What drives a poor reputation for the Rogue class?

[Skrum]

There is nothing in that about "stealth checks not triggering alarm" or "roguespace." Those are things you invented and tried to put in my mouth.

Idk man. That's just a very thin thing to hang the rogue's hat on.

"The well prepared rogue keeps a trained raccoon around to trigger any Alarm spells that may have been cast."

Of course, the person who cast the Alarm is still awakened, and will probably cast it again before going back to sleep...I'm just not sure where this gets the rogue, or why you even need to be a rogue to do something clever like use an animal to trigger the Alarm.

Like this is the thing; any class can be handed a convoluted, contrived enough scenario for them to be "good at." But the more convoluted the scenario is, like that's a pretty good indication the class is lacking.

[Psyren]

"The well prepared rogue keeps a trained raccoon around to trigger any Alarm spells that may have been cast."

You don't need a "trained raccoon." Most people you'd be robbing/sneaking up on don't live in a sterile hermetically sealed bubble; they live in cities, or they're camping outside. Places where, you know, Tiny animals/vermin/insects live. What you need is for the caster to not realize you're what triggered their alarm; make an animal noise.

Of course, the person who cast the Alarm is still awakened, and will probably cast it again before going back to sleep...I'm just not sure where this gets the rogue, or why you even need to be a rogue to do something clever like use an animal to trigger the Alarm.

1) Why yes, I don't mind at all that they would spend another 11 minutes of chanting before going back to sleep. I'm not sure how surprise works at your table, but I think at most others you can probably fit an ambush into a window of that length.

2) You don't need to be a rogue just to trick someone either - but Expertise in Deception/Stealth (after they wake up and fail to see you, since the Alarm doesn't tell them where you are or what triggered it), and enough proficiencies to also grab Arcana so you know how Alarms work, seem like they'd help.

Like this is the thing; any class can be handed a convoluted, contrived enough scenario for them to be "good at." But the more convoluted the scenario is, like that's a pretty good indication the class is lacking.

Like this is the thing; anyone can add houserule in extra benefits to a spell, like Action-casting-time alarms that magically tell the caster exactly who triggered it and where they're hiding. But it's counterintuitive for those same people to turn around and complain that casters are too powerful after willfully buffing them. Speaking personally, I prefer to read what spells actually say they do.

[Skrum]

Like this is the thing; anyone can add houserule in extra benefits to a spell, like Action-casting-time alarms that magically tell the caster exactly who triggered it and where they're hiding. But it's counterintuitive for those same people to turn around and complain that casters are too powerful after willfully buffing them. Speaking personally, I prefer to read what spells actually say they do.

... Man don't even start, alright? Yes I kinda came back into the middle of this conversation and didn't know exactly what you were talking about, but I didn't say anything about ritual casting an alarm with an action, or having it give more info than it says it does, or anything of that nature.

If you have fun playing rogue and think they carry their weight, have fun.

[Psyren]

... Man don't even start, alright? Yes I kinda came back into the middle of this conversation and didn't know exactly what you were talking about, but I didn't say anything about ritual casting an alarm with an action, or having it give more info than it says it does, or anything of that nature.

If you're not advocating for those things, then the drawbacks of the spell should be blatantly obvious.

If you have fun playing rogue and think they carry their weight, have fun.

Thanks, I am.

I don't think they're perfect, but I stand by my earlier thesis - the designer expectation of what ability checks can accomplish is broader than many people on forums realize, which is why they built those drawbacks into these spells in the first place.

[Skrum]

If you're not advocating for those things, then the drawbacks of the spell should be blatantly obvious.

I'm not making the case that spells are infallible, I'm saying rogues are lacking.

Thanks, I am

excellent!

I don't think they're perfect, but I stand by my earlier thesis - the designer expectation of what ability checks can accomplish is broader than many people on forums realize, which is why they built those drawbacks into these spells in the first place.

That's the original question though, isn't it. Most of the classes get spelled out in plain English what they can do and why they're effective. Rogues rely on some rather generous extrapolations of vague rules from the entirely underbaked skills chapter. DM decides skills are as impactful as 3rd, 4th, 5th level spells, and yeah it's a good table to play a rogue. But the large amount of DMs that don't do that, for entirely justified and understandable reasons, well rogue ends up with a reputation as a weak class.

[Dr.Samurai]

My instinct tells me that the reputation came first, spread by RAW-based discourse that can't size-up the rogue's strengths because it can't speak to the skill system.

That said, I'm sort of on both sides of this, because I do play with a DM that struggles with the skill system, so I've argued for more guidance up and down these forums. But I don't think that lets us just throw our hands in the air and be like "see? you can't do anything with the skill system!". I think having more conversations about how to handle these types of things would be beneficial. Like, the response to the Alarm spell makes me feel like someone watching Ocean's Eleven would stop the movie and be like "But the hotel has security... why is the movie letting these thieves just like... plan their way past the security?".

We need to break the myth that spells are end all be all and that characters in the world engaging with spells to foil them are being treated generously by the DM and acting unreasonably.

[Witty Username]

I hear 30 pages, do I hear 35...
Going once?

[Skrum]

I hear 30 pages, do I hear 35...
Going once?

