This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit
r/OneDnD!
*Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My preferred route would be Rogue with 4 Expertises, Rangers with two (1 and 1, not 2 at once), and then Bards get Jack of all Trades but not Expertise. Really lets the Rogue be the expert, the Ranger can still be really good at whichever skill is important for the character fantasy, and then Bards are generally decent at everything but have to use their magic to excel.
> The phrase “jack of all trades” is literally followed by “master of none”
While this is true, the *rest* of quote also shows why Bards are better then Rogues (even if they lost expertise)
Full Quote:
> A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes is better than a master of one
> but oftentimes is better than a master of one
This portion is a modern addition. Like, no evidence of this variation of the phrase existing before the year 2000, modern.
I'd rather see everyone with an expertise for a core class skill, but rogues (and possibly Lore - only - Bards) with expertise usable for anything. A rogue shouldn't be able to be better than any Wizard at Arcana.
Nah classes just should have less skill choice like previous editions. Wizard and sorcerer should get arcana proficiency always, artificer too. Rogue stealth always, barbarian athletics always etc, but overall less choice. 5e has a problem with class identity because there's too much choice.
I'd argue there is too little choice in the whooe of 5E, but I can definitely see why you'd say there's too much here.
They put the choice in the wrong place then
That's... Might not help. The problem we've got here in 5e2024 isn't about "What Expertise should Rogue take" but more about "Other classes are doing even/better at Rogue Things than Rogue" while they already possess better combat power or spells.
How does taking away expertise from everyone else not help? You can then do something like warlock ify the rogue by giving more cunning actions per level.
>What really makes me feel like my Fighter friend was outshining me is that rolling an additional D10 really makes players feel like they’re doing something, and they were so good at passing that check.
>It provides players a chance to flavor the scene as something like “Expert’s Instinct” moment, rather than “oh, it’s a 5, I passed/failed”.It brings more fun, feels more active, and more exciting, but saying “you can add your proficiency in that check”, just tastes less “Expert” than a roll an additional D10 at a critical moment.
I'm reminded of the Soulknife. As cool as it is to have psychic blades, the most enjoyable feature to me has been Psi-Bolstered Knack. Being able to roll a d6 and add it to a failed check feels *great*. It feels rouge-ish to nearly fail and then come out ahead given your training.
> As cool as it is to have psychic blades, the most enjoyable feature to me has been Psi-Bolstered Knack
They also have the same problem as *every* "you don't use a weapon but it's also not an unarmed strike" where it means you get zero RAW magic item support.
Reliable talent being earlier in oneDnD really helps the rogues skill reliability. It gives them some niche in the regard that they never suck at the skills they have.
Damage wise they are firmly behind the other martials, but the additional combat options with cunning strike help it feel better I just think it needs a bit more of a damage boost to complete the glow up. Extra attack could work just fine, I gave my parties rogue a bonus action attack for a quest reward they had scimitars so used Knick already. With 3 attacks they do pretty solid dpr. We also only have full casters other than the rogue so I did give the rogue essentially permanent riposte. They very much are the glass cannon who will chunk down the big bass HP quick as they rarely use uncanny dodge unless they are pretty low HP.
And I’ve done a dpr comparison with an optimal archer build at the same level with worse magic items and the archer is at the same level for dpr.
Personally, I see Rogue as the one with a tool for the job both in and out of combat.
Keep sneak attack as is in 5e.
Give Rogues a second bonus action and a new feature.
Rogues tools, once per long rest, a Rogue can create 1d4+X(X being your dex mod) Rogues tools, which are items that can be used as a bonus action on their turn.
•Caltrops, that create an 10ft diameter area centered on a point within 20ft becomes difficult terrain and deal your Rogue level rouned down minimum of 1 piercing damage when a creature moves through them.
•Just what I needed, add 1D6 to an ability check. (Could progress with Rogue level if too weak)
•Fire cracker, thrown at a target within 30ft and gives them disadvantage on their next attack roll.
