through any square occupied by a creature that is at least one size category smaller than your mount
Animal Handling (Calming Presence): As an action, you may make an Animal Handling check opposed by a beast’s Insight check. The beast must be within 30 ft and can see you. The roll automatically fails if you’ve attacked the creature before. Succeed, and the beast is charmed by you for 1 hour
Insight (Weak Spot): As a bonus action, you may make a Wis (Insight) check against a foe within 30 ft of you. The DC is equal to their AC. If you succeed, the next attack you make against them this turn is made at advantage
Medicine (Healing Touch): when you use a Healer’s Kit to stabilize a creature, they gain 1 hit point
Medicine (Remedy): you may diagnose and treat a creature’s ongoing disease or poison condition. Make a Medicine check vs DC 15; success, and you are able to identify each of the diseases and/or poisons they are affected by. If you have a Healer’s Kit, you may expend one use of the kit to make a remedy, giving the creature advantage on their next roll against the disease or poison. If they are affected by more than 1, you must expend 1 use of the kit for each condition. Using this ability takes 1 minute.
Perception (Perfect Clarity): As an interaction, you may make a DC 20 Perception check. If you succeed, you can see invisible creatures and things within 30 ft for the remainder of your turn
Survival (Skullduggery): Once per turn, you may add one of the listed effects to a successful melee attack. The DC to resist the effect is 5 + your total Survival modifier. Regardless of the outcome of their save, you may not use Skullduggery against that target again for the remainder of the combat
Blind: the target must succeed on a Con save or be blinded until the end of their next turn
Trip: the target must succeed on a Str save or be gain the prone condition
Low Blow: the target must succeed on a Dex save or be limited to a move, bonus action, or action on their next turn

Cha
Deception (Misdirection): as a bonus action, you may attempt a Cha (Deception) check against an adjacent opponent’s Wis (Insight) check. If you succeed, they may not make opportunity attacks against you until the beginning of your next turn
Intimidation (Demoralize): as a bonus action, you may intimidate all foes that can see you within 15 ft. Each target must make a Wisdom save vs DC 5 + your total Intimidate modifier or become afraid of you until the beginning of your next turn. If they succeed on the save or the condition ends, they are immune to your Demoralize for the next 24 hours
Persuasion (Boost): as a reaction to an ally you can see failing a saving throw to end an ongoing fear effect, you may add your Cha modifier to the roll, potentially changing the outcome

RE: Rogue getting extra attack. I mean, I know this is unpopular because every time I bring it up 9 different people say they don't like it (lol). I still think it's the most obvious, easy way to boost rogue. They're still gonna have a ton of skills. They're still gonna wear light armor. They're still gonna have sneak attack. They're still gonna use cunning action to skirmish. I'm entirely skeptical it would change that much - except to remove pressure from their bonus action and let them do more fun stuff. Cunning action on a martial class is amazing. Let rogue do that natively. My 2 cents.

[JellyPooga]

Well, I just so happen to have a WIP for a skill trick list. Some of these I really like, some a little uninspired, but I gotta say, I love the idea of the knowledge skills giving special reactions against appropriate effects. That is way better than what I have. I'm definitely going to be exploring that.

Spoiler: Skill Tricks

Show

Skill Tricks
The following represent special applications of particular skills that especially skilled individuals may use. To use a skill trick, you must have expertise in the skill. If more than one skill trick is associated with a skill, having expertise in that skill gives access to all of the associated skill tricks

Str
Athletics (Keep Your Feet): when you gain the prone condition, you may spend your reaction to end the condition
Athletics (Countergrapple): when a creature attempts to grapple you, regardless of the outcome, you may spend your reaction to attempt to grapple them. You must meet all requirements of starting a grapple, and it is resolved normally

Dex
Acrobatics (Tumble) Once per round, you may move through a space occupied by an enemy. That space counts as difficult terrain, and you must make a DC 15 Acrobatics check or the creature whose space you are moving through may make an opportunity attack against you. You must have enough movement remaining to move all the way through the occupied square(s). If the opponent occupying the square entirely occupies the space, like a Gelatinous Cube, this ability may not be used to move through that square.
Acrobatics (Slippery) As a reaction to being grappled or restrained, you may make an Dex (Acrobatics) check to escape
Sleight of Hand (Mosquito’s Bite): You may strike so fast and precisely the target doesn’t realize they’ve been attacked. As part of an attack with a light weapon, make a Dex (Sleight of Hand) check. The target makes an opposed Perception check, as does any observer that was specifically watching you. Anyone who fails does not realize you’ve made an attack. Additionally, you may choose to delay the effects of the attack until the beginning of your next turn. That is, the target suffers no damage or any other effect of the attack until the beginning of your next turn. If they succeeded on their Perception check to notice the attack and you delayed the effect, they believe the attack missed
Sleight of Hand (Conceal Spell): When you are casting a spell while being observed, you may make a Sleight of Hand check opposed by the onlookers Perception check. Succeed, and they are unaware you are casting a spell and cannot use a reaction in response to it
Stealth (Vanish): If you are standing in dim light or darkness, you may take the Hide Action, and if you succeed, you gain the Invisible condition until the beginning of your next turn. The condition ends early if you attack, force a saving throw, enter an area of bright illumination, or take some other action that would immediately give away your position, at the DM’s discretion.


