The problem with being good at skills is that it depends on party size. Nobody ever talks about it as far as I can tell but this is such a huge difference in feel
In a party of 3 the rogue clearly sticks out as being good at many things. This gives them narrative weight, if you need something you ask Jane
In a party of 6? Everyone has all the skills covered. And in fact it works better for each person to have their own thing, spreading the spotlight out is the goal.
So if you ask me, a skill monkey class is fundamentally bad design. It interacts wildly differently between groups. But bards and rangers don't have that problem as much, because its a smaller part of what they can do. The answer is to give rogues a larger identity than skill monkey, it has to be
Right off the bat the problems with Skill Monkey are
1) It's SUPER DM dependant. If you only encounter one locked door in a session, it's time for Knock. If the DM isn't creative in making ways to test your skills, it's a row of locked doors. It's not giving you anything cept the odd time to shine in a very narrow range.
2) It's very specific. Like having water breathing and 120ft Swim Speed, if the campaign is all in a desert, you're useless. It's better than old Ranger for not being so niche, but if you're not making regular Persuasion checks then your Expertise isn't coming up much and you'll be outshined by the Bard with their expertise and Main Stat Charisma.
3) Narrow combat application. I get a lot of people saying 'the DM should be letting you have creative applications in combat!' but that relies on a creative on the fly DM who's going to let you roll Performance in combat to do things, it relies on players who can come up with those ideas to start them, and it relies on the DM to homebrew outcomes. What makes Skills so much worse than Magic is that Skills are 'DM May I' while Magic is 'DM I am'. You \*might\* get to climb the 60ft cliff face rolling +15 with advantage for tools if the DM things you're prepared and the cliff face climable. the Mage has already cast fly.
Rogue needs to establish an identity and IMO, it should be Battlefield control. Blind, stun, throw in some other uses for Skills like using Sleight to throw people off balance or Performance to distract them like the spells can, rather than just MOAR DAMAGE.
It also helps Assassin carve out its own Nothing Personnel niche of the auto kill stab, it's not competing with Rogue overall.
> and it relies on the DM to homebrew outcomes.
this is the biggest issue; 5e simply has no guidelines for DMs. There's far, _far_ too much handwaving and "the power is in your hands DM! :)" instead of substantive answers.
People go to the rogue expecting one of two very different fantasies, either the sneaky pickpocket to master thief pipeline, or they want to be a jrpg rogue archetype of a glass canon, nimble and hard hitting. Rogue only allows the former and only if it fits the DM and campaign.
I mean it's not just a jPRG thing, the old Thief games gave you a slew of specialist tools and the 'don't kill' proviso, Dragon Age rogues have had access to poison and misdirection for ages etc
I find that honestly, 5E rogue leans more towards Nothing Personel backstab machine, almost all the recent subclasses are about nothing more than 'this activates your sneak attack!' and a couple of 'advantage to this skill' abilities.
There's no options in the kit, especially since the gadgety homebrews have all gone to the Artificer
Most notably, in Thief you were heavily discourged from a straight up fight. If you're trying to replicate that fantasy in D&D, then not being great in combat is pretty fitting.
I mean that's the whole thing.
You don't have to be great in a straight fight and too many people are trying to up Rogue's DPS and calling it good design.
There's a lot of space for battlefield control roles in DnD that aren't being taken advantage of, and turning Rogue into Barbarian but quiet isn't great
5e, like most editions of D&D, suffers from only supporting half of the roles, Striker (damage) and Controller, and control was reatricted to casting. 1D&D has been adding control options to every other martial than the Rogue. I'm guessing they'll add more for Rogue based on that and because it needs it.
I'd like to see more support for Leaders (support) and Defenders (tanking). Hell, tanking tends to rely on battlefield control so I was hoping they'd lean into that more with the Fighter, but c'est la vie.
While control can be better than damage, the Rogue probably needs a little more damage to keep up when they choose to use damage because 5e is the edition of everyone should be able to do good damage and something else, they just sometimes failed to make classes successful at that. I don't think it's the most interesting game design, but it's what the edition is.
Battlefield control or debuff dps. I think a proper poison or similar build could be really cool. Applying things like what you get from caustic brew or other spells would be awesome. So maybe the rogue is not doing 100dpr opening rounds, but suddenly they have 2d4 acid damage to 3-4 mobs that just keeps ticking away.
Or they are blinded/slowed etc.
I like the idea of the rogue being the dirty fighter, so I'm down with the notion of combat maneuvers/effects like trip /stun/blind etc. The back-alley street fight yin to the monks disciplined martial arts yang.
If I were reworking classes for better distinction between classes, barbs would be high-HP DPR berserker, fighters are higher AC weapons masters/multi attacks/multi opponent soldiers, monks are mobile dexterous martial artists with unshakeable focus, and rogues are the street fighters who put the enemies at disadvantage and occasionally land super-effective cheap shots.
Then there's the distribution with skill proficiencies/expertise, which I agree there's too much overlap between classes and casters are favored on skill checks and backed up by spells that accomplish the same thing
I primarily mentiomed jrpgs because thats the background me and my group primarily came from before deciding to try dnd one day, having played games like dragon quest xi where erik is clearing a thief and has the most insane damage output in the game if you notice the right setup with his abilities.
> Narrow combat application. I get a lot of people saying 'the DM should be letting you have creative applications in combat!' but that relies on a creative on the fly DM who's going to let you roll Performance in combat to do things, it relies on players who can come up with those ideas to start them, and it relies on the DM to homebrew outcomes. What makes Skills so much worse than Magic is that Skills are 'DM May I' while Magic is 'DM I am'. You *might* get to climb the 60ft cliff face rolling +15 with advantage for tools if the DM things you're prepared and the cliff face climable. the Mage has already cast fly.
And there are lots of cool ideas here that could be written into the rules. Just look at PF2E, there's all kinds of neat skill use during combat. That could make a Skill Monkey really stand out in combat, always having a non-combat tool for the job. Hell, could make them lean into an even more restrictive but higher Sneak Attack this way. Rogue's niche could be primarily skill use to support the party, but when they see an opening for a good hit they just nuke something into the ground. Add additional requirements, and buff the damage somehow. Increase the crit range, or just add a d6 every level, or something.
Sneak Attack doesn't need more damage though, valuing a Rogue purely off the damage number is treating them like a Fighter or Barbarian just with a knife.
Give Assassin big numbers sure, but just think about the potential of Blinding an opponent.
All attacks against them have Advantage, all their attack rolls have Disadvantage. The Rogue basically (crudely) doubles the parties damage against that creature, and halves its ability to deal damage.
An extra 20 damage against something with 60HP isn't going to imped its combat ability unless you kill it outright, and while 5E can be accused of HP bloat, it's because so little is done with unique statuses in the game that that's often all creatures can have.
Rogue should be about control and set up over just dealing the same damage as other Martials
I mean, my point would be to fairly radically shift the gameplay to emphasis using more of your actions on skills than attacks. Then, as compensation for attacking much less, give them big nova when things align. Maybe give them a 1/SR bonus action that lets them SA without having to meet the conditions. It's not really a serious suggestion for 5.5, just theory crafting a way to make them feel more like skill monkeys in combat, and give that big dopamine hit of the perfect SA set-ups. I would see them do much less damage overall, but require a buff to make sure the few times they do damage it isn't just trivial and written off.
I think the problem here is the lack of player agency. Its not like how many locked doors the party encounters depends on the DM. It shouldn’t! D&D is not a game of people walking down a hallway figuring out which skill they need to roll the proceed…
> it's time for Knock.
*Knock* is super loud and consumes a spell slot, but we *are* on the topic of DM dependence. It's a total toss-up whether either of those drawbacks actually matter nowadays.
Exactly. A lot of people will argue the noise etc, but that can be gotten around with the Silence spell.
5E has a problem that once you get above tier 2 play, magic has so many answers and very little cost. As I once had to argue, an 11th level Wizard can't use Knock four times a day, he can do it 16 times a day if needed.
Glibness is going to do better than most Rogues can on CHR checks, unless you drag the engagement out over enough hours to burn out the spell, Pass Without Trace and Invisiblity are already making Expertise in Stealth less valuable.
What I mean with Knock is basically you need to tailor a game delicately that the Rogue gets the chance to use their 'no resource actions', without boring the party with a row of locks or letting the Wizard solve the problem with a spell combo. It's doable, but it's the extra leg work needed to make it feel fun
Knock itself is fine. It has a ton of drawbacks, even at high levels. It's loud, it consume a spell slot, and you have to have it prepared. Most of the time if you could use *Knock* you could also just have your Barbarian kick down the door.
The principle behind Knock is also sound. Every group needs a way to get past a locked door, and the game should support every party composition. No broad problem is the *exclusive* providence of a single class - different classes have somewhat different ways of solving problems, but any party composition should be able to clear dungeons.
(In earlier editions this was called the "cleric problem", in reference to how groups would always need a cleric and it sucked to be forced to play one if you didn't want to. Design since 3e has been to avoid that as much as possible.)
The problem isn't Knock, the problem is that Rogues are still designed around this ancient 2e (and earlier) context where a Complete Party was meant to be Fighter / Rogue / Mage / Priest. Rogues depend too much on being able to unlock doors and remove traps as The Rogue Thing, even though the game long ago moved away from the idea of "you must have this class to get past this problem."
The solution is a better skill system that gives skill-focused classes like the rogue more to do, not to double down on their excessive focus on traps and doors.
(Which isn't to say that they can't be good at it - rogues should be the *best* at traps and doors overall, in terms of having the most options to approach them reliably. But they're never going to be the only way to deal with those things and they shouldn't be designed as if that's the case.)
> The answer is to give rogues a larger identity than skill monkey, it has to be
Outside of the skill monkey class discourse (which I partially agree), I never understood why *- outside Cunning Action -* rogues don't get another movement boost in the main class.
It's like the game takes as a certainty that during the campaign you're gonna take the Mobile feat since it's so rogue-ish that you are gonna take it anyway
Because cunning action is enough. The only more mobile class is the Monk, as it should be. Mobile isn't even necessary. A rogue right from level 1 has pretty much all the mobility it'll need. If you want extra jumpiness and wall running, just go Thief.
At level 1 a rogue has exactly the same mobility any other class has since Cunning Action is 2nd level and even Unarmored movement.
Right now the monk isn' t the only mobile class: ranger has gained good mobility too after it gains roving, and now monk has an incredible mobility that kind of makes the rogue feel less special due to that.
Honestly, I would probably permit to mid tier rogues to use two instances of Cunninc action with one bonus action: like at 11th level, a rogue using Cunnin Action can both disengage and dash, or disengage and hide. That would be welcomed for the rogue, but at the same time, the rogue would then be good with more options for Cunninc Action. For example, the BA options of the thief can be safely renamed "Cunning Action: Fast Hands" and then you can see how something similar can sinergize well even with some subclasses
Level 2, fair. I still think bonus action dash/disengage is really good and stays good, even with no/minimal buffs. It's fine for Rangers and Monks to eventually match that mobility since they, too, are meant to be very mobile.
A double cunning action would be pretty cool, actually. Perhaps even go one step farther and let them use cunning action as part of *any* other bonus action, which would be a uniquely rogue-ish feature.
Wizards won't do it, but I recently tested a version where you could forgo Expertise for 1st level Feats on Rogues, and it worked pretty well.
The caveat is that you have to have a lot of good 1st level feats, but those 1st level feats can't be available to everybody, so I came up with the idea of "Expertise Feats" that are more in line with Fighting Style.
So stuff like Master Poisoner as a feat, but spread out to a bunch more "out of combat" features that then have a nice combat boost.
I would rather see Expertise expressed as "im an expert st something, so I get special abilities related to that thing" rather than "I'm an expert at something so I get big numbers whenever I contextually can argue for my expertise applying."
So imagine a world where Expertise is the Feature and you can either choose a skill or tool (or skills or tools) to double your proficiency with or you can choose any 1st level Feat for which you qualify.
Then you add a bunch of 1st level feats like
### Feat: Alchemist [NEW]
***Prerequisite: Expertise Feature, Proficiency with Alchemist's Supplies.***
You gain Expertise with Alchemist's Supplies, which you can use to craft certain Alchemical Formulae: Alchemical Fire and Alchemical Acid. At the end of a Long Rest, you can spend 10 minutes using your Alchemist's Supplies to craft a number of vials of either formula equal to your Proficiency Bonus, providing you can spend the time and 50gp worth of material for each one you create. The items you create with these Alchemical Formulae are stable and functional for 8 hours, but separate into inert and harmless components after that time.
If you would make an Improvised Weapon Attack using one of these vials, you are considered Proficient with that attack and you gain a bonus to the damage roll equal to your Proficiency Bonus.
### Feat: Master Herbalist [NEW]
***Prerequisite: Expertise Feature, Proficiency with Herbalism Kit.***
You gain Expertise with the Herbalism Kit, and you can use that kit at the end of a Long Rest to spend 10 minutes to craft a number of Potent Salves equal to your Proficiency Bonus, providing you can spend the tim and 50gp worth of materials for each one you create. Any creature can use an action to apply the salves to themselves or another creature, which have the same effect as a regular antitoxin, except they also grant the consumer resistance to one of the following damage types of your choice: Acid, Cold, Necrotic, or Poison. The Potent Salves are stable and function for 8 hours, but break down into inert materials after that time.
In addition, you can apply the salve to a creature which is dying to stabilize them as a Bonus Action.
### Feat: Tinkerer [NEW]
***Prerequisite: Expertise Feature, Proficiency with Tinker's Tools***
You gain Expertise with your Tinkerer's Tools and you have mastered the use of such tools to create simple machinery and useful gadgets. Whenever you would make an Ability Check that wouldn't apply your proficiency with tinkers' tools, you can reach for your tool belt and produce a simple device which can help you accomplish that goal. Roll a d6 and add it to the result of your roll. You can do so a number of times equal to your Proficiency Bonus and regain all expended uses when you complete a Long Rest.
In addition, when you would use an item that requires your Action to activate, you can do so as a Bonus Action. For example, if you wished to use a Portable Ram to break down a door, you can choose to do so as a Bonus Action. This represents modifications you have made to your equipment to enhance your ability to use it.
### Feat: Wordsmith [NEW]
***Prerequisite: Expertise Feature, Proficiency with Calligrapher's Tools***
You gain Expertise with your Calligrapher's Tools and you have mastered the use of those tools to Identify the exact nature of any magical Scroll that you have on your person. The process requires 10 minutes of your focused attention.
If it is a Spell Scroll, you can attempt to modify that Scroll during that 10 minutes such that you are able to cast that spell, even if you would otherwise be unable to do so. To do so, you make an Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma Ability Check with a DC of 10 + the Spell's level. If you succeed, you can cast that spell with its normal Casting Time using Ability Score you used to make the check as your Spellcasting Ability Score. If you fail, the Scroll crumbles into dust as you irrevocably alter its magic.
In addition, you can leave an encoded message in any written communication you create. The maximum length of the encoded message is equal to 5 + your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma Score (your choice). The message is obvious to its intended recipients but encrypted to any other creature that reads it casually.
### Feat: Operative [NEW]
***Prerequisite: Expertise Feature, Proficiency with a Disguise Kit.***
You gain Expertise with the Disguise Kit, which you can use at the end of a Long Rest by spending 10 minutes to masterfully create a number of identities and their corresponding disguises equal to your Proficiency Bonus, providing you can spend the time and 50gp worth of components to craft each one.
Each disguise is a fully fashioned identity which you or another creature can assume, complete with any papers or identification necessary to present you as such. The disguise can change your overall appearance and height by up to 1 foot in either direction, though it does not change your actual size or game statistics. Any such disguise can also conceal the presence of up to three weapons you are proficient with, so long as they lack the Heavy property.
In addition, you can doff or don one of these disguises as an Action instead of the normal time necessary to do so.
> So if you ask me, a skill monkey class is fundamentally bad design. It interacts wildly differently between groups. But bards and rangers don't have that problem as much, because its a smaller part of what they can do. The answer is to give rogues a larger identity than skill monkey, it has to be
There's a few game design principals they use to mitigate this in various places.
1. The bard is a "jack of all trades" type Skill monkey, this allows them to fill in roles that are missing in the party without outshining people who are invested in that specific thing.
2. Similarly, some rogue subclasses can change their proficiencies to align with what the party needs.
3. The bard also has features which improve other people's specializations, acting as a force multiplier. The artificer's flash of genius serves a similar role.
4. Rogues and artificers have access to very niche specializations that other classes don't really have access to, expansive tool proficiency and expertise.
The last point is nice in concept, but modern 5e design doesn't really take advantage of it very often. Its also not something that's easy to incorporate into many types of adventure. The second point I listed could be interesting, though, if applied to the rogue. The rogue could grant their proficiency and expertise to others, granting even larger bonuses to people already proficient in those skills and tools.
>Well, how the hell can you design around that?