We'll get there lol

-------------------------

My thought on Alarm isn't that it's infallible - far from it! If a party is camping and they cast Alarm on the campsite, they can
- be attacked from range
- entirely surrounded
- bum-rushed
- trip the Alarm and create false positives and thus confusion
- probably 20 other things

Honestly Alarm on a campsite is a pretty bad use of Alarm

But, Alarm cast so it fills a hallway. Or on a doorway that most be gotten though. That's a little tougher to get by, and rogue in particular has virtually no answers for it, even at high level. And that's a real shame because rogue is supposed to be the sneaky class and they do indeed get pretty bothered by a 1st level spell.

TBC: I'm not saying there's zero ways passed an Alarm spell in a hallway!!!! I'm saying the rogue
- doesn't have detect magic, so they probably won't be able to tell the Alarm is there
- can't teleport so they probably can't skip over it
- can't cast dispel magic to get rid of it

Granted, like half the classes also fall into this category - but of all of them, one would think that maybe rogue would have some answer. But they don't.

[JellyPooga]

TBC: I'm not saying there's zero ways passed an Alarm spell in a hallway!!!! I'm saying the rogue
- doesn't have detect magic, so they probably won't be able to tell the Alarm is there
- can't teleport so they probably can't skip over it
- can't cast dispel magic to get rid of it

Granted, like half the classes also fall into this category - but of all of them, one would think that maybe rogue would have some answer. But they don't.

I mean, if a Rogue isn't taking Drow High Magic and Feytouched to gain exactly the spells you call out here, I'm not sure who is. It's not like many native spellslingers are springing Feats for more spellcasting and most other non-spellcasters have combat to worry about. The Rogue has a kind of freedom in regard to ASI's, in as much as they have a bit more leeway on stat pumping and they have few options to actually improve their combat performance, so utility feats are an option for them.

I'm not saying it's a unique Rogue thing to have access to these feats (or racial features) but they do have slightly better incentive and in some cases get better use out of some of these utility options.

[Just to Browse]

I hear 30 pages, do I hear 35...
Going once?

Given that the arguments have finally entered Quantum Build territory, I think the only unknown us what causes this thread to get locked. Will it be because it hits 50 pages, or because people get into a fight and the thread is left on indefinite review?

[Telok]

Yes, depending on the DM, and the DM is not playing the game wrong. That's the whole point of problem in the broader discussion of the matter for which I'm infamous.

Part of the issue I've realized is that for over twenty years D&D has now been explicitly and completely exception based design. Can't fly without something that sayd you can. Can't do magic without something that says you can. Can't hold your breath for an hour without something that says you can. Can't make two attacks without something that says you can. An entire D&D generation has been raised and trained on exception based design. Even 5e skill/proficency is based in it, with a very few minor sentences about going beyond that.

Is it any wonder people go with what WotC has been providing for twenty years? That you need to break exception based design, a core principle of D&D, to make skill/proficency checks to beyong "guy in the gym" is not a surprise. But it is a problem when the entire rest of the game trains GMs to disallow it.

[Pex]

My instinct tells me that the reputation came first, spread by RAW-based discourse that can't size-up the rogue's strengths because it can't speak to the skill system.

That said, I'm sort of on both sides of this, because I do play with a DM that struggles with the skill system, so I've argued for more guidance up and down these forums. But I don't think that lets us just throw our hands in the air and be like "see? you can't do anything with the skill system!". I think having more conversations about how to handle these types of things would be beneficial. Like, the response to the Alarm spell makes me feel like someone watching Ocean's Eleven would stop the movie and be like "But the hotel has security... why is the movie letting these thieves just like... plan their way past the security?".

We need to break the myth that spells are end all be all and that characters in the world engaging with spells to foil them are being treated generously by the DM and acting unreasonably.

Unfortunately that leads to DMs interpreting spells down to being useless due to easily being foiled. All NPCs know it's an illusion, that Suggestion is not reasonable so spell fails, etc. It's a lose/lose situation. The rulebook needs to be clear to DMs on what PCs can do, be blatant in telling DMs PCs are supposed to do amazing powerful things words ink on paper bold and in all caps if necessary, and then discuss the reasonable limitations so that the game does not break apart into an unplayable mess. Game designers should be doing their job, not leaving it all up to DM Make It Up Yourself. Players - What to do. Game Rules - How things are done. DM - Why things happen in the game world and consequential results of the players' actions.

[Kane0]

But I don't think that lets us just throw our hands in the air and be like "see? you can't do anything with the skill system!". I think having more conversations about how to handle these types of things would be beneficial.

I've long been of the opinion that extra examples would be helpful, DC X skill being able to achieve Y result. However given the breadth of game styles I would argue the best way to provide these would be to splitting them into three categories like how alternate rest times are handled. So like say in a 'gritty realism' sort of game a DC15 Athletics might let you swim while armored for 10 minutes in calm waters without drowning, but in an 'epic heroism' game that same DC 15 athletics might let you swim up a waterfall for a minute. The 'standard' would be somewhere in the middle where a DC 15 athletics to swim would let you drag another creature your size in running water up to 10 minutes with neither of you drowning.