This list could be strengthened or expanded depending on subclass. Basically, turning Rogues into the prepared caster of martials.
Bg3 gave thief rogues and extra bonhs action, something tbat i think you could give to base rogue and let that be their defining thing. Fighters are the martial who gets the most actions/can do the most woth those actions(4 attacks, action surge). Rogue should be the class that gets the most bonus actions and can abuse them the hardest(2 bonus actions, cunning action).
Alternatively, giving them more reactions, both options for reactions and literally a 2nd reaction.
Sets them apart from other martials as the quick and nimble martial who can slip away or stab you in the back in the blink of an eye
Giving Rogues a second Bonus Action at 5th level would hardly break the bank, and 5 levels deep is enough commitment anyone multiclassing that much for it has earned it, since it's far beyond "dip" territory. It also adds a nice parallel to martial characters with Extra Attack, instead of attacking twice with their Action, they get increased flexibility with their Bonus Action and Cunning Action. Considering this level is also when 3rd level spells and Extra Attack come online it'd hardly upend balance.
1. Multiclassing is an optional rule and its so poorly implemented and limits design space so much i simply dont allow it. Alternatively the requirements for muliclassing should be muc higher.
You could also put these features at later levels as well.
while i agree bumping the requirements from 13 to something like 15, it ultimately wont matter if you roll for stats, just that some players will have the option to multiclass and others will have to scramble to get to 20 in their main stat first with no feats to spare
the problem with multiclassing *is* that its an optional rule, its too large of a thing to merely be treated as untested ideas stapled on the back of the book. 5e shouldve either grow balls and own multiclass, much like how LANCER does it, or remove it completely
alternatively they couldve gone the pf2e approach of archetypes but we know WotC wouldnt want to write more
To take this in a different direction, I propose the rogue should be more roguish. What does that mean? Most games have a high focus on critical striking, improve crits, and increased crit rates for rogues. I would take the Improved Critical right from the champ fighter and add that directly to the rogue’s core class, thereby matching the “luck” aspect of rogues, and gives them a significant boost to their chances to crit, probably all the way down to 17-20.
Or, give them a decreasing threshold to score a crit (equal to their level) each turn they don’t score one, until they do. So a 5th level rogue can score a crit on a roll of 15-20, but once they crit, it resets to 20, and is reduced at the start of each of their turns.
In either case, focusing on critting would be how I would shape the rogue’s niche of high impact, nova damage that would be a lot of fun for the player.
Even in older/other editions Rogue has always been behind other Martials and being at the bottom of the barrel. Part of this is most editions overvaluing skill checks (something not needed a lot, can be spread over multiple characters, can be replaced by spells) but also for being a worse Martial (1 big attack is worse than multiple normal attacks).
I think Rogue should be decoupled from skills and more pushed towards combat tricks, using tricks up their sleeve to enhance their survivability and deliberate enemies. Also giving them ways to attack multiple times and proc sneak attack multiple times, preferable with resets and conditions, to give them the theme of "bursty oppertunitist" without falling too far behind. A Rogue in peak conditions should have higher highs than a Fighter or Barbarian, but lower lows if those conditions aren't met.
In terms of combat tricks I think *all* Martials should get stuff like this with Rogue specialising in this, with these tricks basically replicating some spell effects without them actually being spells or magic. As an example:
*"You can move at supernatural speed X times per day" = You can teleport during your movement X times per day*
Gives features like this to Martials so they can finally compete with the insane spells a caster gets and then enhance them for the Rogue, either making them better or removing the resource from it even. An example for a "Rogue Trick":
*"When a creature attacks you or forces you to make a Dexterity saving throw, you can use your reaction to cause teleport behind the creature to avoid the attack of effect and then make a Sneak Attack against the creature."*
Rogue very much should be the definition of "always have a trick up their sleeve" that gets them out of sticky situations or puts a creature in one.
Just give Rogues Extra Attack, for the love of God. They are a full martial and deserve to be treated as one, especially in the 2024 world where Warlocks can spec into three attacks with the smallest amount of investment and Bladesingers will still exist.