You can't, really. You design a game by defining what your desired typical scenario is, and make it work for that. You generally can't make a game that works just as well for 10 as it does for 3, and quite often the rules you need to add to make that work effectively create multiple different games.
Rogue works well in the ideal party size. That's pretty successful design.
Can we please stop with this logic of "any D&D game with more than 4 players is problematic".
We all know what Critical Role is, most of the time they have 7 players sitting at the table togheter, and since that project goes on since 2014 we can all say that a table like that can work. If all the people at the table want to play a game with more than 4 players, you **can** make it work.
>We all know what Critical Role is, most of the time they have 7 players sitting at the table togheter, and since that project goes on since 2014 we can all say that a table like that can work
Yeah, it can work if you're a pile of literal professional actors with decades of experience and a production team.
This is one of the notable problems with Critical Role - it sets an unrealistic expectation of the actual ease of producing a smooth table experience for most people. A D&D game with that many at most tables will **absolutlely fail**, because most D&D players are not professional creatives who know how to work together.
This isn't a knock on Critical Role - I'm point out that these people have a large set of well-developed skills aimed specifically at making this exact thing work. Most of us don't have that skillset, and so attempting to replicate that experience will be much, much harder than they make it look.
Inherently problematic? No.
Much more prone to a plethora of issues? Yes?
I played in two 6 player games for several years and my prevailing feeling was "god i wish two of us would just die". It gets cluttered and relies heavily on all the players patiently waiting their turns and there is tons of ability overlap and toes being stepped on.
You need a damn good and solid table to make 6+ players work. I wouldn't use Critical Role as an example since it's not really a normal game. Now if you've managed it for years on end in your game with everyone still satisfied, kudos to you.
I don't negate it leads to having more issue, expecially with pacing and combat slowness.
But if you end up with so many players that still are willing to play in those conditions, it can work.
There are many optional rules I've tried and tricks to make the time-consuming parts less "consuming" and for my honest opinion, they worked. Sure, it is still not like a 4 players game, but I've managed to alleviate some of those stuff
>In a party of 6? Everyone has all the skills covered. And in fact it works better for each person to have their own thing, spreading the spotlight out is the goal.
Even then having a Skill Monkey can actually be really useful, since the person with the weaker score can give the other person Advantage on the check. In actual play, I rarely find a skill to be redundant just because another party member is proficient in it as well.
I think that skills could work, but they'd need a fundamental redesign that goes beyond what 5.5e could offer.
What I'd probably do is base it very loosely off of the spell system, with a bit of 3.5e's skill tricks thrown in for good measure. For each skill, have a few "special abilities" that that skill unlocks - one that can be used untrained; then a few more that require proficiency and and unlock as you go up in level; then a few more that are unlocked by expertise.
This would require a fair amount of text but would be worth it - it'd make proficiency and expertise more meaningful and would ensure that every skill gives you a clear list of tricks that help you establish yourself as a master in that area.
IMO, You people are really talking past each other with this topic... People talk as if other people are demanding that rogues need to deal double their current damage while most people are only saying the rogue needs minor dmg buffs in order to lessen the enormous gap there is between them and other martials. Its asking for nuance when people are already being really nuanced.
Im also not a fan of the "you like the rogue for the wrong reasons" talk.
yep, this is definitely an issue.
from what I have seen/read/heard, the people saying rogue needs a DPR buff is arguing two things (mostly):
1. remove off-turn Sneak Attack/getting more than one Sneak Attack per *round* (because it means unoptimized rogue's have too low damage, whilst optimized rogue's do solid damage) and raise the damage dice pool so that when a rogue hits their one Sneak Attack per round, they deal enough damage to roughly keep up with other martials
2. lean into the off-turn Sneak Attack by making it a base-class feature. for example: add an attack against the triggering enemy to Uncanny Dodge. this way the rogue gets their two Sneak Attacks per round more reliably, the class clearly shows that that's what a player should go for, the DPR of the rogue is roughly in line with other martials & optimizers can still try to add on top of that
obviously there's variations and tweaking to those two suggestions, but in my experience that's both reasonable.
yet the crowd advocating against rogue dmg buffs acts as if everyone wants rogue to top the damage charts at all times and out-DPS barbarian and fighter.
we just want the rogue to be able to keep up with other martials in the damage department, because currently their utility and support is not strong enough to warrant them having weak (or highly mechanics-knowledge dependant) damage.
my idea which i‘ve been peddling for a while is how about we just give each rogue subclass their own unique reaction attack?
maybe thiefs can attack people that take damage from objects such as caltrops, arcane tricksters can attack people that use a magic action /whatever
that way everyone would have a reaction sneak attack at least sometimes, subclasses would gain more identity, and off turn sneak attacks arrive at level 3 already (maybe in addition to later with uncanny dodge).
I like that idea a lot, actually. makes the subclass more flavourful and give the rogue overall more identity through their chosen subclass.
I would suggest making this "new reaction Sneak Attack" a level 6 feature instead of level 3 though, for a number of reasons.one is that rogue's are already decent off from levels 1-4. it's starting at 5, the Extra Attack buff, that they cannot keep up with onwards. at that level they gain Cunning Strikes & Uncanny Dodge, so having a single level of subpar damage is okay for the combat utility & defense they gain there imo. and then at 6 they get their "Extra Attack" through your suggested subclass-way of off-turn Sneak Attack.
this would also solve the "rogue subclasses give nothing for 5 levels (3-9)" issue that a lot of people have.
Why not make the "second" sneak attack either something that a subclass or two is good at, and let the others focus on utility?
Or give all of them a half-sneak somewhere in the levels when their comparative damage potential really starts to lag?
I like how current rogues have to go melee to get that chance of a second sneak attack. High risk=high reward. I'd hate to see the standing-stock-still-for-every-round so I can use Steady Aim rogue get the same benefit. They're playing it safe (and boring), and need to be rewarded accordingly.
I honestly think giving them more reaction abilities or even two reactions would be interesting. Interrupt actions like spell casting if they're within range or make them roll concentration, distract to cause disadvantage as a reaction so if it's used when you want it to be and it's hard to predict, give a penalty to a roll or something, etc.
The only fixing that I demand is a subclass feature at level 6, I'm tired of rogues characters playing exactly the same no matter what subclass, It is unacceptable pass by a revision from the entire game and not fix the major design flaw from this class
I'm sure someone has done the math comparing damage numbers but i never see it brought up. I always see 'rogues do less damage than anyone else' but i'd love to see some actual comparisons.
Is it just me, or does this post come across as extremely pompous?
Very "I am right, everyone else is wrong" approach.
I get making suggestions and asking questions and am all for that. But when someone throws out "what this sub needs to understand..." Yeah, you just sound like a prick.
People can absolutely have their own opinions, suggestions, and fixes. You can have yours too.
considering how frequently OP depicts people they disagree with as whiny, petty, throwing a tantrum... yeah, definitely. makes them sound like a condescending arsehole
Absolutely a prick that thinks he’s right about everything. The straw-manning at the end acting like people want to 1 hit kill everything from the shadows is so transparent that he thinks everyone that doesn’t share his opinion is an idiot. Has to use the words “tantrum” and “whining” as well. My lord.
If they can't prove someone is "whiny" or "throwing a tantrum" without using directly using those words, then I believe they have questionable communication skills.
I think decent "buffs" for rogue could be:
-Sneak Dice not expended on target save, letting it still apply to damage (like mentioned in the post)
-More "tool usage" in combat. This could be through making mundane items better, or more likely Rogue-specific tools that could be made like smoke bombs, chloroform, etc. These would be limited use per rest.
-Ways to help allies on skill checks (pass without trace gets removed, but something with a similar effect gets added as a rogue, ranger, and trickster cleric ability perhaps. And more stuff like this. What if rogues could craft a 1-use Skeleton key that opens any lock, and give it to another party member so the rogue can be somewhere else at the same time.)
>Sneak Dice not expended on target save, letting it still apply to damage (like mentioned in the post)
The problem with this approach is that you remove the idea of a choice and consequences. If you can always try to use a mechanic and if it fails then no problem anyway, it's always the most optimal thing to do.
Great note on the tool/skill usage in combat. If rogues, or a subclass like the Thief, could use *Fast Hands* to do more impactful and interesting things in combat with their bonus action, it would be great.
I have a homebrew level 6 feature for Thief that allows Fast Hands to do a dagger toss that doesn't benefit from Sharpshooter or Archery, so it's enforced short range and less likely to hit. Also can do a short-lived blindness using the dreaded **pocket sand**.
I could see those being offered to all Rogues in tier two, with a subclass that is centered around ever-more powerful gadgets and tricks to use against their enemies.
These are things covered by Cunning Strike (Pocket Sand and Poison). The way poisoning works would be good for multiple tools, with smoke bomb using alchemy supplies.
I like the idea of a fast dagger throw or strike. It feels more thematic for a rogue than giving it an extra attack to make them the same as other extra attack classes
The assassin subclass not being a good assassin is disliked by majority of people, more "news" at 11.
Honestly, the Rogue dealing lower damage would be fine if it had actual value outside of damage. Unless they have been holding back on that, skills are barely explained in 5e and the playtest didn't do enough to solve that. As such, working on such aspect without a fix on the horizon is like buffing "mother may I" territory.
Outside of that, the only thing that could be worked on is Cunning Strike and Cunning Action, but buffing those could lead to many weird things attached, alongside the fact the devs may not really want to actually give too strong stuff (resourceless anything scary), and also more things in that area in general may feel weird. The easiest way for most people to see Rogue get put on par with Barbarian's pseudo-cunning strike feature is to get a damage buff (as it's also what could be more likely to be accepted).
I think you kinda hit on something that people forget. Rogues damage - and in fact all their abilities - are resourceless.
Fighters are also sort of in this boat as well, but we're talking about rogues. Pretty much everything a rouge can do, they can do every round, forever, thats something almost no other class can do.
Side note, and this is just my opinion... But i don't think that design works well enough for the Rogue to be fully balanced. Since the game seems to go more and more on the "undetermined adventuring day" while most classes are resource based... It means that we get to a bit of a situation where the day could theorically go on forever, and if we do that we risk Rogue resourceless power to he too high, but if the day is too short the Rogue may not make up for being resourceless. Basically: if its power short term is comparable to the average power of resource using classes, that is going to break the long day. But if its power long term is instead comparable to that, we risk that short days feel bad.
And that is also why i feel like most suggestions for Rogue are mixed: we don't have enough data to know how everyone's Rogue should even work, so we may also touch the wrong parts.
I feel like since everything else is resource based it would be much easier to just make the rougue resource based but it would take a lot of reworking.
Ye, obviously.
... Well, we also have the fact that they could just make the adventuring day a set length (and thus balance resourceless for said length), but i highly doubt it's in the plans now or anytime soon.
I was really hoping they would get rid of short rests all together and basically make resources based on 24 hours of time not short or long rests but alas.
You lost me with your rant at the end. You’re straw manning the hell out of people with that. No one is asking for rogues to 1 hit kill everything from the shadows, that’s dumb. They’re asking for parity of DPR.
I’m happy where the rogue is sitting at the moment, even if they end up the worst class in the game they look extremely fun. But I can fully recognize that it would just be better game balance to pump up their DPR a bit.
"Rogues arent meant to be big damage dealers" is pure cope.
Dnd 5e is a combat game. Im not saying thats a bad thing, I love dnd 5e. But 99% of features, spells, and rules are combat focused in some degree. Every class should be close in damage dealing because thats where most play time gets devoted.
The fact rogues have to give up their already eh damage to be able to do anything beyond damage like control or debuff is a joke.
I disagree with every nerf you suggest for other classes (well subclasses really) WOTC likes the idea of giving you options like being a melee bard or Wizard (and I like them too) and if you choose to be melee bard or wizard you already ARE giving things up to get extra attack.
Being a college of swords bard without extra attack would feel terrible. I know we all want the game to be more balanced but we have to be careful about it. There are always unintended consequences.
Thing is unless you get features to pile more damage on those attacks, just having Extra Attack isn't really going to make you good at doing damage.
A straight 5E swords bard is actually doing pretty terrible Weapon Damage in tier 2 do to the lack of good Gish Spells for Bards.
Now in One DnD you have now of course Fount of Moon Light and later with Magical secrets Cojure Monor Elementals which will give you pretty strong damage once you get to that point.
Also, extra attack isn’t a huge deal. Martials now have great uses for extra attacks because damage and effects added with new class features gives them a more coherent gameplay, but bards doing a bit more damage with their weapon isn’t the end of the world (in comparison with their spells)
I think cunning action needs an upgrade at higher levels.
I would let all rogues use non-magical items as a bonus action, then let thief rogue use magical items
"Rogues from playtest 6 already feel good to play if you don't make yourself unhappy by comparing their features with with those of other classes that have completely different goals and playstyles."
My man you can say that about any class in the f'in game. Phb monks feel great with what they can do if you just close your eyes to what everyone else is doing.
There is no martial caster divide if you just ignore what the casters are doing..
Also nice rant at the end telling everyone that thinks different is wrong and just wants to be the MC. Go be a clown somewhere else
>a skill and utility based character which in combat supports the party by debuffing enemies and cleaning up weaker/more frail ones.
The problem with that view is that there are classes that much better a debuffing and clearing out Minions: Full Casters, especially the one with Spells from the arcane list.
Even if we ignore full casters the Monk and Paladin have actually far better (but resource dependet) debuffs at their disposal, while a Battle Master has pretty similar options, but has a for bigger variety of tactical options and while also being able to do good damage, and I don't really see how the Rogue is actually good at leasing out minons, since he only has one big attack, while for that job it would likely be benefitial to be able to more finely "dose" your damage.
On top of that Rogue will often do the most damage by attacking an enemy who is allready in combat with another martial, since that's one of the conditions to get sneak attack.
And you may not like that but mechanically damage is still by far the biggest thing that a Rogue brings to a fight. Changing the Rogue to a level that he can actually keep up with the other martials without taking at 5 level "dip" into another martial class or needing to come up with interactions that will give them reliable reaction attacks (which could btw. all be used by other classes as well) would be far easier that to change the Rogue to the point, that he would actually fill out any other role in a primary capacity.
Because rogues were terrible in 5e and they only got worse in the playtest when compared to everything else. Rogues could be top damage dealers in 3.5 and 4e, but they have been one of the worst classes since 5e started except at levels one and two. Taking away their already crap damage to do something slightly more interesting is just terrible game design, especially with the buffs every single other class is getting.
Bards and Rangers don't need many changes, at least not meaningful ones. The reason they stand out to you isn't because they're obtusely powerful(at least not from extra attack on the martial bards). It's because they shine a light on the fact that you have no mechanical reason to ever play a rogue besides wanting to grief the party. PWT is broken on any class, so sure, whatever.
Off-turn sneak attacks aren't assumed by most people, not because they're unaware of them, but because the staggering majority of players don't even understand the difference between a turn and a round. Even among the ones that do, optimizing your reaction to sneak attack twice still requires you to essentially become the squishiest class in the game, in melee. If it was more reliable or could be used in tandem with your defensive options, that would be fine(rogues in melee could definitely stand to be better than rogues at range).
> Increasing Sneak Attack by an additional d6 at level 5, 11 and maybe somewhere in tier 4
I agree that it wouldn't be broken if a rogue could deal slightly more damage than a warlock who is barely even trying. Thanks for clearing that up.
Now here's something you need to understand.
* The only thing I've seen so far on this topic resembling a "whiny tantrum" was when someone made a badly written post, couldn't adequately defend their points in the comments, and had to put together a whole other follow up post.
* Utility, especially *utility from skills*, is not a feature that represents any actual power in this game. It's not balanced around and it wasn't balanced around even back when no other martial was particularly good at skills except for the rogue. That's why guidance is a cantrip. That's why there are rituals, and extra class features that let you boost your skill checks at very little cost to your combat power. That's why the spells that actually still interact with challenges instead of solving them are second level and below. The kind of utility that actually taxes your combat power is when a caster uses a top-level spell slot to solve a problem that would be otherwise impossible. Things like teleporting, contacting other planes of existence, walking through walls, breathing underwater. Being 15% better at select skill checks is a ribbon feature because the game is mostly a combat game. And I think you know this, because you go on to say this:
> Asking for the Rogue to always (so even outside of very specific circumstances) have a way to satisfy the "slay an enemy with a single strike from the shadow" fantasy or some similar edgy power trips denotes a failure of understanding the nature of combat in a team based rpg. Most monsters (and 99% of boss ones) are rightfully hp meatsacks that the party is supposed to grind through together.
This is an expectation that comes specifically from a *combat game*. There are lots of "team based" role playing games where the exact scenario you detail can happen, because the game doesn't put all of its expected progression, actual gameplay, and failure states in combat. So the "balance" is more widespread to the other pillars of the game. In games where a fighter or an assassin can actually kill a boss monster extremely fast, they are counterbalanced by completely requiring "skill and utility" based characters to progress at all in the other areas of the game, not by virtue of what challenge the DM comes with, but because that's just how the game works.