Edit: and then if you want to be really sneaky you could try some sort of houserule that lets you switch from one category to another if you have expertise in that skill or something, so the expertised stealth ranger or rogue would be able to hide under 'heroic' conditions rather than 'standard' ones to make them feel and act truly badass.

[Psyren]

I hear 30 pages, do I hear 35...
Going once?

We have until 50 before it matters, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I'm not making the case that spells are infallible, I'm saying rogues are lacking.

They're going to be even more lacking at a table that doesn't allow spells' intentional weaknesses to matter; every martial would be.

Most of the classes get spelled out in plain English what they can do and why they're effective. Rogues rely on some rather generous extrapolations of vague rules from the entirely underbaked skills chapter. DM decides skills are as impactful as 3rd, 4th, 5th level spells, and yeah it's a good table to play a rogue. But the large amount of DMs that don't do that, for entirely justified and understandable reasons, well rogue ends up with a reputation as a weak class.

What "3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells" are you referring to here? The ability check uses I suggested don't go anywhere near those degrees of power Mimicking the sound of an animal is a cantrip, for crying out loud.

But, Alarm cast so it fills a hallway. Or on a doorway that most be gotten though. That's a little tougher to get by, and rogue in particular has virtually no answers for it, even at high level. And that's a real shame because rogue is supposed to be the sneaky class and they do indeed get pretty bothered by a 1st level spell.

"Pretty bothered" how? Even if you're right and there's absolutely no other route into that windowless adamantium plot-critical room nor can they stop the alarm going off, why is that being treated like some "game over" failstate?

The caster who set the alarm still needs to:
- Figure out whether there's an actual intruder there (because the alarm itself doesn't say, and it pings on everything.)
- Figure out where the intruder is now (the alarm doesn't say that either.)
- Successfully do whatever they were planning to do next due to the alarm going off (e.g. moving the macguffin, rousing the guards to locate the intruder, or triggering a trap to eliminate them etc.,) all of which a rogue can respond to. For example "moving the macguffin" gets it out of that room and likely makes it easier to intercept.

That said, I'm sort of on both sides of this, because I do play with a DM that struggles with the skill system, so I've argued for more guidance up and down these forums. But I don't think that lets us just throw our hands in the air and be like "see? you can't do anything with the skill system!". I think having more conversations about how to handle these types of things would be beneficial. Like, the response to the Alarm spell makes me feel like someone watching Ocean's Eleven would stop the movie and be like "But the hotel has security... why is the movie letting these thieves just like... plan their way past the security?"

We need to break the myth that spells are end all be all and that characters in the world engaging with spells to foil them are being treated generously by the DM and acting unreasonably.

I agree, especially the bolded part - but the problem is that skills being over-codified is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with. 3.5 was very prescriptive about what skills could do, and that's precisely what caused so many DMs' gray matter to atrophy in the first place. (After all, if you could use Bluff to sound like a rodent that had wandered into camp and tripped the wizard's alarm, either the Bluff skill or the 3.5 Alarm spell would say so. Since they don't, that must mean you can't, sorry. Creativity? Never heard of it, what page is that on?)

[Skrum]

Part of the issue I've realized is that for over twenty years D&D has now been explicitly and completely exception based design. Can't fly without something that sayd you can. Can't do magic without something that says you can. Can't hold your breath for an hour without something that says you can. Can't make two attacks without something that says you can. An entire D&D generation has been raised and trained on exception based design. Even 5e skill/proficency is based in it, with a very few minor sentences about going beyond that.

Is it any wonder people go with what WotC has been providing for twenty years? That you need to break exception based design, a core principle of D&D, to make skill/proficency checks to beyong "guy in the gym" is not a surprise. But it is a problem when the entire rest of the game trains GMs to disallow it.

This is exactly the reasoning that makes me so ill-inclined to accept arguments along the lines of "of course you don't like rogue! you don't let skills do [kind of wild thing that there's no particular support for beyond "well the rules didn't say I can't do that"]." While some spells - looking at you, major image - are frustratingly vague, most spells say exactly what they do and how they influence the world, and by inference, what they don't do. Most class abilities are like that as well. Decently written, pretty clear what's happening, etc. Questions around what an ability does usually are of the "how does this interact with this specific other thing."

But then we get to skills, and it's just a big...Well what do you think it should do, man? Like there's the rest of the game running on explicit rules, and then skills are just 90% vibes.

If DnD was a rules-lite system, skills like this would be fine. But it's a not a rules-lite system. And smashing together pretty heavy mechanics with rules-lite "do whatcha want, and the DM will make it up on the fly!" is a recipe for (exactly the discussion we're having now about rogue). No one's wrong and no one's right by nature of skills being rules-lite - but confusion and disagreement is guaranteed.

The rulebook needs to be clear to DMs on what PCs can do, be blatant in telling DMs PCs are supposed to do amazing powerful things words ink on paper bold and in all caps if necessary, and then discuss the reasonable limitations so that the game does not break apart into an unplayable mess. Game designers should be doing their job, not leaving it all up to DM Make It Up Yourself. Players - What to do. Game Rules - How things are done. DM - Why things happen in the game world and consequential results of the players' actions.