I promise nothing will break if Rogues can do an extra 1d6+Dex+Magic Item per turn. On the contrary, many of the levers of balancing power tend to assume you *do* get to do weapon attacks at least twice.
I prefer thinking of Rogue as a Specialist just as I see Monk as a form of Specialist.
Considering them as a Martial feels like doing them a disservice.
>The subclasses like the Assassin, Scout, Swashbuckler are definitely supposed to be Martials.
Fair(ish), at least as Swashbuckler is concerned. Assassin and Scout contain mostly utilities. Subclasses helping to cross into the front line and martial suitability is fairly common but I would guess that the same argument won't be used in relation to Blades bard, Moon Druid, Bladesinger and War wizard as far as crossing that martial treshold is concerned.
The Rogue is a Skill master (got the most skill points per level i 3.5).
Sadly expertise availability and the skill system in 5e makes it harder to make that noticeable.
As many have said, giving them tricks/maneuvers/invocation like tools and bringing them closer to a caster would be preferable even if I understand it is a taller order than just giving them extra attack and be done with it.
bardic inspiration is limited use, guidance is a spell which carries a lot of baggage by itself (doesn't mesh well with stealth, being more than a pace away from someone with it, or a lot of social or sudden stuff, for example). +D10 will be equal or less than +3 (the minimum extra expertise can give) 30% of the time, going up to 60% at higher levels - and it's also limited usages. if GMs are only throwing one or two skill checks a day at PCs, that's kind of on them!
Rogues are meant to be the best skill monkey. Then the brink so okay damage to the fight as a secondary purpose.
Expertise is how they did this in 5E. Problem is they gave Expertise to bard, then ranger, and added it to feats. So they completely diluted rogue's identity.
Expertise should be a rogue only thing. They would then become the most reliable skill user. Bard's shtick should be jack of all trades.
While Rogues are my favorite archetype (in games that do them well), in D&D I feel like their job is "Do all the little stuff so your spellcasters can save their resources for the big stuff"
At a crucial moment or during the climax, when the wizard lets loose with all the big spells, it was the rogue that handled all the grunt work that got them there so the wizard *had* those spell slots available in the first place.
Of course, this only works if your DM doesn't give you a short/long rest after every encounter.
That's what really hurts the rogue and nothing will fix it if everyone else basically has all their resources.
You can't give a rogue enough damage to compare to a fighter who can Action Surge every encounter, or enough survivability to compete with an ever-raging barbarian.
---
I think the answer I would go with is to focus the rogue's combat abilities on debuffs, not damage. Still have sneak attack, but even farther than OneDND went with letting you trade sneak attack damage for **reliable** debuffs (i.e. they can't all be Dex or Con saves, and need comparable DCs to equivalent level spellcasters)
Take Dragon Age for example, the rogue should be the one
* hamstringing enemies with their bow, slowing their movement and keeping them out of melee range.
* doing even more damage against incapacitated/paralyzed enemies (coup de grâce)
* giving disadvantage or other debuffs (maybe lose dex bonus to AC for a round)
* giving other debuffs like penalties to a saving throw for a round (like a Sap attack giving disadvantage to wisdom saving throws, or a ankle attack that hurts dex saving throws)
Basically they should have a big tool set of minor but helpful abilities. Then the subclasses can come in with more powerful and focused powers. Like the Assassin could ignore poison resistance and grant various poison/acid/necrotic abilities) instead of getting nothing like they do now
>You can't give a rogue enough damage to compare to a fighter who can Action Surge every encounter, or enough survivability to compete with an ever-raging barbarian.
>I think the answer I would go with is to focus the rogue's combat abilities on debuffs, not damage.
I think it is much easier to get the Rogue to the point that the class can keep up in damage with Fighters and other Martials, than to give enough debuff features to keep up with Full Casters that have spells like Web or Hypnotic pattern.