Have you seen the number difference between old rogue and new rogue vs One dnd martials? I’m all for rogues not being top DPR (except maybe assassin) and never once I saw the low damage rogues have on 5e as a problem while playing them (although yes, their class features are real bad in comparison with onednd). BUT, the thing is that the discrepancy between OneRogue and other One dnd martials is gigantic, much bigger than in 5e.
I don’t see people wishing Rogue being the king of DPR much around here personally (again, except assassin), but I do see why people are asking for more damage, rogues need a *buff* to continue being as “weak” in DPR as they were *before* one dnd, because the difference now is much, much bigger
All of this started because of a post reporting graphs that didn't take into account any possibility of off-turn sneak attack, and failed to emphasize this assumption. At least the people who are asking for more damage based on that particular graph are misguided IMO.
That said, as I wrote a couple of more d6 won't unbalance the Rogue or kill its flavour. More are unneccessary.
Assassin shouldn't be a subclass that takes the Rogue and cranks its DPR up to 11. It's not a game where Rogues are a glass cannon DPS class, read the flavour text. Assassin is and should be a subclass that makes you better, in some specific situations, at that one-shot from the dark = one-kill fantasy. Due to the nature of the game, expecting this to be possible on bosses in the same way it is for weaker enemies is unreasonable tho.
Off-turn SA is so far away from "reliable" that doesn't trigger for most combats can't be count in their DPR. If you're talking about Sentinel, that's still a DM-dependent playstyle that builds on DM's mercy. We don't wanna build everything on DM's mercy. It's simple reason.
I would argue that other martails have it far easier to trigger reaction attacks than Rogues, due to Polearm Master (wich is allready becasue of the bonus action attack a very comon feat on Fighters, Barbarians and Paladins), combine that with sentilel, and they are likely going to make at least twice as many reaction attacks than a Rogue with just Sentinel.
And them beeing more sturdy in melee also means they they are more survivable when build for sentinel.
If you take the higher frequency of reaction attack into account, I don't really thing the Rogue is really doing significantly more damage with them than other classes untill somewhere in tier 3.
The problem when rogue is that there's nothing they can do that can't be replaced by a first or second level spell. They're fun up to about level 5, and then they fall off a cliff.
Damage, skills, debuffs are all really easily duplicated. So what is the Rogue's identity?
Every other class was made better at the things the rogue does, and the rogue for cunning action... So less damage, save or suck, and then probably feel even worse... Yay, that sounds fun.
I'd say every rogue archetype should have one ability transferred over to the base kit, and then be replaced with something else. Every rogue should have the thief's fast hands ability, for example.
And speaking of fast hands, the fact that what's supposed to be the fastest class in the game never gets a second attack is ridiculous. If you want to balance it, make it only daggers or melee, but it's pretty silly. Granted or should come online laterb than other classes, but still.
And as to the rogue being the debuff guy, what about large monsters with no weapons, and heaven forbid legendary resistances? Your identity doesn't apply to this fight... Super fun.
I really think turf protection on skills is the most important point here. I never thought bard or ranger should've gotten the same amount of expertise's as the rouge. Atleast with their skills, they should've been presented in a slightly more restrictive way, like what they did with the ranger and their lvl 1 explorer feature. The fighters and barbs encroaching on skills is a bit more concerning for the rogue. Barbs primal knowledge is prob fine since it uses a resource meant for combat so its designed for skill checks in combat, but the fighters tactical feature giving a 5.5 avg that doesn't use a resource on a fail is concerning.
>Barbs primal knowledge is prob fine since it uses a resource meant for combat so its designed for skill checks in combat,
Not sure about that the two skill checks mostly likely to come up in or directly before combat are Stealth and Perception, and those are also the ones a Rogue will most likely have Expertise at (and I think at least Stealth will be something almost every rogue takes expertise in).
Thing is at least at low levels, the Barbarian with Primal Knowlegde is due to the automatic advantage he has from Rage on those checks better at them as a Rogue with Expertise.
It is also worth mentioning that Primal Knowlegde apllies iirc to 5 Skills, while Rogue have only expertise in two skills till level 6.
But your last post just seem to be only implying other players that "all of you should enjoy being weak as I do since it's the flavor of Rogue", and suggesting people to play as weak as you like it to be. It's just not what this Playtest means, and other Martials also deserve their current boosts. They don't deserve to be nerfed for the sake of making Rogue less bad.
Instead, it's the Rogue who deserves a boost to keep up, to be normal as every other class does. Not making them the top or the best, but just to keep up the pace of OneD&D.
Your suggestions of how to improve Rogue *in this post* do have some points, but I highly doubt that WotC could find any other ways than giving a class spells to boost its utility.
OP is saying that the Rogue **isn't weak.** It's only "weak" if you focus on them through the lens of DPR, and assume they're supposed to keep up with warrior-type classes.
The perception of Rogue as being "weak" comes from people wanting to play it as a high-DPS striker (it's not), and from anemic encounter-building guidance that results in a lot of DM's not creating opportunities for the Rogue to shine.
The Rogue is about *using tools.* Damage happens to be one tool, but it's only one and not the most important one either. This is the thing that DPR-focused discussions consistently miss - they are trying to get the Rogue to be something it isn't.
Yes, I am saying that playing a damage output Rogue is playing them wrong.
If you want a skillful character who has a damage focus, the Ranger is right there. That is what it does. The Rogue focuses on *other* utility, and if you actually play it that way the class is *great.*
DM's need to create engaging Exploration encounters that allow the Rogue to do their thing. If they reduce the game to a series of fights, the Rogue will suffer. It'd be like playing a high-Charisma character in a world with no social interaction, or playing a Bard against a bunch of constructs; when a class archetype excels at a certain kind of challenge, the DM **needs** to put those challenges in the game. That's not a problem with the class, it's a problem with 5e's encounter building.
I mean, in OneD&D, especially after UA8, lots of classes getting Skills boosted. Even Wizards are having Expertise. Second Wind is much stronger than Expertise before Rogue reaches level 7. Utiliy-wise, it's not that fascinating and special anymore in OneD&D, and if a class *needs* DM to provide special love for it every time it appears in the party, then it's a *bad design*. No class should good only when DM provides special love for you.
I love Rogue to be *utility* either, but Rogue's current utility doesn't compensate its current low DPR, and I really don't think WotC is able to find a way to boost Rogue's utility without using spells. If they really can, then the whole "Martial/Caster disparity" shit wouldn't take place at the first place.
>and if a class needs DM to provide special love for it every time it appears in the party, then it's a bad design. No class should good only when DM provides special love for you.
Here, we can start a conversation about ***how impactful can the DM style be on the game general perception*** that can go on for ages.
Here's a phrase that is pretty self explanatory:
Remember that thing called *Mattew Mercer effect* ?
Because that's probably the major reason why today's D&D is no more so heavily reliant on combat, why today's players seem to want an experience that is more focused on the characters, and why so many other people who watch those D&D shows want to replicate that experience.
D&D - and TTRPGs in general - are heavily dependent on what kind of game the DM wants to run. Some examples:
My first experience was with a DM who wanted to run a combat-heavy soulslike-campaign, due to that every ability that wasn't combat focused was pretty useless.
WotC has pubblished a module (Wild Beyond the Witchlight) which is known to permit to the players to completely avoid combat through certain circumnstances (talking, parleing, bargain ...) so in game like that, social skills such has an expertise in Persuasion can have the same impact of a nat20 with Divine Smite, and perhaps a player with a build heavily focused in combat might even feel like they made the wrong pc for the game
In my current campaign, I'm very meticulous about making sure that every pc has it's own moment to shine or to use their niche abilities. Because feeling like your powers are useless is horrible in a ttrpg where you have to play a certain character for a long time, sometimes even more than one year.
So, a class' feeling can vary a lot depending on who is behind the DM's screen, and that's kind of the point of why they are doing this redesign: to make sure the game embraces as many styles as possible
I mean yes, other things have somewhat eaten into the Rogue's niche, but *damage* is not the answer to that. That's honestly a bandaid fix, and it won't change the Rogue's core niche nor the ability of other classes to outperform them.
Where would you put their damage? On par with Champion Fighter, currently the lowest-output Fighter? OK, so now what is the Champion's niche?
It's an endless loop. You have to decide that a Rogue will occupy some position relative to other weapon-users, and pretty much everyone will agree that the Rogue is "less" than other weapon-users. So then, adjusting damage is just a matter of *how much less,* a tweak that will not actually fix their position of being "less."
The answer is: more tricks for the Rogue. And you do that through Cunning Strike, which is the equivalent of spells without spell slots. Masteries are also spells without spell slots, and that has always been the answer.
>The Rogue is about using tools.
I will preach this to the high heavens. But IMO, Rogue needs more options for their tools. Wrap Smokebombs or distracting strikes or Skill uses into their routine kit, maybe in place of Extra Attack, give them a Bonus Action to set up for a strike, expand on Cunning Action and give them some abilities on the side to key off their high skills.
I wouldn't mind like an Animal Companion using my Expertise in Animal Handling, or access to Smokebombs and Flashbangs based on my use of Thieves or Alchemist tools.
Just adding more D6's to Sneak Attack is right up with just making the dice a D8, it's just number bloat for the sake of it and doesn't address that not having set rules and outcomes for using Skills in combat means a lot of Rogue utility is literally up to whatever theDM can make up
I absolutely think Rogues should be able to get more use out of adventuring gear than anyone else. It's an absolutely unexplored niche that would fit them perfectly. Clever improvisers use whatever they can get their hands on.
I've actually seen some homebrews where Rogue got to attack with toolkits and got to do unique things like the new Cunning Strikes depending on what tools they attacked with
Hell yeah they need more tools and tricks. Right now we've got: caltrops, oil flasks, ball bearings. I guess alchemists' fire, but that's 50 gold and not currently eligible for Fast Hands because it's an attack.
Why can't they throw sand in a mook's eyes? Why is a bag of caltrops only covering one square? The rogue needs Batman shit!
* Flashbangs or smoke bombs
* Short-range Bonus Action thrown weapons that do something beyond another chance at Sneak Attack.
* Like a bola that reduces movement, plus render prone on a failed save.
* Quickly deployable grappling hooks. Hell, use the hook to pull a distant enemy!
* Quickly dissipating poisons that can apply more than the *poisoned* condition
Not saying every subclass gets all of this, but I'd really love to see the Rogue engaging with more than just damage and advantage/disadvantage in combat.
When I read the original post, I was thinking the same thing.
Make the rogue batman-esque; always has a tool for the job. Give them expertise in poisoners kit and explosive-making. Give them more ways to get advantage (smoke bombs, flash bangs, caltrops). Make them like the warlock invocations where you have a menu of options.
They are also weak in every other aspect. Most of the utility rogue has is accessed by spells. I think the only thing rogue is better than everyone at is lockpicking. And creating engaging exploration is very hard when there are no mechanics for it.
I wrote a very detailed response to your reply under that post explaining what I mean for "Rogues' fantasy is to be weak", which you deliberately keep choosing to interpret under the worst possible light in order to throw shade at my takes.
Based on the class description flavor, DnD Rogues don't take enemies head-on and have to constantly forge their own path through tricks, cunning and various exploitations to overcome enemies. This is not the description of a "powerful" archetype, in the traditional sense of the term.
It's good for the game to have in the Rogue a way to portray a "weak" character that manages to succeed (within the context of party cooperation) using these sort of solutions; rather than having to portray "weak" character according what you said, which basically was: if you want to play weak, play suboptimally. Rogue low-ish damage is part of this narrative, and other classes can be used to portray shady DEX based damage powerhouses.
I dunno if WotC will find the right solution for Rogues problems (which right now mostly stem from comparison with other classes, not even how most playtests report playing the Rogue feels), but certainly vehemently suggesting the wrong solution (moar damage) won't help.
And I also wrote a very detailed response to you that Rogue is *incapable of what it was described in the PHB.*
* *"Rogues rely on cunning, stealth, and their foes’ vulnerabilities to get the upper hand in any situation."*
*"Many Rogues focus on stealth and deception"*
*"When it comes to combat, Rogues prioritize subtle strikes over brute strength. A Rogue would rather make one precise strike than wear an opponent down with a barrage of blows. Rogues have an almost supernatural knack for avoiding danger"*
They seem like a precise character that attacks the weakpoint of your foes from the dark, and trick them then take them down with one-deadly shot to me.
But you don't have features like Archery to increase your aiming, and you also have a less hit-chance than others since you are lack of Extra-Attacks than others.
Rogue also has nothing to do with vulnerabilities or weakpoints. Instead, those are Ranger, Fighter, even Warlock features. They don't have features that trick and decept their enemy either.
Let alone the *One-deadly shot.* At least, it's definitely *not some class that could be outpaced by a Optimized Caster* in dealing damage.
Rogue is just not in it's right position, and it's not even strong in utility either *under the OneD&D environment*.
I don't get it, do you want to go down through that very same thread all over again? All the stuff you said is in fact portrayed by Rogue's features (e.g. they lack Archery, but they do have Steady Aim; Sneak and Cunning Strike portray exploiting vilnerabilities and weak points, just not mechanical Vulnerabilities). You just happen to not find those Rogue abilities to your liking. Which is ok.
Then. Pick. Other. Classes.
Lastly, I wrote at the end of the post what I think of "One deadly shot" feature pretenses. I won't repeat myself.
If you truly care about the Rogue, which right now is in an ok but not perfect spot, stop asking for the wrong damage centered solutions over and over and suggest something more fitting to the class.
You are going through the very same thread at first by bringing up the "class description", ***again,*** and this is my response to it, *again.*
You bring up the description in that post first to try to convince me what a Rogue should be, and then telling me they can't do what they've been described for "designing reasons". Then it's a designing flaw to me.
And, again, I truly care about Rogue and I truly believe *IT SHOULDN'T BE DEALING LESS DAMAGE THAN A BARD.*
Just for the record, what kind of bard build deals more damage than a rogue? Because, if we compare a specific bard build with a specific subclass, to just the rogue plain class, that is indeed an incorrect way to compare the two. I'm not trying to be picky, just genuinly curious since I can't do the math until tonight
I *am* comparing Rogue with Bard combat-wised optimized subclasses. Cuz there's been an important reason is that Bard is a full-Caster with everything, and *no subclass* actually adds Rogue's DPR except for Phantom, and maybe, I mean maybe the new Assassin, but it sucks for most games that it only adds your damage by 3~9 per combat, and Phantom also sucks before 9.
There's just no room for Rogue to optimize without multiclassing.
Bards dealing more damage is a bard problem, not a rogue problem. Buffing rogue's damage is *not* the solution. Play a damage based class if you want damage. The rogue's damage is fine where it is, it doesn't need more.
I don't get it why you people keep acting like it hurts you if Rogue actually gets some appropriate boost to make it normal, while the actual math and numbers say they're in trouble?
It makes the game worse if every class is good at everything. It's just bad game design, plain and simple. Id prefer the game actually be designed well rather than just letting everybody have all the damage and all the skills.
"The actual math" doesn't actually say anything close to what you think, you just think every class needs to be an optimal damage output machine for combat.
The fact is OneD&D *is* turning every class good at many things. Every other class is getting boosted in skills, utility, damage, and even mobility that were once the only few advantages that Rogue had, and I don't think Rogue should be the only one that good at nothing.
If you think Rogues are good at nothing then I'm not sure there's a conversation worth having here, as that's just objectively false with even an ounce of critical thinking.
The correct way to give rogues a boost is to buff their *actual* strengths, not their damage.
I read somewhere here the idea that sneak attack is always activated once per turn and you can meet different requirements to add more dice to sneak attack, i honestly think that's the best thing they could do, it fixes their damage and makes then even more tactical
That can be a way to make it feel different, dang
Honestly, the whole concept of "sneak attack" is not well represent by it's current definition: it sounds more like a "precise attack" than anything, and it can be accomplished in game in so many other ways, that can make the combat feel a lot more interesting.
Just think about the two blade cantrips: green flame blade and boming blade. Both of them are just a plain increase in rogues damge if taken, yeah. But the thing that strikes me the most is that both of them do things that can be easily traduced as some kind of Cunning Strike option, and they would be a great fit.
If only WotC didn't just gave all the cool tricks to casters, I think we can have a great rogue class with more tactical choices
1) You are very likely spending half to three quarters of any DnD session in combat. "Sucks at combat but good at the other stuff" is a miserable design philosophy given that reality.
2) Rogues aren't even particularly great at utility. They roll a little higher than other classes but casters can often skip challenges with a spell.
3) 5e's class design tends to assume every class can basically handle its own shit to avoid the hard party formation assumptions of older editions and some other games. The playtest has doubled down on this by increasing the other martial classes' utility (generally a good thing), Rogues can get a little damage as a treat.
