What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Dork_Forge]

Edit @Dork_Forge
For the Two-weapon fighting example, you don't even need the fighting style for a chunk of that, the bonus action attack is a bit lackluster on its own, but a lot of the benefit is for sneak attack with increased consistency.

Yeah, I know that a lot of TWF for Rogues is the SA consistency, but I personally like making the attack as worthwhile as possible. Afterall, it was a damage comparison and every little helps given it's a relatively small investment for a decent damage bump throughout the life of the character.

A couple of points, and I admit that I may not be using the calculator correctly.

But firstly, you say the barbarian is missing, despite the fact that with Advantage (which they can muster, at-will) they have a 60% hit chance, and a 10% crit chance. This is the same as virtually everyone else, unless you assume they have Advantage. Except...

The them missing thing wasn't about the calculator, I didn't do anything with the Barbarian I just compared to Skrum's, it was more about the reality.

They have a -6 compared to the Rogue's to-hit, without advantage they will hit a lot less. With advantage, given it's worth roughly +5, they'll still hit less especially since adv. isn't actually a real bonus and just a second chance.

I don't believe any sane Barbarian is going to Reckless all the time, unless they really want to be a heal-burden or roll up a new character, but the mix of GWM and a lower Str score is significant.

How is the TWF Rogue getting Advantage for this comparison? They are using their Bonus Action to attack, so they're not using Cunning Action to Hide, and they're not using Steady Aim (which would only work on one attack anyway). So what's the justification for assuming Advantage? They don't have Extra Attack to shove Prone first and then TWF. So what is the assumption here?

There is no assumption, I just provided the with and without advantage numbers for all of them for completeness. A TWF Rogue is generally going to have adv. less and rely on ally-given sources more, that's a given.

Thirdly, if I plug in a minimum to hit of 12 (8 base, +5 GWM, -1 weapon), with 1d12+16 for damage (assuming variant human as you did, and 20 Strength), I get a DPR of 32.66. That's with Reckless Attack, but not assuming Rage. So this is like minimum GWM barbarian. This will go up with Rage, with Zealot, with Giants, with crits/kills and GWM, with Berserker/Battlerager, with another magic item since the rogue has two magic weapons, etc.

I'm going to guess by to hit you meant a minimum of 12 on the die rather than the to-hit bonus? On an AC17 target isn't that 13 not 12?

Regardless, I'm not really getting the point of this part. My point was never that the Barbarian sucks, or the Rogue always does more damage, I even pointed out the Barbarian could be optimized for higher damage (as you have done here).

My point was that even with the, imo egregious, baseline comparison given (+4 Str, +1 item, GWM) the Rogue can still compete on damage with very simple and minor/obvious optimization. That's it. It's a thread basically dumping on and defending the Rogue, I was just defending the Rogue, not dumping on the Barbarian.

As an aside for the whole give the Barbarian another item thing, I really didn't think that mattered tbh since it was an uncommon item at 8th and for item parity the Barbarian could just have a cloak of protection or something. There really isn't all that much swinging around in worn damage boosts at uncommon, or I think generally actually.