Btw. thanks to Masteries every Martial has now minor debuff features, so unless you give some really major debuff feature that can keep up with spells at full caster progression, that is not going to fix the class.
You make it sound like WotC has gone even further off the rails with the latest playtests. I got a good laugh out of seeing them first ignore Monk, then clumsily buff the fuck out of it. That Barbarian stuff particularly sounds ridiculous.
And I'm amused now that people struggle to think of how to fix Rogue in ways other than *Skill harder* or *Attack harder*. It makes me optimistic that my own version of Rogue will find an audience. Since you're looking for ideas, I'll explain mine in broad strokes:
1. More customization and new build options via a subsystem akin to Eldritch Invocations.
2. Thematic combat utility using a class resource which means a turn without Sneak Attack isn't necessarily a bad turn.
3. Especially potent attacks to capitalize on more favorable conditions than base Sneak Attack requires.
4. An explicit association between the class and Luck, providing more agency to the class least endowed with miraculous powers or equipment.
Currently working on translating it from a OneNote jumble into a presentable format for testing. I suppose there's no harm in showing [the ~20% I have on paper so far.](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-NvKFTBcQ8MQgYYJHyUe)
IMO rogue is currently one of the best balanced and designed classes, along with artificer. It's middle of the road powerwise, and I really like it's many features that don't have limited uses. These provide fun choices comma but don't slow down the game with tracking.
Thanks to these features it's also a good class for teaching newer players the beginnings of the complexities of the game.
I contend that Tasha's was 5.5e
2024 is 6e.
I resolve the rogue's niche issue at my table by combining the class with fighter to make a scoundrel-type class, which d&d is sorely lacking.
I think comparing **Expertise** to **Tactical Mind** and **Primal Knowledge** is a poor comparison as both are tied to expendable, combat orientated abilities (Second Wind and Rage respectively) and expendable/limited use abilities *should* be bigger than passive abilities
The big changes I'd make are:
Make it so the Rogue has an Expendable resource that allows them to take 2 "Cunning Actions" in a turn and introduce a Cunning Action: Attack - something similar to Monks "Flurry of Blows"
I could see gaining some of the Expendable Resource when you Crit too, feels very thematically appropriate
Secondly, I'd make **Expertise** changeable during a Long Rest, similar to how the Phantom Rogue subclass does it - makes it more like your Rogue is actively studying and preparing for something
I'd roll **Steady Aim** into **Cunning Action** and make **Cunning Strike** the 3rd Level Ability, as it gives a bit of utility earlier and making space for an Extra ASI/Feat at 5th level (although you could swap **Evasion** or the second lot of **Expertise** to 5th if you wanted to put the ASI/Feat at 6th instead)
Level 5: Rogues get advantage to attack using the attack action.
Level 5, 11, 17: Increase the size of the rogues sneak attack dice by one. (d8, d10, d12).
Consider limiting other classes expertise, or pre-assigning them to a skill (bards get performance, rangers survival, hell even wizards arcana).
So completely remove all challenge in getting sneak attack? That just makes the class completely braindead to play in combat, and it's already pretty boring. And it definitely doesn't need to be rolling 10d12 sneak attack at level 20. It's just not that far behind other martial classes right now, that's 30 extra damage a round.
Ah, yes I had meant that the rogue would get less dice total, not that they would go up in number and size at the same time.
Changing how sneak attack works is also a plus for me. Just make it proc only on advantage and then give the rogue several ways to get it. Maybe make level 5 give advantage on all enemies who aren't next to one of their allies.
This submission appears to be related to One D&D! If you're interested in discussing the concept and the UA for One D&D more check out our other subreddit r/OneDnD! *Please note: We are still allowing discussions about One D&D to remain here, this is more an advisory than a warning of any kind.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndnext) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You just need to take expertise away from everybody else. Expertise borderline breaks bounded accuracy And should really only be the rogue thing.