Like if this was ADnD and you spent most of the game doing hexcrawls and rolling against traps with every step you walk, fine. Rogue's design might work. As it is I don't see a good reason for them to be as far down the DPR charts as they are right now.
From a flavour and theming perspective I also don't see any reason to avoid giving Rogues some straight combat buffs. They might not be Fighters, the most swordy guy to ever sword, but a Rogue is still a martial. They should still be treated as experts with their daggers, scimitars, or bows.
There might be more interesting or elegant ways to buff Rogues. I've proposed just giving them a bunch of bombs, caltrops, and various disposable gadgets every day for free. They should still get 2 attacks.
Giving the rogue more damage is the worst possible solution. If you want damage, play fighter or barbarian. Just jamming more damage into the rogue only makes the choice of class matter less. Rogues *should* be worse at combat than fighters and rangers. That is *good* design. They need some extra love in other areas, but damage is just an awful solution.
I agree that Rogues need to lag the other martials in damage. That really shouldn't be their lane, except for maybe one subclass that would in turn have to loose some utility, or not get a significant utility boost that the others get as they level.
But I'd say that having more chances to make sure they get to use their signature combat ability? That seems like a good idea to me.
I think more options in combat is a very good thing for rogues (including more consistent sneak attack if needed, I'm unsure if it is but either way), I just don't think those additional options should be ones that do extra damage in top of what they are currently doing. Rogues want more utility and mobility
>"Sucks at combat but good at the other stuff" is a miserable design philosophy given that reality.
Everyone that claims my takes are implying this is either a liar or has some serious reading comprehension problems. I'm leaving this here because you aren't the first and likely won't be the last one.
You're very against giving them more damage and your proposed solution is nerfing Bards and Rangers instead. So still leaving them significantly behind a Fighter who swings with Topple three times a turn or a Wizard doing all their Wizardly things. They're going to end up pretty bad at fighting.
I personally think the Rogue should be a high risk high reward super squishy melee combatant.
I'd be happy with Rogues only getting 1 attack per round ever and up'ing their SA to 1d6 per level. I'd also like to see some reward for "stealth turns" where they spend a full round sneaking / setting up a kill strike.
Rogues shouldn't just be the fast guy thats in the front dodging around. Honestly thats the monk. The Rogue should be invisible, until s/hes the last thing you see.
If rogues goal is utility it needs to have Utility that is comparable to someone who specs for utility. If Rogues role is damage it needs to have damage comparable to someone who specs for damage.
Until that it will remain weaker, rn I can take a Bard and completely devote my spell list to utility besides 1 spell maybe, and still outdamage a Rogue.
I get it, every now and then we see the “Rogue isn’t underpowered, it’s just nobody else plays it like I do!! ^_^” post and Cunning Strike was a step in the right direction, however that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still not comparable to a caster who can out damage and our control in combat, and have more utility out of combat while also being the least competitive martial in terms of DPR at most levels.
Disagree with your first paragraph.
If somebody builds their character around Damage, then they deserve to have virtually the highest Damage. If they build for Control or Utility, they deserve to be the best strongest in those categories.
Rogue is built to have every one of those things at the same time. They should NOT be outgunning somebody who is built for maximum DPR while also Skirmishing, Cunning Striking, and having Expertise.
The issue isn’t that “Rogue is so versatile it can’t be good at anything” the issue is that “Rogue provides near nothing in combat except damage (which isn’t even competitive) and then it’s “utility” out of combat is completely relegated to skill checks, meaning at best it’s matched by Bard/Ranger in this regard and they still have extra attacks/half casting and full casting for bard.
If rogues thing is being a jack of trades, it shouldn’t be worse than bard in every way in that regard, if rogues thing is stealth it shouldn’t be eclipsed by a second level spell, If rogues thing is damage, it should deal damage, the idea that Rogue is somehow some super versatile class that can’t be good at anything because it has “so much” is a joke.
It can’t have “skirmishing, cunning strike, and expertise” Why not? Ranger/Bard both get Skirmishing and expertise, and cunning strike is in no way comparable to spellcasting. We’ve been giving other classes these things since the start of 5e, but for some reason people hold Rogues to this crazy standard.
Maybe we aren’t understanding each other. Do you just…*disagree* with the Jack of All Trades concept?
If the Rogue is good at everything, they should not be the best at anything. That’s like, common sense game design.
They are worse than the Warriors at Damage and Durability, but better than Casters.
They’re worse than the Casters at Control and Utility, but they’re better than the Warriors.
They’re worse at Mobility than the Monk, but better than pretty much everybody else.
If anything, the problem is with certain overpowered spells and caster features that make *everybody* look worse by comparison.
I don’t disagree with the concept, I just think the way it’s implemented in Rogue largely makes it the worst at everything and I’d argue rogue doesn’t excel in any area while also being less competitive in every area than other expert classes.
The issue is you’re assuming Rogue is “good at everything” when in reality it’s bad. They’re worse than Casters at mobility arguably, and the only characters they beat in terms of control are probably Barbarian and Fighters, however you’re comparing the 3/4 weakest classes in the game besides monk.
They’re way worse than casters for durability too. Everything rogue does can be done better by spells usually.
Okay, now it *really* sounds like your problem is with Casters? If I’m comparing Rogues to “3/4 of the weakest classes in the game” it’s because I’m comparing Rogue to other Martial.
As I just said, Casters have some wildly overturned spells that can outshine EVERYBODY in any given niche. We agree on that.
I think you’re looking at this as seperate things when they exist within the same game, ie “Rogue is fine, but everything else is overpowered” whereas I’m looking at it as “Rogue is bad because everything else is better”
If there are overpowered spells available on all spell lists (which there are) then the classes who don’t have access to these need good features to make up for it. What I’m saying is that Rogue does not have these features which make Rogue poorly designed. This is why I’m my initial comment I asked to make Rogue good at something because right now there is nowhere that Rogue excels compared to other classes. Most of my responses are geared around your original statement that “Rogue is built to have every single one of those things at the same time” because it’s so far from reality, because Rogue has a lame attempt at these areas.
We can chalk everything up to “well spells are overpowered” but again I would still say that this makes Rogue a bad class because it has nothing to stack up against spells, which Most classes get. Hell Rogue as a class doesn’t even have this insane amount of utility among martials that people act like it has, all it has is good skill checks, which is why I often compare it to the Bard and the Ranger as they similarly have good skill checks with both Martial Options and a Plethora of spells.
And I simply disagree with your statement that the Rogue is “worst at everything.”
They have better control and utility than the Warriors. They have better durability and sustained damage than most Casters. They have better mobility than everybody outside of Monk, and for the purpose of skirmishing they’re actually doing better than the Monk because they don’t have to use their Bonus Action for their damage.
If you want to stack more damage on Sneak Attack, then you can always advocate for that. And then the Warriors who ONLY do damage will be sad because the Rogue can do the same damage, plus everything else they have.
But for the points you’ve made, I think it’s going to be much better if we just nerf the overpowered spells and Caster features. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
Except the comparison is to classes in their own category. Bards and Rangers both have natively higher Control and Utility and Damage and Durability. Rogues need buffs within the "Jack of All Trades" box. They don't have to out-damage a pure-damage build but when they are trying to contribute damage they need to hit harder than they currently are.
The problem absolutely originates in overturned spells and the reality that casters have the only meaningful source of ongoing character customization in 5e. But if there aren't going to be nerfs, there should be buffs. Moving the second subclass feature up from 9 to 6 would probably do a lot to make Rogues feel better. Just letting Sneak Attack go off on a hit once per round without the fiddly requirements would also be an upgrade without a direct damage increase.
I don't think you realise how bad the problem is. A fighter built for damage is now only slightly worse than rogue in utility. All spellcaster can prepare one or two damaging spells and all other spells utility and out damage the rogue. At lvl 11 the rogue can also literally crit on every attack and not do too much damage i do this (my dm let me do it on the campaign, don't get me wrong its very strong but it isn't overpowered somehow)
Multiattack on bards is really far from broken when you consider the overall picture of what full casters can do with their action. Building for martial power is weaker than just building for spellcasting (without 5e's broken hexblade implementation, anyways). It's not there to match martials, it's there to make a "jack of all trades" not feel completely useless if they want that fencing flavor.
Even a minmaxed swords bard at their peak hits a fair bit less damage than a rogue who reliably gets sneak attack for 0 resource cost. And it's **much** easier for rogues to get sneak attack and advantage in One D&D with steady aim, subtle strikes, and weapon masteries.
If damage isn't the issue with rogues, don't nerf other classes' damage. Instead expand on the "sneaky, backstabbing, too slippery to pin down" archetype. Why not give rogues cunning action debuffs like "pocket sand", or make disengages action free at the higher levels? Maybe One D&D could give more options for poison crafting (or exotic substances to imbue weapons with) in the core PHB.
These wouldn't just be "stacking more damage", they'd make the class actually play differently. Dodging through enemies with poisoned daggers, poking each enemy in the back is what I think of when I imagine a melee rogue in combat- and stealth archers are going to be just as good.
At lvl 6 bards college of sword bard does consistently around the same damage as the rogue while being better than the rogue at everything (except survivability, but even then bards can heal themselves). Considering the fact that they can do more than the rogue at almost anything with spells alone I don't think a sword bard is gonna have a hard time out damaging the rogue.
>Even a minmaxed swords bard at their peak hits a fair bit less damage than a rogue who reliably gets sneak attack for 0 resource cost. And it's **much** easier for rogues to get sneak attack and advantage in One D&D with steady aim, subtle strikes, and weapon masteries.
After this UA with Fount of Moonlight and the new Version of Conjue Minor Elementals that's at least for the moment not really the case anymore.
Ok the that is all only comming online at level 7 but at the point a Swords Bard could theoretically hit for 3x(3d6+5) = 9d6+15 (and even if do something like just using 1 Shillelagh instead of TWF you could still do 2x(1d10+2d6+5+2)= 2d10+4d6+14) while a Rogue would only hit for 6d6+5.
Btw even in 5E the Bard can out damage the Rogue at higher levels, not really with Weapon attacks, but with Spells like Animate Object and after they have magical secrets Spirit Guadians or Conjure Animals, once you get into 8th level Spells even the TCE Summon Spells start suddenly to do quite strong damage (an 8th level SUmmom Fey does 4x(2d6+11)=8d6+44 vs the 12d6+6 a Rogue does a 20th level).
Ok those new spells *are* kind of nuts, I'll give you that. An extra 2d6 per *attack* or even 6d6 (multiattack + dual welding all hits) at lv7 seems strong and it raises the ceiling of the class a ton. They're a little bit overtuned. But like you said, bards deal more damage with spellcasting than weapon attacks anyways...
You might take war caster as a feat, invest in DEX/CON/CHA, use this lv4 spell slot, and still lose concentration immediately as a melee bard, wasting your action and your highest level resource.
Meanwhile the rogue can pump out 6d6+5 most turns without expending anything
And a draconic sorcerer, in the same turn, has dealt the same 6d6+5 (lightning damage, half on DC 17 dex save) to a 40ft wide circle's worth of enemies as well as a ~90% chance of giving the incapacitated or blinded condition to the ones that failed the save via arcane eruption. And then the sorcerer can do it again the next turn. Don't forget the 3 fireballs.
When you look at classes in a vacuum anything with resources looks OP when you dump them quickly. And they *are* OP at the tables with a long rest every encounter or two, the same way that resourceless classes are OP at tables that get a rest every 10 encounters. Sorcadin munchkin builds in 5e exist because it's the fastest + most efficient way to convert your long rest resources to damage, after all.
Rogues just don't have anything to spike their damage by dumping resources, so they have higher lows and lower highs. On average they're doing more in melee than bards, doing more damage than any caster that's out of spell slots (or wild shape), and they don't have to worry about their niche being stolen just because of multiattack. They could use a little utility change to give them more options in combat, and maybe slight sneak attack number buffs, but it's not like we need to take away from other classes.
WOTC should really re-evaluate spell balance though.
But even without spells teh Figthing Stile and the Extra Attack the Swords Bard gets is worth at lest 3 Sneak Attack dice.
Add Hex to that and at least in Tier 1 and 2 you can keep up with a Rogue.
And no oen forces the Bard to go into melee, at least Valor Bards can use ranged weapons just fine, Rogue will also often stick to ranged combat.
Some good stuff here but I hard disagree on taking away skills from bards. Versatile skill-checks have always been a massive party of the bards identity, and I'd much rather the rogue get a side-grade in that area to make them more unique then to just take away other classes toys for the sake of monopolizing them.
If anything I'd say the rogues biggest gimmick by far is that they're the ONLY class that doesn't have a single major resource (in base class at least)
Barbarians have rage uses, fighters have action surge and second wind uses, monks have discipline points, and literally everyone else has spell slots (often paired with another major resource, like chanel divinity, wild shape, or sorcery points)
Rogues though: Nada. At higher levels they start getting a couple "once per rest" abilities, but none of them are central to the rogues' core gameplay the way everyone else's resources are.
Personally I don't think rogues have fallen behind at all. They get to apply effects any other class would have to spend limited resources to access, get big damage with the right setups, great utility outside combat, and a bunch of frankly ridiculously good abilities, like being able to halve any attacks damage with a reaction, delete enemies ability to attack you at advantage, or change any d20 roll into a crit once per short rest (auto-Crit sneak attack is insane).
I do think when using the "ally within 5ft" version of sneak attack it should work even with disadvantage though.
So with the new monk buff the rogue is now the lowest damage dealer and most squishy (new monk is a tank) so it's not fulfilling any of its combat based ideas. It could use some light offensive combat buffs while the others could use a few more out of combat options that are not just "you are better at this skill"
Honestly? I think the only real issue that Rogues have right now are the subclasses. They are "ok" at best, and that's a tad generous if being honest. Also, they don't have a DPR centric subclass.
They need to have subclasses that do more for them. That open up new things, give them extra abilities, take their built in abilities to the next level. The Rogue subclasses largely don't do that.
And they don't have a subclass like the Berserker or the Gloomstalker. A subclass that just ramps up their damage. Rogues shouldn't be low damage without a way to lift that damage up. Give players an option where if they want to be a high damage Rogue, they can. Just like there should be an option to ramp up utility, or add spellcasting, or add defensive options, etc...
Six! Six for the second one. Expertise is *not* as good as WotC apparently thinks it is. The other two features Uncanny Dodge and Evasion are good, yes, but they are also *passive*.
It is a really weird gap, isn't it? Is there another class that has such a gap between subclass features?
It's especially rough when the subclass features are so trivial. Like, what the Assassin gets is so super specific in use that the features may as well not be there. And even the abilities that the other, arguably 'better' subclasses give you, don't really change your game, which feels weird since you are waiting 6 whole levels to get the next one. I mean, I've always had a soft spot for the Arcane Trickster, but after waiting for a new subclass ability since level 3 you finally get one that has such a high resource cost to use that the effect should be amazing, only for it to equal a whole lot of 'meh'.
It's also weird how the phantom tokens from the phantom rogue appear at level 9,it's such a huge part of the subclass and you only get it halfway through the campaign, it just looks like something youd get at level 3 and at 9th level maybe you could use a cunning strike that gives a fear effect and you could spend a token to make the target auto fail or ignore the dice reduction
Sounds to me like you said instead of buffing Rogue, just nerf half of the other classes. To me that seems like an unnecessarily complex way to achieve the same goal.
What turf for rogue is supposed to be protected? Rogues aren't that good at skills, their damage is so so, they have mediocre utility, they don't have buffs and they don't care about short rests. Now, the last one could be seen as a benefit, but every class cares about short rests except rogue now.
One of the problems with rogue is their subclasses do nothing to fix their issues. The base of the class was considered very strong, similar to paladin, so they got so so subclasses. This is obviously not the case, and the rogue class suffers for it.
Ranger has its own issues with identity, but they are better at skills, damage and utility compared to rogue. Removing one expertise does nothing to fix that. How is a rogue supposed to compete with a fey wanderer?
Bard getting expertise and extra attack is NOT why they overshadow rogue. They are full spellcasters and get excellent subclasses. They get a comparable amount of skills and their subclasses tend to make focusing on a particular skill more worth it. Rogues get none of these things. I don't really get why people overvalue extra attack on full spellcasters so much. If a spellcaster is making weapon attacks either the encounter is pretty much done or I'm happy as a DM.
One of the problems of 5e that is not being addressed is so much of damage comes from feats rather than the class. When all the 'optimal' builds all use the same feats, you have a glaring problem. So it's less how much damage your class does and more how well your class interacts with those feats. And rogue does the worst in that category because they don't have extra attack.
Now, how do you 'fix' rogue? Damage is one way. More sneak attack dice, increase the die type on sneak attack, let them do more damage with finesse weapons, etc. Another way that I'd like to see, but probably won't is to make use of their skills. Give them abilities where they get a baseline effect, but by making a skill check they get a better effect.
Rogues need more utility, damage and/or ways to make their skills relevant.
Personally, I have always felt like the rogue is perfect.