Int
Knowledge (Student of War): When entering combat, you may attempt a knowledge check to know information about particular creature types, and how best to fight them. The DC is 8 + the creature’s CR. Succeed on the roll, and you gain a +1 bonus to your attack, damage, and saving throw rolls when attacking that creature type or making a save against one of their effects for the remainder of the encounter. To attempt this check, you must have expertise in the knowledge skill associated with the creature’s type. If there are multiple creature types, you may make a roll for each one, assuming you have the associated expertise.
Arcana (aberration, dragon, construct, ooze)
History (humanoid, monstrosity)
Religion (undead, celestial, fiend)
Nature (beast, elemental, fey, giant, plant)

Wis
Animal Handling (Leap from the Saddle): When you dismount, you may leap from the saddle and land up to a distance away from your mount equal to the amount of movement you spent to dismount. The distance traveled does NOT count against your total movement for the turn. Moving in this way does not provoke opportunity attacks, and you move through any square occupied by a creature that is at least one size category smaller than your mount
Animal Handling (Calming Presence): As an action, you may make an Animal Handling check opposed by a beast’s Insight check. The beast must be within 30 ft and can see you. The roll automatically fails if you’ve attacked the creature before. Succeed, and the beast is charmed by you for 1 hour
Insight (Weak Spot): As a bonus action, you may make a Wis (Insight) check against a foe within 30 ft of you. The DC is equal to their AC. If you succeed, the next attack you make against them this turn is made at advantage
Medicine (Healing Touch): when you use a Healer’s Kit to stabilize a creature, they gain 1 hit point
Medicine (Remedy): you may diagnose and treat a creature’s ongoing disease or poison condition. Make a Medicine check vs DC 15; success, and you are able to identify each of the diseases and/or poisons they are affected by. If you have a Healer’s Kit, you may expend one use of the kit to make a remedy, giving the creature advantage on their next roll against the disease or poison. If they are affected by more than 1, you must expend 1 use of the kit for each condition. Using this ability takes 1 minute.
Perception (Perfect Clarity): As an interaction, you may make a DC 20 Perception check. If you succeed, you can see invisible creatures and things within 30 ft for the remainder of your turn
Survival (Skullduggery): Once per turn, you may add one of the listed effects to a successful melee attack. The DC to resist the effect is 5 + your total Survival modifier. Regardless of the outcome of their save, you may not use Skullduggery against that target again for the remainder of the combat
Blind: the target must succeed on a Con save or be blinded until the end of their next turn
Trip: the target must succeed on a Str save or be gain the prone condition
Low Blow: the target must succeed on a Dex save or be limited to a move, bonus action, or action on their next turn

Cha
Deception (Misdirection): as a bonus action, you may attempt a Cha (Deception) check against an adjacent opponent’s Wis (Insight) check. If you succeed, they may not make opportunity attacks against you until the beginning of your next turn
Intimidation (Demoralize): as a bonus action, you may intimidate all foes that can see you within 15 ft. Each target must make a Wisdom save vs DC 5 + your total Intimidate modifier or become afraid of you until the beginning of your next turn. If they succeed on the save or the condition ends, they are immune to your Demoralize for the next 24 hours
Persuasion (Boost): as a reaction to an ally you can see failing a saving throw to end an ongoing fear effect, you may add your Cha modifier to the roll, potentially changing the outcome

RE: Rogue getting extra attack. I mean, I know this is unpopular because every time I bring it up 9 different people say they don't like it (lol). I still think it's the most obvious, easy way to boost rogue. They're still gonna have a ton of skills. They're still gonna wear light armor. They're still gonna have sneak attack. They're still gonna use cunning action to skirmish. I'm entirely skeptical it would change that much - except to remove pressure from their bonus action and let them do more fun stuff. Cunning action on a martial class is amazing. Let rogue do that natively. My 2 cents.