This

[Skrum]

What "3rd, 4th, and 5th level spells" are you referring to here? The ability check uses I suggested don't go anywhere near those degrees of power Mimicking the sound of an animal is a cantrip, for crying out loud.

I'm not talking about mimicking specific spells, I'm talking about high DC skill uses that create effect commensurate in scope to 3rd+ level spells. This would would be enormously helpful in martial classes scaling in similar ways to casters.

Off the top of my head, I'd love to see skill checks allowing stuff like
- using stealth to turn invisible
- using athletics (grappling) to counter teleporting
- using acrobatics for teleport-like infallible escapes
- using perception to see invisible creatures and objects
- using medicine to bring someone back from the dead
- using intimidate to create fear effects
- using persuasion to charm
- using performance for mass hypnosis, suggestion, fear, inspiration, etc
- using insight to read minds or see the future

"Pretty bothered" how? Even if you're right and there's absolutely no other route into that windowless adamantium plot-critical room nor can they stop the alarm going off, why is that being treated like some "game over" failstate?

The caster who set the alarm still needs to:
- Figure out whether there's an actual intruder there (because the alarm itself doesn't say, and it pings on everything.)
- Figure out where the intruder is now (the alarm doesn't say that either.)
- Successfully do whatever they were planning to do next due to the alarm going off (e.g. moving the macguffin, rousing the guards to locate the intruder, or triggering a trap to eliminate them etc.,) all of which a rogue can respond to. For example "moving the macguffin" gets it out of that room and likely makes it easier to intercept.

I mean, what if the Alarm is at the entrance to a complex and the party is trying to get all the way to the vault on the bottom level without being detected. Of course tripping the Alarm doesn't tell the caster exactly who tripped it or where they are or anything - but it does tell them there's intruders, at which point the countermeasures are triggered. Now all the traps are armed and there's patrols everywhere.

I agree, especially the bolded part - but the problem is that skills being over-codified is exactly what got us into this mess to begin with. 3.5 was very prescriptive about what skills could do, and that's precisely what caused so many DMs' gray matter to atrophy in the first place. (After all, if you could use Bluff to sound like a rodent that had wandered into camp and tripped the wizard's alarm, either the Bluff skill or the 3.5 Alarm spell would say so. Since they don't, that must mean you can't, sorry. Creativity? Never heard of it, what page is that on?)

Strongly disagree. I flat-out don't buy that the almost every class, and every action taken in combat, works great using explicit rules, but then skills are somehow in this special category of not being able to quantify them or they...break into pieces, idk. Having rules for skills, guidance on what they can do, does not preclude all inventive uses of those skills. But if the players and the DM both knew that DC 5 is roughly tasks like this, and DC 10 is roughly this, and DC 15 is this (very difficult thing) and DC 20 is getting into supernatural levels of strength, agility, cunning, etc., and here are some examples of the crazy things someone can do when they roll a 27 on their skill check...the rules have facilitated the conditions wherein everyone knows what the incentive is to stack together a +12 perception check.

[LudicSavant]

Given that the arguments have finally entered Quantum Build territory, I think the only unknown us what causes this thread to get locked. Will it be because it hits 50 pages, or because people get into a fight and the thread is left on indefinite review?

I think we may actually have an opportunity for the discussion to leave quantum build territory! At least with regards to Jellypooga's post here, their build was quite specific, so I intend to post some comparisons, assuming the thread does not combust before I get around to it

[Psyren]

I'm not talking about mimicking specific spells, I'm talking about high DC skill uses that create effect commensurate in scope to 3rd+ level spells. This would would be enormously helpful in martial classes scaling in similar ways to casters.

Off the top of my head, I'd love to see skill checks allowing stuff like
- using stealth to turn invisible
- using athletics (grappling) to counter teleporting
- using acrobatics for teleport-like infallible escapes
- using perception to see invisible creatures and objects
- using medicine to bring someone back from the dead
- using intimidate to create fear effects
- using persuasion to charm
- using performance for mass hypnosis, suggestion, fear, inspiration, etc
- using insight to read minds or see the future

The problem with codifying these is they should be situational. It shouldn't be "DC 20, I can tell where any invisible creature is now." It should be "I can pinpoint that invisible creature's location with a Hard Perception check because there is ankle-deep water in this room and I can track where they're splashing." And that should be part of the encounter the DM designed.

Similarly, the Medicine one is okay under some circumstances but not others. ("I have a healer's kit, I perform CPR!" "Uhh, he got impaled. Through the heart." "Don't worry, I'm really good."

I mean, what if the Alarm is at the entrance to a complex and the party is trying to get all the way to the vault on the bottom level without being detected. Of course tripping the Alarm doesn't tell the caster exactly who tripped it or where they are or anything - but it does tell them there's intruders, at which point the countermeasures are triggered. Now all the traps are armed and there's patrols everywhere.

Traps and patrols??? Well ****, If only we'd brought a rogue! (Oh, wait, we did )

Here again, you seem to display a tendency to default the result of "unavoidable alarm triggers" to being a binary/boring mission failure, rather than merely a complication that can (and should) be dealt with through, like, gameplay.