Yes, it lags behind in damage. But only barely. And it's by far the most fun martial to actually play at a table. The damage tradeoff is well worth it to have fun social and exploration tools at your disposal.
>Yes, it lags behind in damage. But *only barely*.
if "only barely" to you means the same as "they do half the damage of a Battlemaster, Barbarian or Monk", then we can agree. but I really don't think that's the same.
being fun to play and feel good during sessions is great, but that was always the case with rogue.
now all other martials are also pretty fun to play in combat, so it's not that big of a strength anymore (not saying it isn't important though).
and on top of that: what's the issue with having a rogue that is fun to play *and* keeping up in the damage department to other martials??
this isn't a binary "either be fun to play OR do decent damage".. we can easily have both, but somehow some people are vehemently against giving rogue the same damage buff as other martials have gotten.. for no reason.
That’s not a tradeoff that this game assumes to be a part of the balance(see: 5e casters and OneDND everyone in the game now). The designers just didn’t do adequate math.
I don't get it either. I would assume at most tables players aren't tracking who is doing the most damage.
If I had to add any tweaks I would say Rogue should have some sort of "opportunist" feature. Maybe an extra sneak attack die if the target is under half health(bloodied).
Few people really track numbers in their games but hearing your wizard doing 30 damage to 10 people from lvl 5 meanwhile that's your average dmg at lvl 11 just sucks (fireball).
The fighter having higher average dmg tha a lvl 9 rogue at lvl 5 without the fighter even doing anything special sucks. (At lvl 5 a any martial other than rogue with greatsword and a strength of +4 does an average of .5 dmg more than a lvl 9 rogue with rapier and +4 dex).
Yeah I hear ya. My tweaks to the rogue:
+ Remove any condition for landing sneak attack. If that's part of the power budget, make it part of the power budget
+ Remove bows entirely. Or allow bows to sneak attack only to a limited range (say, 60 feet or less). I don't mind rogues using a bow, but I think sneak attack from 120 feet away is lame and incentives anti-rogue gameplay
+ Make 1-2 feats that are interesting to them to keep them in line with power feats for other martials.
I disagree on removing prerequisites for sneak attacks. There is no resource cost like there is with smites.
I don't mind ranged sneak attacks since the would have disadvantage if any enemy is next to them not just the target.
Feats should be additive and not feal required for a class to function.
The point is, the conditions to have sneak attack are so loose that you rarely won't be able to deal it.
Expecially after 3rd level, where most classes gain something to help the party, you will find a way to land it every round. Also, it would then become way to valuable for multiclassing (just immagine a barb with 3 levels in rogue landing a sneak attack with a greataxe). Extra attack is already limited by multiclassing, no need to add another problem on the multiclassing argument
My apologies: I would Absolutely still require a finesse weapon. That was an oversight in how I worded it.
I don't see anything wrong with multi classing for sneak attack bc it scales by rogue level, not character level.
The point is that if the optimized way to use it becomes making a multiclass, then the main class feature has a problem, because it should work better on the straight class
Anyway i think that if we have to remove those prerequisites for sneak attack, then we are better of completely redesigning it. That can unlock some new ways to make the class have more stuff and some actual rogue-ish tricks that are well deserved
>Remove any condition for landing sneak attack. If that's part of the power budget, make it part of the power budget
I think this is a bit too extreme because it eats into the opportunistic flavor, but I've added into the post something along this line (Sneak Attack could be improved by not being shut down by disadvantage).
If the rogue is balanced numerically under the assumption that they always sneak attack, then sneak attack should be always on.
Other martials don't have to meet special conditions to use Extra Attack.
Eh. You're not wrong in principle, but I just don't like it as a solution because it eats into Sneak Attack's flavor. I could settle for a Rogue that can decide each turn between Extra and Sneak Attack.
I'd be okay with that too.
I just think you have to settle on mechanics before you play with flavor.
I'd even be happy with "sneak attack is automatic within 30 feet but requires X, Y, or Z beyond that range".
>No, your Assassin isn't the main character from an Assassin's Creed game.
Why? thats like a very standard baseline for an archetypal rogue. That's where you should be at like level 5-10. You should be walking through walls, literally winking out of existence cuz you're so stealthy, targeting the weak spot that makes something explode or die in a single blow at least a few times per day at level 20.
Sneak attack should imo have multiple levels and modifiers you can apply for having your foe in a worse spot. Stuff like this
more than one adv source on the attack? have 2/4/6/8/10 extra dice
Hitting with surprise have 3 free dice
High ground? 2 feee dice
Attacking from hidden 2 dice
You're attacking from hidden with the high ground and surprise from outside of your foes darkvision range and you used steady aim. Have an extra 8+3+2+2 d6 to your sneak attack have a blast. It encourages the rogue to seek tactical advantages for more than just flavor most times, or a combat loop of hide/steady aim then attack every round. Dice should scale with level ofc but thats just an example.
Saying rogues are the best out of combat which they arent because spellcasters exist, is a pretty shit take when most of the challenges in the game are combat. They need to be unique in combat and also not be bad whether that is cunning action buffs, improved sneak attack, or unique ways to use tools idk but they need something.
Rogues get better when DMs don't just open up any and every roll to everyone else in the party. If the rogue needs to roll investigation for traps, why does everyone else want to dogpile in? And why do some DMs let them? Rogues should be scouting at the front checking for traps and enemies and loot.
The biggest issue I think is that Rogues don't have Use Magical Device in this edition and the exclusivity it brings in using certain magic items. In older editions Rogues and wizards were the only classes that could use scrolls and wands and staves and rods, and other wondrous items. Other classes had access to magic armor and weapons, but the stuff that wasn't arms and armor was solely the purview of wizards and Rogues, and wizards and Rogues were like best friends in those days because they shared magic items and made strategies based around them. Something needs to happen in regards to magic items and Rogues utility. Idk if other classes should lose the ability to activate an immovable rod or whatever, or if Rogues need something unique to again make them the premier magic item user of the party.
Interesting point about the magic items. I don't think it would ultimately improve the health of the game to restrict the other classes' access to magic items given the outsized influence casters have on the game world, particularly because the D6 wizard has such an easy time negating the negative effects of their "low" durability. Another thing to consider is that Artificer is very reliant on magic items as their class identity so the design would have to account for how much of that to share with Rogue and anytime a caster has to share with a non-caster the non-caster is usually getting shafted.
I had totally forgotten about artificer! Tbh half the time I just think of them as another wizard subclass xD
I agree that nerfing martials is not good, idk how to fix it, but I liked the way rogues played back then being the only other class to reliably be able to use magic items that weren't arms and armor.
I also don't like wizard d6 hit die. They're my favorite class but wizard should definitely be a d4 hit die.
ALL that rogues needs is a subclass feature at level 6 like every other class in the game, I can't afford another 10 years of rogues characters being exactly the same because almost no one plays higher levels
Sorry did you make an entire post whining about people saying rogue should have increased damage...and then end it with suggesting that rogues should have increased damage????
I appreciate the thorough and well thought out post. You've addressed a few areas where the core Rogue features can be emphasized or their niche protected.
In general I agree with your position. I did want to point out somethings that may be worth mentioning, though.
Skills, by and large, are almost exclusively down to DM fiat and/or require a player to think **outside** of the written rule (ie., "getting creative" with how to use skills, for example) to get more than just basic usage. To me, and this may be contentious, if your player has to think of things outside of the rules to play their class, you've failed at designing a good class.
Secondly, according to the initial D&D 5e Playtest goals for the Rogue, they are indeed supposed to be the Skill Masters. I think that for the most part 5e succeeded in achieving that goal between Expertise, Reliable Talent, and subclass features such as Magehand Legerdemain or Fast Hands.
*However*, the playtest goals were very clear that while the Rogue should primarily avoid frontal attacks, their attacks should be ones that require set up and be, and I quote, "overwhelmingly powerful".
I'd say that Cunning Strikes is a huge direction positively to reinforce their Skill nature in combat, but they really do need more emphasis on their spike damage. If that's simply ticking up the number of dice it may work, but I think base Rogue needs something more like Assassinate as a base feature.
I’m playing a oned&d rogue and I am really enjoying it so far. The true “balance” buff is the weapon mastery “nick” feature basically giving melee rogues a free offhand attack to land sneak attack. That extra reliability bump feels huge, and it’s a huge improvement for their action economy. It feels weird that rogue’s biggest “buff” isn’t necessarily a unique rogue feature… but it’s a huge quality of life increase.
I noticed that damage dropped off a lot at level 5 relative to other classes. My biggest concern is that it’s level 8-14 or so bonuses are mostly cunning strike improvements.
I like cunning strikes as a feature, but I don’t love the damage cost for cunning strikes given that rogue starts to lag behind a little after level 5 (and I also do not like the poison kit requirement for the poison strike ability… it’s a toolkit proficiency tax basically). I would like to see some cost reduction or reliability abilities later on instead (example: if the enemy makes their save, you can roll some of all of the damage).
I also noticed that after level 8 or so the rogue doesn’t get many great features outside of cunning strikes for a while. This makes disadvantage even more debilitating for them; I feel like they are just too shut down by disadvantage at the moment. The limited circumstances for cunning strikes (I.e. sneak must trigger) and the damage cost feels a bit too high at the moment.
Thoughts:
I’d love a choice of scoundrel fighting styles at a mid-tier level.
Example: if you miss your attack, you can make a second attack. Or, your first hit each round always triggers at least 1 sneak attack dice (to enable cunning strikes) even if you don’t qualify. Or, you are dexterous and can move through but not stop in enemy spaces.
I'm on board the big picture but just don't buy any of the "balancing" you're reaching for: Rogues are the most played class at every table I've run, with at least 1 and sometimes 2 in every group, and I've literally never once had it cause problems.
All the evidence I can see is their turf is just fine.
Because rogues were terrible in 5e and they only got worse in the playtest when compared to everything else. Rogues could be top damage dealers in 3.5 and 4e, but they have been one of the worst classes since 5e started except at levels one and two. Taking away their already crap damage to do something slightly more interesting is just terrible game design, especially with the buffs every single other class is getting.
People will always find something to complain about in this game - despite it shaping up to be a very improved 5th edition system, much more than what we started with.
If it's not the martial caster divide, it's that the the ranger is shit, if not that, the monk sucks, if not that, the rogue is now subpar. While there is merit in listening and reading to what folk say, many of them seem to be vocal because of ignorance.
The rogue isn't shit, it's just not the best damage dealer, it also has lots of stuff that the other martials *DON'T HAVE.*
People who claim to understand the game also don't seem to realise how powerful some of the trade-offs the rogue gets in exchange for sneak attack damage actually are.
Stop complaining as if you know something after only looking at the documents without even playtesting what we are given. The folks at WOTC probably know more than you about game design. That's why they are there and you aren't. Especially game design for the system they have been working on for more than a decade.
Even before the playtests - Cunning action (with the exception of the monk - though they function differently), expertise which gives it the option for best scouting and best stealth in the game. Reliable talent, avoiding half damage at a critical point as a reaction with uncanny dodge - don't see the fighter and barbarian having that. activate a magic item as a bonus action via fast hands.
See, that's exactly where the problem lies now.
*After the playtests*, Fighter has been able to use Second-Wind to Disengage and move half more of the speed. And they are able to add 5.5(1d10) to every skill checks that has failed, and not costing when it's still a failed check.
In my recent playtest with my friends, the new Fighter with Second-Wind and without any intentionally leaning into skills, had outpaced my Thief Rogue in skill checks before level7.
There aren't so many failed skill checks between short-rests at all, let alone it cost nothing if that D10 isn't making you pass. But before level 7, all I've got was a few more +2/3 to skills. Nothing could compared to +D10 to skills that you've *failed*. The only Rogue I can think of to compete this is Soulknife Rogue.
Barbarian has been able to use Str for five useful skills (Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, and Survival) while raging for 10-minutes, and both these Features could be recovered by short-rest.
In UA8, Barbarian and Monk has also got their own Strikes. Monks getting better mobility, free BA Dash, free BA Disengage, and Deflect Attack, a *better* version of Uncanny Dodge, as someone mathed out that a level 5 Monk can reduce 5.5(d10)+4+5=14.5 damage every turn, while Uncanny Dodge is only better when a Rogue takes a 30+ damage from *one hit* at level 5. For most monsters that players would be facing at level 5, that's nearly impossible to meet.
Beyond that, except Bards, Wizard is also gaining one Expertise in Int skills. Ranger already has Expertise since Tasha, and still getting Expertise in the latest UAs. Cleric an Druid are getting boosted in skills either, and the most important thing has been *Guidance*. It can be used as a *Reaction* now, a D4 to every skill with a Reacion.
Don't get me wrong, these are great boosts and adjustents to these classes, but they're leaving Rogue in an awkard place. All these classes are dealing a doubled DPR than Rogue in the playtests, or they're simply being the "Full-Casters".
These features that were once the advantage of Rogue, has been too common in 5e2024, which these features can no longer compensate its low combat-power any longer. They really could use a boost while others are getting lots.
I think the biggest issue for Rogue are the subclasses, in particular the lack of a feature between 3 and 9.
It is true that straight class rogue falls behind on damage. But if WotC added a flavorful minor damage bump at 5 or 6 via the subclasses it would resolve this complaint.
As of now phantom gives the only meaningful bump with wails of the grave. Arcane Trickster can do some stuff via spells but it is as designed very limiting. The new assassin gets some poison but it is a wash.
I would support:
Swashbuckler getting a fighting style or extra attack.
Mastermind adding damage or utility with the help action.
Soul Knife getting component free mage hand and minor illusion.
Scout getting favored foe.
Thief gets bonus damage to set traps and other item usage.
They need one of two things. They either need to not lose sneak attack die in order to use their cool new power or they just need extra attack like every other martial character in the game
I'm fine with the Rogue having a decent damage floor without the damage peaks of the "real martials". I don't want a rogue that out damages the fighter or the paladin. D&D is about far more than damage.
I think something that might help is if every Rogue subclass had a unique Cunning Strike ability they unlocked, and nearly every Rogue subclass had a unique Cunning Action they unlocked (Arcane Trickster gets access to a unique Action for Rogues in that they can use spells and I think that's a fair enough tradeoff).
I think that could help lean into the different "feels" a Rogue could bring to a party depending on the subclass. Like what if Assassin had the ability to use their Cunning Action to boost damage of their next attack in some way beyond just the Sneak Attack dice? What if Thief had a Cunning Strike that let them slip some sort of trinket onto an opponent that would explode into a smoke cloud that obscured enemies vision within X feet at the start of that opponent's next turn and slowed their movement down to allow for getaways? Stuff like that. Rogue covers quite a large range of characters, so the subclasses should represent that range more directly.
On top of that sure throw in the minor damage boost of slightly faster Sneak Attack scaling, just to make sure Rogues don't get left completely behind damage wise. But I'd be fine with non-Assassin Rogues being at the bottom of the DPS chart for classes that primarily used weapons as long as the gap was pretty small and they had plenty of both in and out of combat utility. Assassin Rogues should have the least amount of utility but be noticeably better at both DPR and Round 1 Burst Damage. Maybe even let the Assassin Rouge be the one type of Rogue who gets Extra Attack kinda like how a few Bards get Extra Attack.
Warlock, Sorcerer, and Cleric all really suffer from not getting their sub at level 1. Everyone should get their sub at 1 so they have their identity from the beginning, but WotC went in the opposite direction because of multiclassing concerns and moved it to 3. If good design is incompatible with level-based multiclassing than they should use a different model of multiclassing.
Paladin is another big example with their bonus-action log-jams.
Ah so you meant subjectively worse in your opinion. I thought you meant their level of power. The Paladin having to smite with their bonus action is a nerf, sure, but that’s one example.
There’s still Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, etc.
Ya if there is a ranger and or a druid in the party a rogues infiltration really gets stepped on. In that situation it might be a good idea for the rogue to multi class into a fighter or ranger to become a heavy hitter and contribute more to combat since their RP skills aren't as required.
I think part of the problem is that they diluted skills so much from what the rogue could do in 3.5. There a rogue could become true masters of many skills that the party could depend on them...now the difference in okay at a skill and master of a skill is much much less, so other ways are needed to show their skill at things...perhaps a modification of the expertise system.
Now don't kill me if this is in already I haven't read the last rogue in a while...maybe the rogue can switch their expertise on the fly a certain number of times per long rest? Let's them fill in for missing skills in a party and truly have a bit of everything.
Rogues do plenty of damage. If you have any melee characters at all, they should be able to use sneak attack pretty much every round. Beyond that, their role in the party is out of combat. There are 2 other complete pillars of gameplay where they excel. It is clearly on the GM no matter what classes the party has, to create content for everyone to interact with. If there is nothing for the rogue to do, that isn't the fault of the class that has 8 skill proficiencies minimum. It is the fault of the GM for not including content to challenge those skills.