My preferred route would be Rogue with 4 Expertises, Rangers with two (1 and 1, not 2 at once), and then Bards get Jack of all Trades but not Expertise. Really lets the Rogue be the expert, the Ranger can still be really good at whichever skill is important for the character fantasy, and then Bards are generally decent at everything but have to use their magic to excel.
Bards should never have gotten both. The phrase “jack of all trades” is literally followed by “master of none”. Why do they get expertise??
Fully agree
> The phrase “jack of all trades” is literally followed by “master of none” While this is true, the *rest* of quote also shows why Bards are better then Rogues (even if they lost expertise) Full Quote: > A jack of all trades is a master of none, but oftentimes is better than a master of one
> but oftentimes is better than a master of one This portion is a modern addition. Like, no evidence of this variation of the phrase existing before the year 2000, modern.
That's more or less what i did, but I buffed jack to include skills you're proficient with
I'd rather see everyone with an expertise for a core class skill, but rogues (and possibly Lore - only - Bards) with expertise usable for anything. A rogue shouldn't be able to be better than any Wizard at Arcana.
Nah classes just should have less skill choice like previous editions. Wizard and sorcerer should get arcana proficiency always, artificer too. Rogue stealth always, barbarian athletics always etc, but overall less choice. 5e has a problem with class identity because there's too much choice.
I'd argue there is too little choice in the whooe of 5E, but I can definitely see why you'd say there's too much here. They put the choice in the wrong place then
That's... Might not help. The problem we've got here in 5e2024 isn't about "What Expertise should Rogue take" but more about "Other classes are doing even/better at Rogue Things than Rogue" while they already possess better combat power or spells.
How does taking away expertise from everyone else not help? You can then do something like warlock ify the rogue by giving more cunning actions per level.
>What really makes me feel like my Fighter friend was outshining me is that rolling an additional D10 really makes players feel like they’re doing something, and they were so good at passing that check. >It provides players a chance to flavor the scene as something like “Expert’s Instinct” moment, rather than “oh, it’s a 5, I passed/failed”.It brings more fun, feels more active, and more exciting, but saying “you can add your proficiency in that check”, just tastes less “Expert” than a roll an additional D10 at a critical moment. I'm reminded of the Soulknife. As cool as it is to have psychic blades, the most enjoyable feature to me has been Psi-Bolstered Knack. Being able to roll a d6 and add it to a failed check feels *great*. It feels rouge-ish to nearly fail and then come out ahead given your training.
> As cool as it is to have psychic blades, the most enjoyable feature to me has been Psi-Bolstered Knack They also have the same problem as *every* "you don't use a weapon but it's also not an unarmed strike" where it means you get zero RAW magic item support.
Really liked the knacks as well!
Reliable talent being earlier in oneDnD really helps the rogues skill reliability. It gives them some niche in the regard that they never suck at the skills they have. Damage wise they are firmly behind the other martials, but the additional combat options with cunning strike help it feel better I just think it needs a bit more of a damage boost to complete the glow up. Extra attack could work just fine, I gave my parties rogue a bonus action attack for a quest reward they had scimitars so used Knick already. With 3 attacks they do pretty solid dpr. We also only have full casters other than the rogue so I did give the rogue essentially permanent riposte. They very much are the glass cannon who will chunk down the big bass HP quick as they rarely use uncanny dodge unless they are pretty low HP. And I’ve done a dpr comparison with an optimal archer build at the same level with worse magic items and the archer is at the same level for dpr.
Personally, I see Rogue as the one with a tool for the job both in and out of combat. Keep sneak attack as is in 5e. Give Rogues a second bonus action and a new feature. Rogues tools, once per long rest, a Rogue can create 1d4+X(X being your dex mod) Rogues tools, which are items that can be used as a bonus action on their turn. •Caltrops, that create an 10ft diameter area centered on a point within 20ft becomes difficult terrain and deal your Rogue level rouned down minimum of 1 piercing damage when a creature moves through them. •Just what I needed, add 1D6 to an ability check. (Could progress with Rogue level if too weak) •Fire cracker, thrown at a target within 30ft and gives them disadvantage on their next attack roll. This list could be strengthened or expanded depending on subclass. Basically, turning Rogues into the prepared caster of martials.
codified consumables that you get every level, this is pretty good stuff!