Strongly disagree. I flat-out don't buy that the almost every class, and every action taken in combat, works great using explicit rules, but then skills are somehow in this special category of not being able to quantify them or they...break into pieces, idk. Having rules for skills, guidance on what they can do, does not preclude all inventive uses of those skills. But if the players and the DM both knew that DC 5 is roughly tasks like this, and DC 10 is roughly this, and DC 15 is this (very difficult thing) and DC 20 is getting into supernatural levels of strength, agility, cunning, etc., and here are some examples of the crazy things someone can do when they roll a 27 on their skill check...the rules have facilitated the conditions wherein everyone knows what the incentive is to stack together a +12 perception check.

Ability Checks are the broad "everything else" category. To do that job effectively, they have to be left open-ended, so that the DM (or even the players!) can tailor them to a specific scenario. Coming up with generic rules/DCs to mimic a sound, steer a runaway cart during a chase, intimidate a shopkeeper or rally a crowd is counterproductive even if I thought WotC could come up with ones that wouldn't result in endless arguments online.

[Dr.Samurai]

This dovetails into the larger point I was making, "the online community" is too broad of a generalization, to be a useful distinction.

I'm the sort of DM that will allow Skills and Ability Checks be effective and do extra-ordinary things, and indeed I have argued in favor of that viewpoint in the Playground. Even so, I can recognize that some games would not allow an ability check no matter how high the final total is, to defeat an ability like tremorsense.

A DM that views skill usage through the mundane lens of experience, and reads spells and abilities through a lens of the literal text, is not performing some extreme example of interpretation, even if one can make a credible case that such a viewpoint is probably not the best standard for 5e.

My arguments in this thread have never been predicated off the idea that "skills suck". Indeed my view is quite the opposite, skills can be quite good, (perhaps even better than spells in certain circumstances), but this requires a game that is receptive to the possibilities and a clever player.

Cleverness is a quality of the player. If a solution to a dilemma requires cleverness, and none of the players posses this quality, then it may not matter if the PC's have the exact abilities needed to solve the issue in a straightforward manner.

There are very few abilities that a Rogue has, that can not be replicated by other means. In general, this is true for many abilities in 5e, Rogues are not alone in this.

A couple of thoughts though... the "cleverness is a quality of the player" argument applies to everything, including your run-of-the-mill normie optimization as well.

Give two different players a wizard, and you'll get two different power levels of characters. Give two different players the SAME EXACT wizard with the same exact spells and you'll still get two different power levels of play.

And this also doubles back on the DM. Yes, there are DMs that won't allow skills to shine; we've seen some of the commentary in this thread ("it doesn't say you can do that", "does that mean you can just jump to the moon then?", "if you want to houserule and let skills do anything..."). But there are other DMs that allow for player creativity and are intrigued when a player wants to try something and let the skills be used.

When we're talking about a game like Dungeons & Dragons, I expect that people are trying to be creative and clever when the DM is trying to foil them. It's a huge part of the game. I think 5E has done a big disservice in this sense, but I don't think the designers intended for all of us to just read the exact letter of the core books and not deviate from it.

Unfortunately that leads to DMs interpreting spells down to being useless due to easily being foiled.

I don't agree. A high level rogue attempting to navigate a spell effect does not equal "easily foiled" to me. And also, it seems to me that it's no easier than say... ritual casting Detect Magic and then casting Dispel Magic when you detect something. So if it is that simple for a wizard, letting a rogue do some thief stuff out of a heist movie seems a-okay to me.

All NPCs know it's an illusion, that Suggestion is not reasonable so spell fails, etc. It's a lose/lose situation.

But in this case we've gone in the other direction. NPCs know enough about spells so that spellcasters have maximum efficiency.

The rulebook needs to be clear to DMs on what PCs can do, be blatant in telling DMs PCs are supposed to do amazing powerful things words ink on paper bold and in all caps if necessary, and then discuss the reasonable limitations so that the game does not break apart into an unplayable mess. Game designers should be doing their job, not leaving it all up to DM Make It Up Yourself. Players - What to do. Game Rules - How things are done. DM - Why things happen in the game world and consequential results of the players' actions.

I'll never say no to more guidance.

By all means, let's get specific! Let's say, oh, a level 11 Assassin Rogue -- what skills do they have (and which do they have Expertise in), what feats and race and point buy choices?

I think we may actually have an opportunity for the discussion to leave quantum build territory! At least with regards to Jellypooga's post here, their build was quite specific, so I intend to post some comparisons, assuming the thread does not combust before I get around to it

Thing is... the opportunity has always been there. As I said before... it's easy to claim that rogues can't do abc and fail to xzy and so and so can do it better. But I've yet to see this infamous bard build that keeps getting referred to. I hope that when you come in and take down JellyPooga's rogue, you have a just-as-detailed bard to demonstrate how to do it better. And not because I don't think it can be done, but I don't often play spellcasters and I'm genuinely curious. Especially about how to get around all those countermeasures that were mentioned earlier in the thread.

[Skrum]

The problem with codifying these is they should be situational. It shouldn't be "DC 20, I can tell where any invisible creature is now." It should be "I can pinpoint that invisible creature's location with a Hard Perception check because there is ankle-deep water in this room and I can track where they're splashing." And that should be part of the encounter the DM designed.