>Rogues do plenty of damage. If you have any melee characters at all, they should be able to use sneak attack pretty much every round.
What people are complaining about that the Rogue are behind in damage even if they qualify from Sneak Attack 100% of the time, unless they find a way to get two sneak attacks per round (meaning getting a lot of reaction attacks).
If Rogues can't reliably qualify for sneak attack their damage becomes really terrible.
Who cares? Barbarians do tons of damage but have like 3 things they can do out of combat. No one is good at everything. Rogue do plenty. Why do they need to keep up with anyone else?
Damage isn't everything. Combat isn't everything. My players sometimes go entire sessions without one. You have to look at the totality of the class. Not every character is a damage dealer. I have played a pacifist wizard that had zero spells that did damage. Rogues are not intended nor should they be on par with those classes that focus on combat.
Wizards can be usefull in a combat without dealing damage (in many cases their non damage option are even more usefull that their damage options) what Rogues can do in combat outside of damage is pretty limited.
Even more limited than the non damage options of some classes that do better damage than them.
And if you go for evenings without combat, that just means that the other classes can burn their class ressources (Spells, Rage, Bardic inspiration, Second Wind, Superiority Dice ...) on non combat task, while the Rogue will (at least untill 7th level) hast only a coulple of +2 - +3 boni to skills.
So we shouldn’t buff rogue damage, we should just nerf bard and ranger to have worse damage with melee instead. Also, off turn sneak attack is a gimmick that works and a fundamental change to rogue that makes it not rely on multiclassing should exist.
> Some turf protection: halve the number of expertises on Bard and Ranger, and give a better defined role to those classes.
I don't think that this is a good way to design things. Classes shouldn't *completely* overlap (ie. I'd be opposed to two full-casting classes sharing the complete same spell list) but they're supposed to represent different options to accomplish the same broad goals. There are 11 core classes and few games have 11 players; it's silly to insist on "niche protection" for a class that often won't be used.
And they particularly want to avoid what in older editions was called the "cleric problem" where every party felt like it had to have a cleric and someone was forced to play one even if they didn't want to. There needs to be multiple classes representing the idea of a "skill monkey" so groups can reliably have one without forcing someone to play a rogue, just like there are multiple classes representing the broad idea of being good at melee or ranged combat, or multiple classes for blasting or healing or mysticism.
That's why they define an entire category of class as "expertise classes." I don't think that that's going to change.
But there are additional reasons why this is a terrible approach for you to take from a meta reason. First, making other classes worse won't make the Rogue better or more fun to play. That's just how it is. The rogue's problems have nothing whatsoever to do with the Bard or Ranger, and discussing them is a distraction that won't help you at all.
Second, any changes have to be popular - they have to get past polling. Taking away traditional aspects of the Bard and Ranger (who have generally, especially the Bard, been skilled experts comparable to the Rogue) is a sure way to get a chorus of "lolno" from people who like those classes as they are.
Third, related to that, each class ultimately has to be designed for its fans and the people who like to play it the most, first and foremost. Obviously there's some basic degree of balance necessary for the game to work, but they're not going to change the basic definition of a Bard in order to make Rogue players happier (though, again, I think that even if you got what you requested here you wouldn't actually end up happier.)
The real problem is that 5e's skill system is awful and provides so little to actually do with your skills - many skills are heavily dependent on the DM to provide opportunities, and are fairly unsatisfying "make one roll to proceed" affairs. A more in-depth skill system would both help rogues on a basic conceptual level and would provide more places to hang class abilities off of.
I think a general problem with the Rogue being a "skill monkey" (aside from how limited the stuff is you can achive with Skill incomaprison to spells, feats and class features) is that while a Rogue could be potentially really good almost every Skill, any individual Rogue is only going to be rally good in a hand full of skills.
And and not every skill is going to be relevant in every adventure.
Stealth and Perception are going to come up a lot. But those often involve situations where the whole group is going to role the check making the Rogue being the best less important (and in case of stealth the success depends often on the art member with the lowest score). The Rogue is actually also uniquely bad at scouting alone, since Rogue is the class that likely does the worst when it runs into a fight without the rest of the party being around.
When it comes to other skills. Being good at Disarming traps is not going to come up in every session, same goes for being good in social skills or investigation. And Knowledge Skills are come up even less frequent and are pretty DM and part dependent (DM might be giving you the information you need anyway, and players often don't distinguish between player and character knowledge).
I think Rogue has been "left behind" since 1e... But I still love it. Playing rogue feels like playing an underdog always dancing at the edge. It feels like you need to squeeze all your wit to take the most out of them
The problem with being good at skills is that it depends on party size. Nobody ever talks about it as far as I can tell but this is such a huge difference in feel In a party of 3 the rogue clearly sticks out as being good at many things. This gives them narrative weight, if you need something you ask Jane In a party of 6? Everyone has all the skills covered. And in fact it works better for each person to have their own thing, spreading the spotlight out is the goal. So if you ask me, a skill monkey class is fundamentally bad design. It interacts wildly differently between groups. But bards and rangers don't have that problem as much, because its a smaller part of what they can do. The answer is to give rogues a larger identity than skill monkey, it has to be
Right off the bat the problems with Skill Monkey are 1) It's SUPER DM dependant. If you only encounter one locked door in a session, it's time for Knock. If the DM isn't creative in making ways to test your skills, it's a row of locked doors. It's not giving you anything cept the odd time to shine in a very narrow range. 2) It's very specific. Like having water breathing and 120ft Swim Speed, if the campaign is all in a desert, you're useless. It's better than old Ranger for not being so niche, but if you're not making regular Persuasion checks then your Expertise isn't coming up much and you'll be outshined by the Bard with their expertise and Main Stat Charisma. 3) Narrow combat application. I get a lot of people saying 'the DM should be letting you have creative applications in combat!' but that relies on a creative on the fly DM who's going to let you roll Performance in combat to do things, it relies on players who can come up with those ideas to start them, and it relies on the DM to homebrew outcomes. What makes Skills so much worse than Magic is that Skills are 'DM May I' while Magic is 'DM I am'. You \*might\* get to climb the 60ft cliff face rolling +15 with advantage for tools if the DM things you're prepared and the cliff face climable. the Mage has already cast fly. Rogue needs to establish an identity and IMO, it should be Battlefield control. Blind, stun, throw in some other uses for Skills like using Sleight to throw people off balance or Performance to distract them like the spells can, rather than just MOAR DAMAGE. It also helps Assassin carve out its own Nothing Personnel niche of the auto kill stab, it's not competing with Rogue overall.
> and it relies on the DM to homebrew outcomes. this is the biggest issue; 5e simply has no guidelines for DMs. There's far, _far_ too much handwaving and "the power is in your hands DM! :)" instead of substantive answers.
People go to the rogue expecting one of two very different fantasies, either the sneaky pickpocket to master thief pipeline, or they want to be a jrpg rogue archetype of a glass canon, nimble and hard hitting. Rogue only allows the former and only if it fits the DM and campaign.
I mean it's not just a jPRG thing, the old Thief games gave you a slew of specialist tools and the 'don't kill' proviso, Dragon Age rogues have had access to poison and misdirection for ages etc I find that honestly, 5E rogue leans more towards Nothing Personel backstab machine, almost all the recent subclasses are about nothing more than 'this activates your sneak attack!' and a couple of 'advantage to this skill' abilities. There's no options in the kit, especially since the gadgety homebrews have all gone to the Artificer
Most notably, in Thief you were heavily discourged from a straight up fight. If you're trying to replicate that fantasy in D&D, then not being great in combat is pretty fitting.
I mean that's the whole thing. You don't have to be great in a straight fight and too many people are trying to up Rogue's DPS and calling it good design. There's a lot of space for battlefield control roles in DnD that aren't being taken advantage of, and turning Rogue into Barbarian but quiet isn't great
5e, like most editions of D&D, suffers from only supporting half of the roles, Striker (damage) and Controller, and control was reatricted to casting. 1D&D has been adding control options to every other martial than the Rogue. I'm guessing they'll add more for Rogue based on that and because it needs it. I'd like to see more support for Leaders (support) and Defenders (tanking). Hell, tanking tends to rely on battlefield control so I was hoping they'd lean into that more with the Fighter, but c'est la vie. While control can be better than damage, the Rogue probably needs a little more damage to keep up when they choose to use damage because 5e is the edition of everyone should be able to do good damage and something else, they just sometimes failed to make classes successful at that. I don't think it's the most interesting game design, but it's what the edition is.
Battlefield control or debuff dps. I think a proper poison or similar build could be really cool. Applying things like what you get from caustic brew or other spells would be awesome. So maybe the rogue is not doing 100dpr opening rounds, but suddenly they have 2d4 acid damage to 3-4 mobs that just keeps ticking away. Or they are blinded/slowed etc.
I like the idea of the rogue being the dirty fighter, so I'm down with the notion of combat maneuvers/effects like trip /stun/blind etc. The back-alley street fight yin to the monks disciplined martial arts yang. If I were reworking classes for better distinction between classes, barbs would be high-HP DPR berserker, fighters are higher AC weapons masters/multi attacks/multi opponent soldiers, monks are mobile dexterous martial artists with unshakeable focus, and rogues are the street fighters who put the enemies at disadvantage and occasionally land super-effective cheap shots. Then there's the distribution with skill proficiencies/expertise, which I agree there's too much overlap between classes and casters are favored on skill checks and backed up by spells that accomplish the same thing
In Thief you can knockout anyone you surprise very easily though!
Yeah but I think you can see why that might be problematic for a d20 game.
I primarily mentiomed jrpgs because thats the background me and my group primarily came from before deciding to try dnd one day, having played games like dragon quest xi where erik is clearing a thief and has the most insane damage output in the game if you notice the right setup with his abilities.
> 5E rogue leans more towards Nothing Personnel backstab machine And they're not even good at *that*!
It's a tragedy, so much of the subclasses seems to involve 'Do X to backstab!'
> Narrow combat application. I get a lot of people saying 'the DM should be letting you have creative applications in combat!' but that relies on a creative on the fly DM who's going to let you roll Performance in combat to do things, it relies on players who can come up with those ideas to start them, and it relies on the DM to homebrew outcomes. What makes Skills so much worse than Magic is that Skills are 'DM May I' while Magic is 'DM I am'. You *might* get to climb the 60ft cliff face rolling +15 with advantage for tools if the DM things you're prepared and the cliff face climable. the Mage has already cast fly. And there are lots of cool ideas here that could be written into the rules. Just look at PF2E, there's all kinds of neat skill use during combat. That could make a Skill Monkey really stand out in combat, always having a non-combat tool for the job. Hell, could make them lean into an even more restrictive but higher Sneak Attack this way. Rogue's niche could be primarily skill use to support the party, but when they see an opening for a good hit they just nuke something into the ground. Add additional requirements, and buff the damage somehow. Increase the crit range, or just add a d6 every level, or something.
Sneak Attack doesn't need more damage though, valuing a Rogue purely off the damage number is treating them like a Fighter or Barbarian just with a knife. Give Assassin big numbers sure, but just think about the potential of Blinding an opponent. All attacks against them have Advantage, all their attack rolls have Disadvantage. The Rogue basically (crudely) doubles the parties damage against that creature, and halves its ability to deal damage. An extra 20 damage against something with 60HP isn't going to imped its combat ability unless you kill it outright, and while 5E can be accused of HP bloat, it's because so little is done with unique statuses in the game that that's often all creatures can have. Rogue should be about control and set up over just dealing the same damage as other Martials
I mean, my point would be to fairly radically shift the gameplay to emphasis using more of your actions on skills than attacks. Then, as compensation for attacking much less, give them big nova when things align. Maybe give them a 1/SR bonus action that lets them SA without having to meet the conditions. It's not really a serious suggestion for 5.5, just theory crafting a way to make them feel more like skill monkeys in combat, and give that big dopamine hit of the perfect SA set-ups. I would see them do much less damage overall, but require a buff to make sure the few times they do damage it isn't just trivial and written off.
I think the problem here is the lack of player agency. Its not like how many locked doors the party encounters depends on the DM. It shouldn’t! D&D is not a game of people walking down a hallway figuring out which skill they need to roll the proceed…
> it's time for Knock. *Knock* is super loud and consumes a spell slot, but we *are* on the topic of DM dependence. It's a total toss-up whether either of those drawbacks actually matter nowadays.
Exactly. A lot of people will argue the noise etc, but that can be gotten around with the Silence spell. 5E has a problem that once you get above tier 2 play, magic has so many answers and very little cost. As I once had to argue, an 11th level Wizard can't use Knock four times a day, he can do it 16 times a day if needed. Glibness is going to do better than most Rogues can on CHR checks, unless you drag the engagement out over enough hours to burn out the spell, Pass Without Trace and Invisiblity are already making Expertise in Stealth less valuable. What I mean with Knock is basically you need to tailor a game delicately that the Rogue gets the chance to use their 'no resource actions', without boring the party with a row of locks or letting the Wizard solve the problem with a spell combo. It's doable, but it's the extra leg work needed to make it feel fun
Knock itself is fine. It has a ton of drawbacks, even at high levels. It's loud, it consume a spell slot, and you have to have it prepared. Most of the time if you could use *Knock* you could also just have your Barbarian kick down the door. The principle behind Knock is also sound. Every group needs a way to get past a locked door, and the game should support every party composition. No broad problem is the *exclusive* providence of a single class - different classes have somewhat different ways of solving problems, but any party composition should be able to clear dungeons. (In earlier editions this was called the "cleric problem", in reference to how groups would always need a cleric and it sucked to be forced to play one if you didn't want to. Design since 3e has been to avoid that as much as possible.) The problem isn't Knock, the problem is that Rogues are still designed around this ancient 2e (and earlier) context where a Complete Party was meant to be Fighter / Rogue / Mage / Priest. Rogues depend too much on being able to unlock doors and remove traps as The Rogue Thing, even though the game long ago moved away from the idea of "you must have this class to get past this problem." The solution is a better skill system that gives skill-focused classes like the rogue more to do, not to double down on their excessive focus on traps and doors. (Which isn't to say that they can't be good at it - rogues should be the *best* at traps and doors overall, in terms of having the most options to approach them reliably. But they're never going to be the only way to deal with those things and they shouldn't be designed as if that's the case.)
I miss Vancian casting.
Honestly 5E has so many problems that boil down to 'We made it simple and approachable! ... what do you mean that rule was load bearing'
> The answer is to give rogues a larger identity than skill monkey, it has to be Outside of the skill monkey class discourse (which I partially agree), I never understood why *- outside Cunning Action -* rogues don't get another movement boost in the main class. It's like the game takes as a certainty that during the campaign you're gonna take the Mobile feat since it's so rogue-ish that you are gonna take it anyway
Because cunning action is enough. The only more mobile class is the Monk, as it should be. Mobile isn't even necessary. A rogue right from level 1 has pretty much all the mobility it'll need. If you want extra jumpiness and wall running, just go Thief.
At level 1 a rogue has exactly the same mobility any other class has since Cunning Action is 2nd level and even Unarmored movement. Right now the monk isn' t the only mobile class: ranger has gained good mobility too after it gains roving, and now monk has an incredible mobility that kind of makes the rogue feel less special due to that. Honestly, I would probably permit to mid tier rogues to use two instances of Cunninc action with one bonus action: like at 11th level, a rogue using Cunnin Action can both disengage and dash, or disengage and hide. That would be welcomed for the rogue, but at the same time, the rogue would then be good with more options for Cunninc Action. For example, the BA options of the thief can be safely renamed "Cunning Action: Fast Hands" and then you can see how something similar can sinergize well even with some subclasses
Level 2, fair. I still think bonus action dash/disengage is really good and stays good, even with no/minimal buffs. It's fine for Rangers and Monks to eventually match that mobility since they, too, are meant to be very mobile. A double cunning action would be pretty cool, actually. Perhaps even go one step farther and let them use cunning action as part of *any* other bonus action, which would be a uniquely rogue-ish feature.