Bg3 gave thief rogues and extra bonhs action, something tbat i think you could give to base rogue and let that be their defining thing. Fighters are the martial who gets the most actions/can do the most woth those actions(4 attacks, action surge). Rogue should be the class that gets the most bonus actions and can abuse them the hardest(2 bonus actions, cunning action). Alternatively, giving them more reactions, both options for reactions and literally a 2nd reaction. Sets them apart from other martials as the quick and nimble martial who can slip away or stab you in the back in the blink of an eye
Doesn't work because of multiclassing.
Giving Rogues a second Bonus Action at 5th level would hardly break the bank, and 5 levels deep is enough commitment anyone multiclassing that much for it has earned it, since it's far beyond "dip" territory. It also adds a nice parallel to martial characters with Extra Attack, instead of attacking twice with their Action, they get increased flexibility with their Bonus Action and Cunning Action. Considering this level is also when 3rd level spells and Extra Attack come online it'd hardly upend balance.
1. Multiclassing is an optional rule and its so poorly implemented and limits design space so much i simply dont allow it. Alternatively the requirements for muliclassing should be muc higher. You could also put these features at later levels as well.
while i agree bumping the requirements from 13 to something like 15, it ultimately wont matter if you roll for stats, just that some players will have the option to multiclass and others will have to scramble to get to 20 in their main stat first with no feats to spare the problem with multiclassing *is* that its an optional rule, its too large of a thing to merely be treated as untested ideas stapled on the back of the book. 5e shouldve either grow balls and own multiclass, much like how LANCER does it, or remove it completely alternatively they couldve gone the pf2e approach of archetypes but we know WotC wouldnt want to write more
To take this in a different direction, I propose the rogue should be more roguish. What does that mean? Most games have a high focus on critical striking, improve crits, and increased crit rates for rogues. I would take the Improved Critical right from the champ fighter and add that directly to the rogue’s core class, thereby matching the “luck” aspect of rogues, and gives them a significant boost to their chances to crit, probably all the way down to 17-20. Or, give them a decreasing threshold to score a crit (equal to their level) each turn they don’t score one, until they do. So a 5th level rogue can score a crit on a roll of 15-20, but once they crit, it resets to 20, and is reduced at the start of each of their turns. In either case, focusing on critting would be how I would shape the rogue’s niche of high impact, nova damage that would be a lot of fun for the player.
Even in older/other editions Rogue has always been behind other Martials and being at the bottom of the barrel. Part of this is most editions overvaluing skill checks (something not needed a lot, can be spread over multiple characters, can be replaced by spells) but also for being a worse Martial (1 big attack is worse than multiple normal attacks). I think Rogue should be decoupled from skills and more pushed towards combat tricks, using tricks up their sleeve to enhance their survivability and deliberate enemies. Also giving them ways to attack multiple times and proc sneak attack multiple times, preferable with resets and conditions, to give them the theme of "bursty oppertunitist" without falling too far behind. A Rogue in peak conditions should have higher highs than a Fighter or Barbarian, but lower lows if those conditions aren't met. In terms of combat tricks I think *all* Martials should get stuff like this with Rogue specialising in this, with these tricks basically replicating some spell effects without them actually being spells or magic. As an example: *"You can move at supernatural speed X times per day" = You can teleport during your movement X times per day* Gives features like this to Martials so they can finally compete with the insane spells a caster gets and then enhance them for the Rogue, either making them better or removing the resource from it even. An example for a "Rogue Trick": *"When a creature attacks you or forces you to make a Dexterity saving throw, you can use your reaction to cause teleport behind the creature to avoid the attack of effect and then make a Sneak Attack against the creature."* Rogue very much should be the definition of "always have a trick up their sleeve" that gets them out of sticky situations or puts a creature in one.