Similarly, the Medicine one is okay under some circumstances but not others. ("I have a healer's kit, I perform CPR!" "Uhh, he got impaled. Through the heart." "Don't worry, I'm really good."

No offense, but I couldn't disagree with you more. Lol.

You want skills to both be far more impactful, but not generalized in any way...thus creating the maximum burden on the DM to constantly adjudicate skill usage. And the outcome has to be strong enough that rogues and other martials have cool options, but presumably not so strong so that they eclipse other parts of the game.

Speaking personally, those kind of super context-dependent skill checks and challenges is one of the things I hate the most about DM'ing. It's awful. I spend so much time on it, and all for something that's going to go by in a few rolls or a few minutes of play. It's such an ridiculously poor use of my prep time, and every time I do it, I wish there was a more generalized system in place.

Description? Narration? I love it. I can wing that all day. I'll make the thing feel special and contextual and cool. But the mechanics themselves (DC, number of checks, skill in question, outcomes, complications, etc) should NOT be crafted from scratch every single time. I'm sorry but that's asinine.

Here again, you seem to display a tendency to default the result of "unavoidable alarm triggers" to being a binary/boring mission failure, rather than merely a complication that can (and should) be dealt with through, like, gameplay.

The amount of times a particular example has to be explained is inversely proportional to how useful it is...

Ok so there's a large underground base. There's one entrance, which is Alarm'd. If triggered, the Warden will activate the traps and send out a large amount of patrols. The party needs to get to the Warden's office where there's a safe and take the Shining McGuffin.

- But the party is all barbs! They charge right in, triggering the Alarm and brawling their way through 3 floors of mutant kobolds, spinning buzzsaws, poison gas, and bugbears that would never pass a USADA test. The emerge, half-dead and each one carrying the other, bloody but victorious
- But the party is a twilight cleric, a wizard, a paladin, and a bard! The wizard easily detects the Alarm and dispels it. The lore bard casts pass without trace and by the time anyone realizes the party has entered, they're already on the 3rd floor. They easily blow past the mutant kobold death squad and kick the Warden's ass
- But the party is....ok you get the idea. There's a million ways to beat this scenario. Presumably, the DM made it challenging but fun and beatable, and each member of the party got a time to shine.

The point I was making from the beginning is the rogue, the sneaky rogue, the master of infiltration and subterfuge, has no particular way to get by an Alarm spell. Can they use clever play, like a small animal or a series of taped-together straws to press the doorbell without triggering the Alarm, thus causing a patrol to come out and disarm the Alarm themselves? Of course. But so could any other class. What does the rogue have on their character sheet that makes them actually good at their job? Cause I think they're lacking.

Ability Checks are the broad "everything else" category. To do that job effectively, they have to be left open-ended

open ended =/= no guidance at all

[Psyren]

No offense, but I couldn't disagree with you more. Lol.

No offense taken! We're at an impasse regarding ability checks then and we can leave it there. We don't have to agree on how they should be presented in the books.

- But the party is....ok you get the idea. There's a million ways to beat this scenario. Presumably, the DM made it challenging but fun and beatable, and each member of the party got a time to shine.

You're right, there are a million ways. So I don't get why coming up with even one way for the rogue to shine is so difficult when you're clearly acknowledging how doable it can be for everyone else.

What does the rogue have on their character sheet that makes them actually good at their job? Cause I think they're lacking.

Expertise. Reliable Talent. Extra proficiencies they can spend on Arcana to know how Alarm spells work without giving up the ability to sneak around, cling to the ceiling, talk their way out of trouble, or work a lockpick. To use your specific solution, those are the things that let them hide in the area when that patrol comes out and slip past them, as well as being more likely to get past the other traps and obstacles along the way past that point.

And because of the way group checks work in 5e - the rogue being good at making them means the party is that much better at making them. They have one less failure to worry about bringing down the average score.

[Dr.Samurai]

Some thoughts;

1. If we leave the skill system as open-ended as it is right now, we need to add some extra language explaining what the PCs should generally be capable of, to avoid the issues that Blatant Beast highlighted earlier where a DM is sort of limited by their experiences. Further, there should be some guidance for the DM concerning the rogue class specifically, as this class is meant to interface with the skill system a lot and do it well.

2. Leaving it that way, we run into a sort of catch 22 (I think, never looked up what it really means lol). If we give a class a feature that lets it do something that would otherwise be under the purview of a skill, we get criticisms that anyone should be able to do this and you're locking other characters from doing it, or penalizing other characters by setting some standard for doing it (see critiques of the assassin earlier in the thread). If we don't grant them skill-based abilities like this, then we get criticisms that the class has nothing to help it do anything skill related (see critiques that rogues have nothing and are lacking). We have to give ground somewhere.

3. Expanding on the comment that the rogue in particular has no unique way to get around an alarm spell; this is generally true, at least in the way that Psyren and I mentioned. But I think it speaks to a different point. The Alarm spell was mentioned as something that would foil, presumably, a non-spellcaster. The examples given about probing it with an animal or timing entry or carrying something with you and setting it loose on the other side, is meant to demonstrate that the spell can be dealt with, generally, in other ways. If you don't have always-on Detect Magic and a handy Dispel Magic, you can do other things. A disguise could also work, which again is how it happens in heist movies. But when putting forth a scenario in which you think someone can't deal with a spell, it may be the case that that isn't necessarily true, whether it's a rogue doing it or not.