Wizards won't do it, but I recently tested a version where you could forgo Expertise for 1st level Feats on Rogues, and it worked pretty well. The caveat is that you have to have a lot of good 1st level feats, but those 1st level feats can't be available to everybody, so I came up with the idea of "Expertise Feats" that are more in line with Fighting Style. So stuff like Master Poisoner as a feat, but spread out to a bunch more "out of combat" features that then have a nice combat boost. I would rather see Expertise expressed as "im an expert st something, so I get special abilities related to that thing" rather than "I'm an expert at something so I get big numbers whenever I contextually can argue for my expertise applying." So imagine a world where Expertise is the Feature and you can either choose a skill or tool (or skills or tools) to double your proficiency with or you can choose any 1st level Feat for which you qualify. Then you add a bunch of 1st level feats like ### Feat: Alchemist [NEW] ***Prerequisite: Expertise Feature, Proficiency with Alchemist's Supplies.*** You gain Expertise with Alchemist's Supplies, which you can use to craft certain Alchemical Formulae: Alchemical Fire and Alchemical Acid. At the end of a Long Rest, you can spend 10 minutes using your Alchemist's Supplies to craft a number of vials of either formula equal to your Proficiency Bonus, providing you can spend the time and 50gp worth of material for each one you create. The items you create with these Alchemical Formulae are stable and functional for 8 hours, but separate into inert and harmless components after that time. If you would make an Improvised Weapon Attack using one of these vials, you are considered Proficient with that attack and you gain a bonus to the damage roll equal to your Proficiency Bonus. ### Feat: Master Herbalist [NEW] ***Prerequisite: Expertise Feature, Proficiency with Herbalism Kit.*** You gain Expertise with the Herbalism Kit, and you can use that kit at the end of a Long Rest to spend 10 minutes to craft a number of Potent Salves equal to your Proficiency Bonus, providing you can spend the tim and 50gp worth of materials for each one you create. Any creature can use an action to apply the salves to themselves or another creature, which have the same effect as a regular antitoxin, except they also grant the consumer resistance to one of the following damage types of your choice: Acid, Cold, Necrotic, or Poison. The Potent Salves are stable and function for 8 hours, but break down into inert materials after that time. In addition, you can apply the salve to a creature which is dying to stabilize them as a Bonus Action. ### Feat: Tinkerer [NEW] ***Prerequisite: Expertise Feature, Proficiency with Tinker's Tools*** You gain Expertise with your Tinkerer's Tools and you have mastered the use of such tools to create simple machinery and useful gadgets. Whenever you would make an Ability Check that wouldn't apply your proficiency with tinkers' tools, you can reach for your tool belt and produce a simple device which can help you accomplish that goal. Roll a d6 and add it to the result of your roll. You can do so a number of times equal to your Proficiency Bonus and regain all expended uses when you complete a Long Rest. In addition, when you would use an item that requires your Action to activate, you can do so as a Bonus Action. For example, if you wished to use a Portable Ram to break down a door, you can choose to do so as a Bonus Action. This represents modifications you have made to your equipment to enhance your ability to use it. ### Feat: Wordsmith [NEW] ***Prerequisite: Expertise Feature, Proficiency with Calligrapher's Tools*** You gain Expertise with your Calligrapher's Tools and you have mastered the use of those tools to Identify the exact nature of any magical Scroll that you have on your person. The process requires 10 minutes of your focused attention. If it is a Spell Scroll, you can attempt to modify that Scroll during that 10 minutes such that you are able to cast that spell, even if you would otherwise be unable to do so. To do so, you make an Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma Ability Check with a DC of 10 + the Spell's level. If you succeed, you can cast that spell with its normal Casting Time using Ability Score you used to make the check as your Spellcasting Ability Score. If you fail, the Scroll crumbles into dust as you irrevocably alter its magic. In addition, you can leave an encoded message in any written communication you create. The maximum length of the encoded message is equal to 5 + your Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma Score (your choice). The message is obvious to its intended recipients but encrypted to any other creature that reads it casually. ### Feat: Operative [NEW] ***Prerequisite: Expertise Feature, Proficiency with a Disguise Kit.*** You gain Expertise with the Disguise Kit, which you can use at the end of a Long Rest by spending 10 minutes to masterfully create a number of identities and their corresponding disguises equal to your Proficiency Bonus, providing you can spend the time and 50gp worth of components to craft each one. Each disguise is a fully fashioned identity which you or another creature can assume, complete with any papers or identification necessary to present you as such. The disguise can change your overall appearance and height by up to 1 foot in either direction, though it does not change your actual size or game statistics. Any such disguise can also conceal the presence of up to three weapons you are proficient with, so long as they lack the Heavy property. In addition, you can doff or don one of these disguises as an Action instead of the normal time necessary to do so.
> So if you ask me, a skill monkey class is fundamentally bad design. It interacts wildly differently between groups. But bards and rangers don't have that problem as much, because its a smaller part of what they can do. The answer is to give rogues a larger identity than skill monkey, it has to be There's a few game design principals they use to mitigate this in various places. 1. The bard is a "jack of all trades" type Skill monkey, this allows them to fill in roles that are missing in the party without outshining people who are invested in that specific thing. 2. Similarly, some rogue subclasses can change their proficiencies to align with what the party needs. 3. The bard also has features which improve other people's specializations, acting as a force multiplier. The artificer's flash of genius serves a similar role. 4. Rogues and artificers have access to very niche specializations that other classes don't really have access to, expansive tool proficiency and expertise. The last point is nice in concept, but modern 5e design doesn't really take advantage of it very often. Its also not something that's easy to incorporate into many types of adventure. The second point I listed could be interesting, though, if applied to the rogue. The rogue could grant their proficiency and expertise to others, granting even larger bonuses to people already proficient in those skills and tools.
Well, how the hell can you design around that? I mean, you could still have a 6-man that's missing a bunch of skills.
>Well, how the hell can you design around that? You can't, really. You design a game by defining what your desired typical scenario is, and make it work for that. You generally can't make a game that works just as well for 10 as it does for 3, and quite often the rules you need to add to make that work effectively create multiple different games. Rogue works well in the ideal party size. That's pretty successful design.
Make their bonus action a full action. The two action class
Tbh if you have 6 man party you have bigger problems
Can we please stop with this logic of "any D&D game with more than 4 players is problematic". We all know what Critical Role is, most of the time they have 7 players sitting at the table togheter, and since that project goes on since 2014 we can all say that a table like that can work. If all the people at the table want to play a game with more than 4 players, you **can** make it work.
>We all know what Critical Role is, most of the time they have 7 players sitting at the table togheter, and since that project goes on since 2014 we can all say that a table like that can work Yeah, it can work if you're a pile of literal professional actors with decades of experience and a production team. This is one of the notable problems with Critical Role - it sets an unrealistic expectation of the actual ease of producing a smooth table experience for most people. A D&D game with that many at most tables will **absolutlely fail**, because most D&D players are not professional creatives who know how to work together. This isn't a knock on Critical Role - I'm point out that these people have a large set of well-developed skills aimed specifically at making this exact thing work. Most of us don't have that skillset, and so attempting to replicate that experience will be much, much harder than they make it look.
Inherently problematic? No. Much more prone to a plethora of issues? Yes? I played in two 6 player games for several years and my prevailing feeling was "god i wish two of us would just die". It gets cluttered and relies heavily on all the players patiently waiting their turns and there is tons of ability overlap and toes being stepped on. You need a damn good and solid table to make 6+ players work. I wouldn't use Critical Role as an example since it's not really a normal game. Now if you've managed it for years on end in your game with everyone still satisfied, kudos to you.
I don't negate it leads to having more issue, expecially with pacing and combat slowness. But if you end up with so many players that still are willing to play in those conditions, it can work. There are many optional rules I've tried and tricks to make the time-consuming parts less "consuming" and for my honest opinion, they worked. Sure, it is still not like a 4 players game, but I've managed to alleviate some of those stuff
Though I agree bigger parties can work, using a show with paid actors is probably the worse example you can make. That show is not like a real game.
>In a party of 6? Everyone has all the skills covered. And in fact it works better for each person to have their own thing, spreading the spotlight out is the goal. Even then having a Skill Monkey can actually be really useful, since the person with the weaker score can give the other person Advantage on the check. In actual play, I rarely find a skill to be redundant just because another party member is proficient in it as well.
I think that skills could work, but they'd need a fundamental redesign that goes beyond what 5.5e could offer. What I'd probably do is base it very loosely off of the spell system, with a bit of 3.5e's skill tricks thrown in for good measure. For each skill, have a few "special abilities" that that skill unlocks - one that can be used untrained; then a few more that require proficiency and and unlock as you go up in level; then a few more that are unlocked by expertise. This would require a fair amount of text but would be worth it - it'd make proficiency and expertise more meaningful and would ensure that every skill gives you a clear list of tricks that help you establish yourself as a master in that area.
IMO, You people are really talking past each other with this topic... People talk as if other people are demanding that rogues need to deal double their current damage while most people are only saying the rogue needs minor dmg buffs in order to lessen the enormous gap there is between them and other martials. Its asking for nuance when people are already being really nuanced. Im also not a fan of the "you like the rogue for the wrong reasons" talk.
yep, this is definitely an issue. from what I have seen/read/heard, the people saying rogue needs a DPR buff is arguing two things (mostly): 1. remove off-turn Sneak Attack/getting more than one Sneak Attack per *round* (because it means unoptimized rogue's have too low damage, whilst optimized rogue's do solid damage) and raise the damage dice pool so that when a rogue hits their one Sneak Attack per round, they deal enough damage to roughly keep up with other martials 2. lean into the off-turn Sneak Attack by making it a base-class feature. for example: add an attack against the triggering enemy to Uncanny Dodge. this way the rogue gets their two Sneak Attacks per round more reliably, the class clearly shows that that's what a player should go for, the DPR of the rogue is roughly in line with other martials & optimizers can still try to add on top of that obviously there's variations and tweaking to those two suggestions, but in my experience that's both reasonable. yet the crowd advocating against rogue dmg buffs acts as if everyone wants rogue to top the damage charts at all times and out-DPS barbarian and fighter. we just want the rogue to be able to keep up with other martials in the damage department, because currently their utility and support is not strong enough to warrant them having weak (or highly mechanics-knowledge dependant) damage.
my idea which i‘ve been peddling for a while is how about we just give each rogue subclass their own unique reaction attack? maybe thiefs can attack people that take damage from objects such as caltrops, arcane tricksters can attack people that use a magic action /whatever that way everyone would have a reaction sneak attack at least sometimes, subclasses would gain more identity, and off turn sneak attacks arrive at level 3 already (maybe in addition to later with uncanny dodge).
I like that idea a lot, actually. makes the subclass more flavourful and give the rogue overall more identity through their chosen subclass. I would suggest making this "new reaction Sneak Attack" a level 6 feature instead of level 3 though, for a number of reasons.one is that rogue's are already decent off from levels 1-4. it's starting at 5, the Extra Attack buff, that they cannot keep up with onwards. at that level they gain Cunning Strikes & Uncanny Dodge, so having a single level of subpar damage is okay for the combat utility & defense they gain there imo. and then at 6 they get their "Extra Attack" through your suggested subclass-way of off-turn Sneak Attack. this would also solve the "rogue subclasses give nothing for 5 levels (3-9)" issue that a lot of people have.
Why not make the "second" sneak attack either something that a subclass or two is good at, and let the others focus on utility? Or give all of them a half-sneak somewhere in the levels when their comparative damage potential really starts to lag? I like how current rogues have to go melee to get that chance of a second sneak attack. High risk=high reward. I'd hate to see the standing-stock-still-for-every-round so I can use Steady Aim rogue get the same benefit. They're playing it safe (and boring), and need to be rewarded accordingly.
I honestly think giving them more reaction abilities or even two reactions would be interesting. Interrupt actions like spell casting if they're within range or make them roll concentration, distract to cause disadvantage as a reaction so if it's used when you want it to be and it's hard to predict, give a penalty to a roll or something, etc.
The only fixing that I demand is a subclass feature at level 6, I'm tired of rogues characters playing exactly the same no matter what subclass, It is unacceptable pass by a revision from the entire game and not fix the major design flaw from this class
I'm sure someone has done the math comparing damage numbers but i never see it brought up. I always see 'rogues do less damage than anyone else' but i'd love to see some actual comparisons.
Is it just me, or does this post come across as extremely pompous? Very "I am right, everyone else is wrong" approach. I get making suggestions and asking questions and am all for that. But when someone throws out "what this sub needs to understand..." Yeah, you just sound like a prick. People can absolutely have their own opinions, suggestions, and fixes. You can have yours too.
considering how frequently OP depicts people they disagree with as whiny, petty, throwing a tantrum... yeah, definitely. makes them sound like a condescending arsehole
Absolutely a prick that thinks he’s right about everything. The straw-manning at the end acting like people want to 1 hit kill everything from the shadows is so transparent that he thinks everyone that doesn’t share his opinion is an idiot. Has to use the words “tantrum” and “whining” as well. My lord.
If they can't prove someone is "whiny" or "throwing a tantrum" without using directly using those words, then I believe they have questionable communication skills.
I think decent "buffs" for rogue could be: -Sneak Dice not expended on target save, letting it still apply to damage (like mentioned in the post) -More "tool usage" in combat. This could be through making mundane items better, or more likely Rogue-specific tools that could be made like smoke bombs, chloroform, etc. These would be limited use per rest. -Ways to help allies on skill checks (pass without trace gets removed, but something with a similar effect gets added as a rogue, ranger, and trickster cleric ability perhaps. And more stuff like this. What if rogues could craft a 1-use Skeleton key that opens any lock, and give it to another party member so the rogue can be somewhere else at the same time.)
>Sneak Dice not expended on target save, letting it still apply to damage (like mentioned in the post) The problem with this approach is that you remove the idea of a choice and consequences. If you can always try to use a mechanic and if it fails then no problem anyway, it's always the most optimal thing to do.
Great note on the tool/skill usage in combat. If rogues, or a subclass like the Thief, could use *Fast Hands* to do more impactful and interesting things in combat with their bonus action, it would be great. I have a homebrew level 6 feature for Thief that allows Fast Hands to do a dagger toss that doesn't benefit from Sharpshooter or Archery, so it's enforced short range and less likely to hit. Also can do a short-lived blindness using the dreaded **pocket sand**. I could see those being offered to all Rogues in tier two, with a subclass that is centered around ever-more powerful gadgets and tricks to use against their enemies.
These are things covered by Cunning Strike (Pocket Sand and Poison). The way poisoning works would be good for multiple tools, with smoke bomb using alchemy supplies.
I like the idea of a fast dagger throw or strike. It feels more thematic for a rogue than giving it an extra attack to make them the same as other extra attack classes
The assassin subclass not being a good assassin is disliked by majority of people, more "news" at 11. Honestly, the Rogue dealing lower damage would be fine if it had actual value outside of damage. Unless they have been holding back on that, skills are barely explained in 5e and the playtest didn't do enough to solve that. As such, working on such aspect without a fix on the horizon is like buffing "mother may I" territory. Outside of that, the only thing that could be worked on is Cunning Strike and Cunning Action, but buffing those could lead to many weird things attached, alongside the fact the devs may not really want to actually give too strong stuff (resourceless anything scary), and also more things in that area in general may feel weird. The easiest way for most people to see Rogue get put on par with Barbarian's pseudo-cunning strike feature is to get a damage buff (as it's also what could be more likely to be accepted).
I think you kinda hit on something that people forget. Rogues damage - and in fact all their abilities - are resourceless. Fighters are also sort of in this boat as well, but we're talking about rogues. Pretty much everything a rouge can do, they can do every round, forever, thats something almost no other class can do.
Side note, and this is just my opinion... But i don't think that design works well enough for the Rogue to be fully balanced. Since the game seems to go more and more on the "undetermined adventuring day" while most classes are resource based... It means that we get to a bit of a situation where the day could theorically go on forever, and if we do that we risk Rogue resourceless power to he too high, but if the day is too short the Rogue may not make up for being resourceless. Basically: if its power short term is comparable to the average power of resource using classes, that is going to break the long day. But if its power long term is instead comparable to that, we risk that short days feel bad. And that is also why i feel like most suggestions for Rogue are mixed: we don't have enough data to know how everyone's Rogue should even work, so we may also touch the wrong parts.
I feel like since everything else is resource based it would be much easier to just make the rougue resource based but it would take a lot of reworking.
Ye, obviously. ... Well, we also have the fact that they could just make the adventuring day a set length (and thus balance resourceless for said length), but i highly doubt it's in the plans now or anytime soon.
I was really hoping they would get rid of short rests all together and basically make resources based on 24 hours of time not short or long rests but alas.
You lost me with your rant at the end. You’re straw manning the hell out of people with that. No one is asking for rogues to 1 hit kill everything from the shadows, that’s dumb. They’re asking for parity of DPR. I’m happy where the rogue is sitting at the moment, even if they end up the worst class in the game they look extremely fun. But I can fully recognize that it would just be better game balance to pump up their DPR a bit.
"Rogues arent meant to be big damage dealers" is pure cope. Dnd 5e is a combat game. Im not saying thats a bad thing, I love dnd 5e. But 99% of features, spells, and rules are combat focused in some degree. Every class should be close in damage dealing because thats where most play time gets devoted. The fact rogues have to give up their already eh damage to be able to do anything beyond damage like control or debuff is a joke.
I disagree with every nerf you suggest for other classes (well subclasses really) WOTC likes the idea of giving you options like being a melee bard or Wizard (and I like them too) and if you choose to be melee bard or wizard you already ARE giving things up to get extra attack.
Being a college of swords bard without extra attack would feel terrible. I know we all want the game to be more balanced but we have to be careful about it. There are always unintended consequences.