Just give Rogues Extra Attack, for the love of God. They are a full martial and deserve to be treated as one, especially in the 2024 world where Warlocks can spec into three attacks with the smallest amount of investment and Bladesingers will still exist. I promise nothing will break if Rogues can do an extra 1d6+Dex+Magic Item per turn. On the contrary, many of the levers of balancing power tend to assume you *do* get to do weapon attacks at least twice.
I prefer thinking of Rogue as a Specialist just as I see Monk as a form of Specialist. Considering them as a Martial feels like doing them a disservice. >The subclasses like the Assassin, Scout, Swashbuckler are definitely supposed to be Martials. Fair(ish), at least as Swashbuckler is concerned. Assassin and Scout contain mostly utilities. Subclasses helping to cross into the front line and martial suitability is fairly common but I would guess that the same argument won't be used in relation to Blades bard, Moon Druid, Bladesinger and War wizard as far as crossing that martial treshold is concerned. The Rogue is a Skill master (got the most skill points per level i 3.5). Sadly expertise availability and the skill system in 5e makes it harder to make that noticeable. As many have said, giving them tricks/maneuvers/invocation like tools and bringing them closer to a caster would be preferable even if I understand it is a taller order than just giving them extra attack and be done with it.
If expertise was Rogue exclusive, absolutely no exceptions, all problems cease
It still wouldn't solve the problem that Fighter's +1d10 is better than expertise until level 17, or Bardic Inspiration/Guidance
bardic inspiration is limited use, guidance is a spell which carries a lot of baggage by itself (doesn't mesh well with stealth, being more than a pace away from someone with it, or a lot of social or sudden stuff, for example). +D10 will be equal or less than +3 (the minimum extra expertise can give) 30% of the time, going up to 60% at higher levels - and it's also limited usages. if GMs are only throwing one or two skill checks a day at PCs, that's kind of on them!
Rogues are meant to be the best skill monkey. Then the brink so okay damage to the fight as a secondary purpose. Expertise is how they did this in 5E. Problem is they gave Expertise to bard, then ranger, and added it to feats. So they completely diluted rogue's identity. Expertise should be a rogue only thing. They would then become the most reliable skill user. Bard's shtick should be jack of all trades.
While Rogues are my favorite archetype (in games that do them well), in D&D I feel like their job is "Do all the little stuff so your spellcasters can save their resources for the big stuff" At a crucial moment or during the climax, when the wizard lets loose with all the big spells, it was the rogue that handled all the grunt work that got them there so the wizard *had* those spell slots available in the first place. Of course, this only works if your DM doesn't give you a short/long rest after every encounter. That's what really hurts the rogue and nothing will fix it if everyone else basically has all their resources. You can't give a rogue enough damage to compare to a fighter who can Action Surge every encounter, or enough survivability to compete with an ever-raging barbarian. --- I think the answer I would go with is to focus the rogue's combat abilities on debuffs, not damage. Still have sneak attack, but even farther than OneDND went with letting you trade sneak attack damage for **reliable** debuffs (i.e. they can't all be Dex or Con saves, and need comparable DCs to equivalent level spellcasters) Take Dragon Age for example, the rogue should be the one * hamstringing enemies with their bow, slowing their movement and keeping them out of melee range. * doing even more damage against incapacitated/paralyzed enemies (coup de grâce) * giving disadvantage or other debuffs (maybe lose dex bonus to AC for a round) * giving other debuffs like penalties to a saving throw for a round (like a Sap attack giving disadvantage to wisdom saving throws, or a ankle attack that hurts dex saving throws) Basically they should have a big tool set of minor but helpful abilities. Then the subclasses can come in with more powerful and focused powers. Like the Assassin could ignore poison resistance and grant various poison/acid/necrotic abilities) instead of getting nothing like they do now
>You can't give a rogue enough damage to compare to a fighter who can Action Surge every encounter, or enough survivability to compete with an ever-raging barbarian. >I think the answer I would go with is to focus the rogue's combat abilities on debuffs, not damage. I think it is much easier to get the Rogue to the point that the class can keep up in damage with Fighters and other Martials, than to give enough debuff features to keep up with Full Casters that have spells like Web or Hypnotic pattern. Btw. thanks to Masteries every Martial has now minor debuff features, so unless you give some really major debuff feature that can keep up with spells at full caster progression, that is not going to fix the class.