4. I think the discussion is colored by the current (and longstanding) optimization meta that a character should be able to do 10 trillion things on a Sunday. The rogue, in this case, has to do everything in order to demonstrate it's a value add to the party. It's not that the wizard will be ritual casting Detect Magic, it has to be the rogue. And it's not that the wizard's Nondetection will supplement the Assassin's perfect disguise, no the assassin needs to be able to cast Nondetection himself. Again, this is like if Danny Ocean begins putting together a team, and then the director of the movie is like "Cut! Cut! Um... only George Clooney's character is allowed to participate. Everyone else just stand on the sidelines."

In other words, there are merits for using spells/features to help the rogue succeed further against certain things. In a cooperative team game like D&D, there is nothing wrong with this.

[JNAProductions]

I took a stab at redoing Rogue. Here.

[Kane0]

I took a stab at redoing Rogue. Here.

Always appreciate a good 'brew. Did you catch mine on page 25?

[Psyren]

1. If we leave the skill system as open-ended as it is right now, we need to add some extra language explaining what the PCs should generally be capable of, to avoid the issues that Blatant Beast highlighted earlier where a DM is sort of limited by their experiences. Further, there should be some guidance for the DM concerning the rogue class specifically, as this class is meant to interface with the skill system a lot and do it well.

I'm not opposed to adding a bit of general language, but the devil is in the details. What I typically see is that the folks who claim to be in favor of general guidance end up proposing a bunch of static DCs if not whole tables.

2. Leaving it that way, we run into a sort of catch 22 (I think, never looked up what it really means lol). If we give a class a feature that lets it do something that would otherwise be under the purview of a skill, we get criticisms that anyone should be able to do this and you're locking other characters from doing it, or penalizing other characters by setting some standard for doing it (see critiques of the assassin earlier in the thread). If we don't grant them skill-based abilities like this, then we get criticisms that the class has nothing to help it do anything skill related (see critiques that rogues have nothing and are lacking). We have to give ground somewhere.

I mean... do we? I don't agree with/couldn't care less about the latter complaint at all, so I'm not seeing why I would need to "give ground" to it.

3. Expanding on the comment that the rogue in particular has no unique way to get around an alarm spell; this is generally true, at least in the way that Psyren and I mentioned. But I think it speaks to a different point. The Alarm spell was mentioned as something that would foil, presumably, a non-spellcaster. The examples given about probing it with an animal or timing entry or carrying something with you and setting it loose on the other side, is meant to demonstrate that the spell can be dealt with, generally, in other ways. If you don't have always-on Detect Magic and a handy Dispel Magic, you can do other things. A disguise could also work, which again is how it happens in heist movies. But when putting forth a scenario in which you think someone can't deal with a spell, it may be the case that that isn't necessarily true, whether it's a rogue doing it or not.

Agreed with this one, alongside my usual objection that failing to bypass a single obstacle does not mean the PC is "foiled", just that they have an additional complication to manage. Enough of those could potentially result in failure, sure, but one typically shouldn't.

4. I think the discussion is colored by the current (and longstanding) optimization meta that a character should be able to do 10 trillion things on a Sunday. The rogue, in this case, has to do everything in order to demonstrate it's a value add to the party. It's not that the wizard will be ritual casting Detect Magic, it has to be the rogue. And it's not that the wizard's Nondetection will supplement the Assassin's perfect disguise, no the assassin needs to be able to cast Nondetection himself. Again, this is like if Danny Ocean begins putting together a team, and then the director of the movie is like "Cut! Cut! Um... only George Clooney's character is allowed to participate. Everyone else just stand on the sidelines."

In other words, there are merits for using spells/features to help the rogue succeed further against certain things. In a cooperative team game like D&D, there is nothing wrong with this.

Largely agreed here too.

[Kane0]

I'm not opposed to adding a bit of general language, but the devil is in the details. What I typically see is that the folks who claim to be in favor of general guidance end up proposing a bunch of static DCs if not whole tables.

What kind of guidance did you have in mind?

[Xervous]

Being stuck with bounded accuracy you can only spell out so much before either: arming players to run off with a baseline N% success rate entitling then to at will performance of tasks in low risk situations, or writing out that skills are always only as strong or as weak as the GM wants for the scene.

With most classes attaining negligible progression in the numeric range of their skill rolls you have very little room to establish a level appropriate scaling of the skill outputs. A 16 STAT character with proficiency starts at a +5 which grows towards a whopping +10 at 13th level as PB increases and ASIs are spent on STR. An expertise character can attain such a bonus at level 5. Guidance or any similar buff that is not consumed by the task plays further havoc. What can a roll ceiling of 30 do in a no risk setting? What are you now inviting players to roll for in risky settings?