At a quick glance, I think some of your skill tricks are a little on the strong side (Demoralize), some a little overcomplex (e.g. Mosquito's Bite) and others a little too conditional/specific such that they might fit better incorporated into a feat or even as part of a subclass (Leap from the Saddle), but I like the general direction, especially those that are reactions to enemy actions; part of the Rogues identity, for me, is to be reactive and opportunistic. Harking back to another Harrison Ford role, Indiana Jones is a great character not because he always has a flawless plan that he executes perfectly, or a wide array of solutions for a variety of situations but because he thinks on his feet to use the tools he has got (i.e. his fists, whip, wits...and a gun, of course!) to get out of any situation, even if it is a little rough around the edges. The Rogue, for me at least, should be scrappy and imperfect. With that in mind, I'd perhaps offer a potential for the Rogue to gain additional Reactions, have reactive features that don't utilise their Reaction and/or add additional utility or function to their Readied actions. That's where I'd put the Rogues USP; as the "reaction class" that adds function and utility to their allies and hinders and stymies the actions of their enemies; giving the Fighter a spring-board to jump over a foe, interrupting enemy spellcasters mid incantation and that sort of thing.

I also think the Extra Attack thing gets negative lash-back because the Rogue doesn't feel like it should be dealing damage that way. If you want to add extra "attacks" to the Rogue, it should be in the form of those combat tricks, along the lines of "When you make the attack action, you may make an additional special melee attack to shove a creature" or "When you make the attack action, you may make an additional attack with an improvised weapon or unarmed strike", or something along that kind of line rather than the easy slap-on band-aid Extra Attack. Where I'd see this incorporated, as I've mentioned, is within the design space of Sneak Attack. Along the lines of "When you deal additional damage using the Sneak Attack feature, you may sacrifice dealing Xd6 additional damage to make an additional special melee or ranged attack with the following properties;
-1d6 : Shove
-2d6 : Improvised Weapon attack, Grapple or Unarmed Strike
-3d6 : Blind for 1 round per die of SA sacrificed (Save vs. DC avoids)
etc."
It scales automatically with level, potentially granting multiple additional "attacks" that don't deal damage but can have significant impact. It would need careful balancing, of course and possibly reducing how many Sneak Attack dice the Rogue gets natively, but it also opens up design space for Subclasses to add more effects specific to their role or theme (Scout gets a manoeuvring effect, Assassin gets a poison effect, that sort of jazz).

[Skrum]

At a quick glance, I think some of your skill tricks are a little on the strong side (Demoralize), some a little overcomplex (e.g. Mosquito's Bite) and others a little too conditional/specific such that they might fit better incorporated into a feat or even as part of a subclass (Leap from the Saddle),

I don't disagree; these are ideas I've put together over time (with some heavy influence from Complete Scoundrel). I'd like to revisit some of these ideas and make some changes along the lines of what you're thinking - streamline some things, make some more distinct. I'm aiming for each of them to be 1) notably less than a feat, and 2) offer a wide array of options, and 3) be combat focused. The combat focus part is actually the point of making these; giving characters that focus on skills some benefits in combat along the lines of what athletics offers (the skills already have out of combat use!)

Indiana Jones is a great character not because he always has a flawless plan that he executes perfectly, or a wide array of solutions for a variety of situations but because he thinks on his feet to use the tools he has got (i.e. his fists, whip, wits...and a gun, of course!) to get out of any situation, even if it is a little rough around the edges. The Rogue, for me at least, should be scrappy and imperfect.

Agree on Indiana Jones being a great example of the rogue archetype - but I also think he's a sterling example of why rogue should get extra attack. A lot of his plans are indeed seat of his pants, make it up as he goes...with lots of brawling involved. A rogue living or dying by SA is the exact opposite of a flexible, opportunistic character class. Shoving, grappling, using improvised weapons? Yeah, rogue is kinda bad at all of that because they don't get extra attack and aren't very good at being str-based. I would love if rogue was the "tavern brawler" class. But they really need the flexibility of extra attack, and even for SA to not be tied to finesse weapons.

easy slap-on band-aid Extra Attack.

Let's not forget the principle of Occum's Razor. Sometimes, it doesn't have to be more complicated than a simple solution.

[JellyPooga]

Let's not forget the principle of Occum's Razor. Sometimes, it doesn't have to be more complicated than a simple solution.

I don't necessarily disagree really; Extra Attack is simple and already allows Shove and Grapple (among other options) as standard. I would just see the Rogue limited from making more weapon attacks with it to try and focus them down the route of using those not-a-weapon-attack options because other Classes already explore attack-with-a-weapon plenty. By incorporating the Rogues de-facto Extra Attack into a mechanic that offers additional facility above and beyond what regular Extra Attack offers, we can potentially see something a little more streamlined than kludged together.