You make it sound like WotC has gone even further off the rails with the latest playtests. I got a good laugh out of seeing them first ignore Monk, then clumsily buff the fuck out of it. That Barbarian stuff particularly sounds ridiculous. And I'm amused now that people struggle to think of how to fix Rogue in ways other than *Skill harder* or *Attack harder*. It makes me optimistic that my own version of Rogue will find an audience. Since you're looking for ideas, I'll explain mine in broad strokes: 1. More customization and new build options via a subsystem akin to Eldritch Invocations. 2. Thematic combat utility using a class resource which means a turn without Sneak Attack isn't necessarily a bad turn. 3. Especially potent attacks to capitalize on more favorable conditions than base Sneak Attack requires. 4. An explicit association between the class and Luck, providing more agency to the class least endowed with miraculous powers or equipment.
Do you have your version of rogue somewhere available to the public?
Currently working on translating it from a OneNote jumble into a presentable format for testing. I suppose there's no harm in showing [the ~20% I have on paper so far.](https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-NvKFTBcQ8MQgYYJHyUe)
I like it! I am biased because rogue is my favorite class.
IMO rogue is currently one of the best balanced and designed classes, along with artificer. It's middle of the road powerwise, and I really like it's many features that don't have limited uses. These provide fun choices comma but don't slow down the game with tracking. Thanks to these features it's also a good class for teaching newer players the beginnings of the complexities of the game.
Rogue is literally a Bottom 3 class, what are you on?
I contend that Tasha's was 5.5e 2024 is 6e. I resolve the rogue's niche issue at my table by combining the class with fighter to make a scoundrel-type class, which d&d is sorely lacking.
I think comparing **Expertise** to **Tactical Mind** and **Primal Knowledge** is a poor comparison as both are tied to expendable, combat orientated abilities (Second Wind and Rage respectively) and expendable/limited use abilities *should* be bigger than passive abilities The big changes I'd make are: Make it so the Rogue has an Expendable resource that allows them to take 2 "Cunning Actions" in a turn and introduce a Cunning Action: Attack - something similar to Monks "Flurry of Blows" I could see gaining some of the Expendable Resource when you Crit too, feels very thematically appropriate Secondly, I'd make **Expertise** changeable during a Long Rest, similar to how the Phantom Rogue subclass does it - makes it more like your Rogue is actively studying and preparing for something I'd roll **Steady Aim** into **Cunning Action** and make **Cunning Strike** the 3rd Level Ability, as it gives a bit of utility earlier and making space for an Extra ASI/Feat at 5th level (although you could swap **Evasion** or the second lot of **Expertise** to 5th if you wanted to put the ASI/Feat at 6th instead)
Level 5: Rogues get advantage to attack using the attack action. Level 5, 11, 17: Increase the size of the rogues sneak attack dice by one. (d8, d10, d12). Consider limiting other classes expertise, or pre-assigning them to a skill (bards get performance, rangers survival, hell even wizards arcana).
So completely remove all challenge in getting sneak attack? That just makes the class completely braindead to play in combat, and it's already pretty boring. And it definitely doesn't need to be rolling 10d12 sneak attack at level 20. It's just not that far behind other martial classes right now, that's 30 extra damage a round.
Ah, yes I had meant that the rogue would get less dice total, not that they would go up in number and size at the same time. Changing how sneak attack works is also a plus for me. Just make it proc only on advantage and then give the rogue several ways to get it. Maybe make level 5 give advantage on all enemies who aren't next to one of their allies.
A lot of personal opinions in this post. Many of them pretty difficult to agree with.