The cleric put in guidance, the bard adds their inspiration, the soulknife spins a psi die. They’re all 5th level and it’s a DEX task for which the soulknife has expertise. The roll range is 14-50, with 62.5% of at least 30, 35.7% of at least 35, 14.8% -40. What can these numbers do, some of which a typical character will never be able to roll unaided? That 30 is a T3 Hail Mary for primary stat + proficient, and we’ve got an empowered soulknife punching the DC reliably in a risky situation (and achieving resource free use in no risk situations). Either the system was tuned for the character not receiving the buffs and this rogue is pulling out epic tasks at level 5, or these high numbers are the main scale and the average stat+proficiency character hardly gets to touch the good stuff.

[Witty Username]

2. Leaving it that way, we run into a sort of catch 22 (I think, never looked up what it really means lol).

It works out.
The origin of the term as I understand it is a work of fiction (name Catch-22) that uses it a barrier to prevent leaving the military. Air force
Essentially in the story, someone can apply to leave by claiming to be mentally unfit.
But by doing so they demonstrate that they are able to want to get out of the military (implying the are capable of rational thought, not wanting to be in a dogfight it perfectly rational).
Now they could not apply, but then the process doesn't ever start.
Hence the catch 22, apply and demonstrate sanity, application dropped, don't apply, and demonstrate crazy and still don't leave because there is no 'known' issue.

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.

[Skrum]

You're right, there are a million ways. So I don't get why coming up with even one way for the rogue to shine is so difficult when you're clearly acknowledging how doable it can be for everyone else.

I mean, true, but it's another way of saying "the DM will cater the challenge to the party and make up for the fact the rogue has less to offer and needs special considerations." Which is exactly the point made (20 pages ago? I lost count).

Being stuck with bounded accuracy you can only spell out so much before either: arming players to run off with a baseline N% success rate entitling then to at will performance of tasks in low risk situations, or writing out that skills are always only as strong or as weak as the GM wants for the scene.

With most classes attaining negligible progression in the numeric range of their skill rolls you have very little room to establish a level appropriate scaling of the skill outputs. A 16 STAT character with proficiency starts at a +5 which grows towards a whopping +10 at 13th level as PB increases and ASIs are spent on STR. An expertise character can attain such a bonus at level 5. Guidance or any similar buff that is not consumed by the task plays further havoc. What can a roll ceiling of 30 do in a no risk setting? What are you now inviting players to roll for in risky settings?

The cleric put in guidance, the bard adds their inspiration, the soulknife spins a psi die. They’re all 5th level and it’s a DEX task for which the soulknife has expertise. The roll range is 14-50, with 62.5% of at least 30, 35.7% of at least 35, 14.8% -40. What can these numbers do, some of which a typical character will never be able to roll unaided? That 30 is a T3 Hail Mary for primary stat + proficient, and we’ve got an empowered soulknife punching the DC reliably in a risky situation (and achieving resource free use in no risk situations). Either the system was tuned for the character not receiving the buffs and this rogue is pulling out epic tasks at level 5, or these high numbers are the main scale and the average stat+proficiency character hardly gets to touch the good stuff.

I think there's a few things here that could be useful (stuff that should've been part of the base game, if WotC had made a proper skill system).

1) Not everyone can roll for everything
If the bonuses are generally going to be low (bounded), then the dice roll becomes that much more important. To prevent the feel-bad chaos of a moron being more knowledgeable than the sage, or the weakling out-lifting the strongman, there needs to be guardrails on what can be rolled for. The DC might be 13 but that doesn't mean an entirely untrained person with an 8 in the associated trait has a 35% chance of succeeding - it means it's quite a hard task and if you don't have proficiency, you don't get to roll. Essentially, separate DC (a game construct) from the in-world difficulty of the task. I personally like DC 10 being the cap on untrained checks.

2) Shift DC's downwards
Most skill checks should be DC 10 or less, reflective of the fact that a trained person (proficiency) with reasonable talent (~+2 in the associated ability) will have a +5 check. They should succeeded at most tasks they are trained in most of the time. Many tasks? Don't even roll. They're DC 5. A character with a +5 or +6, they mathematically can't fail that.

3) Create unique uses of skills for characters with large modifiers
As a continuation of (1), a character with a +10 modifier should be able to attempt to do things a character with merely a +7 modifier cannot. This is both to have skills scale a little more, and also make more explicit how extraordinary someone with a +10 or +12 is. They aren't only 35% more likely to succeed; they can attempt things other people would consider impossible. I would probably gate these high level, extraordinary tasks behind expertise: with proficiency, you can attempt tasks up to DC 20. Expertise, and 21+ is open to you. Let's say swimming up a waterfall is DC 24. A character with 18 str but no training might have a 5% chance of success going purely by the dice roll - but they're not allowed to try. The 10th level fighter/rogue w/ 20 str, prof, expertise, and a stone of good luck though, can attempt to swim up a waterfall and they have a 55% chance to do it.

[Psyren]

I mean, true, but it's another way of saying "the DM will cater the challenge to the party and make up for the fact the rogue has less to offer and needs special considerations." Which is exactly the point made (20 pages ago? I lost count).

If having multiple routes to success means the challenge is "catered to the party" then they all are, or should be. I don't consider that a useful critique.

What kind of guidance did you have in mind?

You're asking the wrong person, I'm one of the ones who's satisfied with what's currently there. it's the unhappy people that need to make a proposal that will get them closer to happiness, not me.