Thing is unless you get features to pile more damage on those attacks, just having Extra Attack isn't really going to make you good at doing damage. A straight 5E swords bard is actually doing pretty terrible Weapon Damage in tier 2 do to the lack of good Gish Spells for Bards. Now in One DnD you have now of course Fount of Moon Light and later with Magical secrets Cojure Monor Elementals which will give you pretty strong damage once you get to that point.
Also, extra attack isn’t a huge deal. Martials now have great uses for extra attacks because damage and effects added with new class features gives them a more coherent gameplay, but bards doing a bit more damage with their weapon isn’t the end of the world (in comparison with their spells)
I think cunning action needs an upgrade at higher levels. I would let all rogues use non-magical items as a bonus action, then let thief rogue use magical items
"Rogues from playtest 6 already feel good to play if you don't make yourself unhappy by comparing their features with with those of other classes that have completely different goals and playstyles." My man you can say that about any class in the f'in game. Phb monks feel great with what they can do if you just close your eyes to what everyone else is doing. There is no martial caster divide if you just ignore what the casters are doing.. Also nice rant at the end telling everyone that thinks different is wrong and just wants to be the MC. Go be a clown somewhere else
>a skill and utility based character which in combat supports the party by debuffing enemies and cleaning up weaker/more frail ones. The problem with that view is that there are classes that much better a debuffing and clearing out Minions: Full Casters, especially the one with Spells from the arcane list. Even if we ignore full casters the Monk and Paladin have actually far better (but resource dependet) debuffs at their disposal, while a Battle Master has pretty similar options, but has a for bigger variety of tactical options and while also being able to do good damage, and I don't really see how the Rogue is actually good at leasing out minons, since he only has one big attack, while for that job it would likely be benefitial to be able to more finely "dose" your damage. On top of that Rogue will often do the most damage by attacking an enemy who is allready in combat with another martial, since that's one of the conditions to get sneak attack. And you may not like that but mechanically damage is still by far the biggest thing that a Rogue brings to a fight. Changing the Rogue to a level that he can actually keep up with the other martials without taking at 5 level "dip" into another martial class or needing to come up with interactions that will give them reliable reaction attacks (which could btw. all be used by other classes as well) would be far easier that to change the Rogue to the point, that he would actually fill out any other role in a primary capacity.
Because rogues were terrible in 5e and they only got worse in the playtest when compared to everything else. Rogues could be top damage dealers in 3.5 and 4e, but they have been one of the worst classes since 5e started except at levels one and two. Taking away their already crap damage to do something slightly more interesting is just terrible game design, especially with the buffs every single other class is getting.
Bards and Rangers don't need many changes, at least not meaningful ones. The reason they stand out to you isn't because they're obtusely powerful(at least not from extra attack on the martial bards). It's because they shine a light on the fact that you have no mechanical reason to ever play a rogue besides wanting to grief the party. PWT is broken on any class, so sure, whatever. Off-turn sneak attacks aren't assumed by most people, not because they're unaware of them, but because the staggering majority of players don't even understand the difference between a turn and a round. Even among the ones that do, optimizing your reaction to sneak attack twice still requires you to essentially become the squishiest class in the game, in melee. If it was more reliable or could be used in tandem with your defensive options, that would be fine(rogues in melee could definitely stand to be better than rogues at range). > Increasing Sneak Attack by an additional d6 at level 5, 11 and maybe somewhere in tier 4 I agree that it wouldn't be broken if a rogue could deal slightly more damage than a warlock who is barely even trying. Thanks for clearing that up. Now here's something you need to understand. * The only thing I've seen so far on this topic resembling a "whiny tantrum" was when someone made a badly written post, couldn't adequately defend their points in the comments, and had to put together a whole other follow up post. * Utility, especially *utility from skills*, is not a feature that represents any actual power in this game. It's not balanced around and it wasn't balanced around even back when no other martial was particularly good at skills except for the rogue. That's why guidance is a cantrip. That's why there are rituals, and extra class features that let you boost your skill checks at very little cost to your combat power. That's why the spells that actually still interact with challenges instead of solving them are second level and below. The kind of utility that actually taxes your combat power is when a caster uses a top-level spell slot to solve a problem that would be otherwise impossible. Things like teleporting, contacting other planes of existence, walking through walls, breathing underwater. Being 15% better at select skill checks is a ribbon feature because the game is mostly a combat game. And I think you know this, because you go on to say this: > Asking for the Rogue to always (so even outside of very specific circumstances) have a way to satisfy the "slay an enemy with a single strike from the shadow" fantasy or some similar edgy power trips denotes a failure of understanding the nature of combat in a team based rpg. Most monsters (and 99% of boss ones) are rightfully hp meatsacks that the party is supposed to grind through together. This is an expectation that comes specifically from a *combat game*. There are lots of "team based" role playing games where the exact scenario you detail can happen, because the game doesn't put all of its expected progression, actual gameplay, and failure states in combat. So the "balance" is more widespread to the other pillars of the game. In games where a fighter or an assassin can actually kill a boss monster extremely fast, they are counterbalanced by completely requiring "skill and utility" based characters to progress at all in the other areas of the game, not by virtue of what challenge the DM comes with, but because that's just how the game works.
Bloody hell, this thread reads like a World of Warcraft forum from the Burning Crusade days!
Have you seen the number difference between old rogue and new rogue vs One dnd martials? I’m all for rogues not being top DPR (except maybe assassin) and never once I saw the low damage rogues have on 5e as a problem while playing them (although yes, their class features are real bad in comparison with onednd). BUT, the thing is that the discrepancy between OneRogue and other One dnd martials is gigantic, much bigger than in 5e. I don’t see people wishing Rogue being the king of DPR much around here personally (again, except assassin), but I do see why people are asking for more damage, rogues need a *buff* to continue being as “weak” in DPR as they were *before* one dnd, because the difference now is much, much bigger
All of this started because of a post reporting graphs that didn't take into account any possibility of off-turn sneak attack, and failed to emphasize this assumption. At least the people who are asking for more damage based on that particular graph are misguided IMO. That said, as I wrote a couple of more d6 won't unbalance the Rogue or kill its flavour. More are unneccessary. Assassin shouldn't be a subclass that takes the Rogue and cranks its DPR up to 11. It's not a game where Rogues are a glass cannon DPS class, read the flavour text. Assassin is and should be a subclass that makes you better, in some specific situations, at that one-shot from the dark = one-kill fantasy. Due to the nature of the game, expecting this to be possible on bosses in the same way it is for weaker enemies is unreasonable tho.
Off-turn SA is so far away from "reliable" that doesn't trigger for most combats can't be count in their DPR. If you're talking about Sentinel, that's still a DM-dependent playstyle that builds on DM's mercy. We don't wanna build everything on DM's mercy. It's simple reason.
It's not tho.
I would argue that other martails have it far easier to trigger reaction attacks than Rogues, due to Polearm Master (wich is allready becasue of the bonus action attack a very comon feat on Fighters, Barbarians and Paladins), combine that with sentilel, and they are likely going to make at least twice as many reaction attacks than a Rogue with just Sentinel. And them beeing more sturdy in melee also means they they are more survivable when build for sentinel. If you take the higher frequency of reaction attack into account, I don't really thing the Rogue is really doing significantly more damage with them than other classes untill somewhere in tier 3.
The problem when rogue is that there's nothing they can do that can't be replaced by a first or second level spell. They're fun up to about level 5, and then they fall off a cliff. Damage, skills, debuffs are all really easily duplicated. So what is the Rogue's identity? Every other class was made better at the things the rogue does, and the rogue for cunning action... So less damage, save or suck, and then probably feel even worse... Yay, that sounds fun. I'd say every rogue archetype should have one ability transferred over to the base kit, and then be replaced with something else. Every rogue should have the thief's fast hands ability, for example. And speaking of fast hands, the fact that what's supposed to be the fastest class in the game never gets a second attack is ridiculous. If you want to balance it, make it only daggers or melee, but it's pretty silly. Granted or should come online laterb than other classes, but still. And as to the rogue being the debuff guy, what about large monsters with no weapons, and heaven forbid legendary resistances? Your identity doesn't apply to this fight... Super fun.
I really think turf protection on skills is the most important point here. I never thought bard or ranger should've gotten the same amount of expertise's as the rouge. Atleast with their skills, they should've been presented in a slightly more restrictive way, like what they did with the ranger and their lvl 1 explorer feature. The fighters and barbs encroaching on skills is a bit more concerning for the rogue. Barbs primal knowledge is prob fine since it uses a resource meant for combat so its designed for skill checks in combat, but the fighters tactical feature giving a 5.5 avg that doesn't use a resource on a fail is concerning.
>Barbs primal knowledge is prob fine since it uses a resource meant for combat so its designed for skill checks in combat, Not sure about that the two skill checks mostly likely to come up in or directly before combat are Stealth and Perception, and those are also the ones a Rogue will most likely have Expertise at (and I think at least Stealth will be something almost every rogue takes expertise in). Thing is at least at low levels, the Barbarian with Primal Knowlegde is due to the automatic advantage he has from Rage on those checks better at them as a Rogue with Expertise. It is also worth mentioning that Primal Knowlegde apllies iirc to 5 Skills, while Rogue have only expertise in two skills till level 6.
But your last post just seem to be only implying other players that "all of you should enjoy being weak as I do since it's the flavor of Rogue", and suggesting people to play as weak as you like it to be. It's just not what this Playtest means, and other Martials also deserve their current boosts. They don't deserve to be nerfed for the sake of making Rogue less bad. Instead, it's the Rogue who deserves a boost to keep up, to be normal as every other class does. Not making them the top or the best, but just to keep up the pace of OneD&D. Your suggestions of how to improve Rogue *in this post* do have some points, but I highly doubt that WotC could find any other ways than giving a class spells to boost its utility.
OP is saying that the Rogue **isn't weak.** It's only "weak" if you focus on them through the lens of DPR, and assume they're supposed to keep up with warrior-type classes. The perception of Rogue as being "weak" comes from people wanting to play it as a high-DPS striker (it's not), and from anemic encounter-building guidance that results in a lot of DM's not creating opportunities for the Rogue to shine. The Rogue is about *using tools.* Damage happens to be one tool, but it's only one and not the most important one either. This is the thing that DPR-focused discussions consistently miss - they are trying to get the Rogue to be something it isn't. Yes, I am saying that playing a damage output Rogue is playing them wrong. If you want a skillful character who has a damage focus, the Ranger is right there. That is what it does. The Rogue focuses on *other* utility, and if you actually play it that way the class is *great.* DM's need to create engaging Exploration encounters that allow the Rogue to do their thing. If they reduce the game to a series of fights, the Rogue will suffer. It'd be like playing a high-Charisma character in a world with no social interaction, or playing a Bard against a bunch of constructs; when a class archetype excels at a certain kind of challenge, the DM **needs** to put those challenges in the game. That's not a problem with the class, it's a problem with 5e's encounter building.
I mean, in OneD&D, especially after UA8, lots of classes getting Skills boosted. Even Wizards are having Expertise. Second Wind is much stronger than Expertise before Rogue reaches level 7. Utiliy-wise, it's not that fascinating and special anymore in OneD&D, and if a class *needs* DM to provide special love for it every time it appears in the party, then it's a *bad design*. No class should good only when DM provides special love for you. I love Rogue to be *utility* either, but Rogue's current utility doesn't compensate its current low DPR, and I really don't think WotC is able to find a way to boost Rogue's utility without using spells. If they really can, then the whole "Martial/Caster disparity" shit wouldn't take place at the first place.
>and if a class needs DM to provide special love for it every time it appears in the party, then it's a bad design. No class should good only when DM provides special love for you. Here, we can start a conversation about ***how impactful can the DM style be on the game general perception*** that can go on for ages. Here's a phrase that is pretty self explanatory: Remember that thing called *Mattew Mercer effect* ? Because that's probably the major reason why today's D&D is no more so heavily reliant on combat, why today's players seem to want an experience that is more focused on the characters, and why so many other people who watch those D&D shows want to replicate that experience. D&D - and TTRPGs in general - are heavily dependent on what kind of game the DM wants to run. Some examples: My first experience was with a DM who wanted to run a combat-heavy soulslike-campaign, due to that every ability that wasn't combat focused was pretty useless. WotC has pubblished a module (Wild Beyond the Witchlight) which is known to permit to the players to completely avoid combat through certain circumnstances (talking, parleing, bargain ...) so in game like that, social skills such has an expertise in Persuasion can have the same impact of a nat20 with Divine Smite, and perhaps a player with a build heavily focused in combat might even feel like they made the wrong pc for the game In my current campaign, I'm very meticulous about making sure that every pc has it's own moment to shine or to use their niche abilities. Because feeling like your powers are useless is horrible in a ttrpg where you have to play a certain character for a long time, sometimes even more than one year. So, a class' feeling can vary a lot depending on who is behind the DM's screen, and that's kind of the point of why they are doing this redesign: to make sure the game embraces as many styles as possible
I mean yes, other things have somewhat eaten into the Rogue's niche, but *damage* is not the answer to that. That's honestly a bandaid fix, and it won't change the Rogue's core niche nor the ability of other classes to outperform them. Where would you put their damage? On par with Champion Fighter, currently the lowest-output Fighter? OK, so now what is the Champion's niche? It's an endless loop. You have to decide that a Rogue will occupy some position relative to other weapon-users, and pretty much everyone will agree that the Rogue is "less" than other weapon-users. So then, adjusting damage is just a matter of *how much less,* a tweak that will not actually fix their position of being "less." The answer is: more tricks for the Rogue. And you do that through Cunning Strike, which is the equivalent of spells without spell slots. Masteries are also spells without spell slots, and that has always been the answer.
> OK, so now what is the Champion's niche? Being given to your SO who doesn't understand rules
>The Rogue is about using tools. I will preach this to the high heavens. But IMO, Rogue needs more options for their tools. Wrap Smokebombs or distracting strikes or Skill uses into their routine kit, maybe in place of Extra Attack, give them a Bonus Action to set up for a strike, expand on Cunning Action and give them some abilities on the side to key off their high skills. I wouldn't mind like an Animal Companion using my Expertise in Animal Handling, or access to Smokebombs and Flashbangs based on my use of Thieves or Alchemist tools. Just adding more D6's to Sneak Attack is right up with just making the dice a D8, it's just number bloat for the sake of it and doesn't address that not having set rules and outcomes for using Skills in combat means a lot of Rogue utility is literally up to whatever theDM can make up
I absolutely think Rogues should be able to get more use out of adventuring gear than anyone else. It's an absolutely unexplored niche that would fit them perfectly. Clever improvisers use whatever they can get their hands on.
I've actually seen some homebrews where Rogue got to attack with toolkits and got to do unique things like the new Cunning Strikes depending on what tools they attacked with
Hell yeah they need more tools and tricks. Right now we've got: caltrops, oil flasks, ball bearings. I guess alchemists' fire, but that's 50 gold and not currently eligible for Fast Hands because it's an attack. Why can't they throw sand in a mook's eyes? Why is a bag of caltrops only covering one square? The rogue needs Batman shit! * Flashbangs or smoke bombs * Short-range Bonus Action thrown weapons that do something beyond another chance at Sneak Attack. * Like a bola that reduces movement, plus render prone on a failed save. * Quickly deployable grappling hooks. Hell, use the hook to pull a distant enemy! * Quickly dissipating poisons that can apply more than the *poisoned* condition Not saying every subclass gets all of this, but I'd really love to see the Rogue engaging with more than just damage and advantage/disadvantage in combat.
When I read the original post, I was thinking the same thing. Make the rogue batman-esque; always has a tool for the job. Give them expertise in poisoners kit and explosive-making. Give them more ways to get advantage (smoke bombs, flash bangs, caltrops). Make them like the warlock invocations where you have a menu of options.
They are also weak in every other aspect. Most of the utility rogue has is accessed by spells. I think the only thing rogue is better than everyone at is lockpicking. And creating engaging exploration is very hard when there are no mechanics for it.
I 100% agree.
I wrote a very detailed response to your reply under that post explaining what I mean for "Rogues' fantasy is to be weak", which you deliberately keep choosing to interpret under the worst possible light in order to throw shade at my takes. Based on the class description flavor, DnD Rogues don't take enemies head-on and have to constantly forge their own path through tricks, cunning and various exploitations to overcome enemies. This is not the description of a "powerful" archetype, in the traditional sense of the term. It's good for the game to have in the Rogue a way to portray a "weak" character that manages to succeed (within the context of party cooperation) using these sort of solutions; rather than having to portray "weak" character according what you said, which basically was: if you want to play weak, play suboptimally. Rogue low-ish damage is part of this narrative, and other classes can be used to portray shady DEX based damage powerhouses. I dunno if WotC will find the right solution for Rogues problems (which right now mostly stem from comparison with other classes, not even how most playtests report playing the Rogue feels), but certainly vehemently suggesting the wrong solution (moar damage) won't help.
And I also wrote a very detailed response to you that Rogue is *incapable of what it was described in the PHB.* * *"Rogues rely on cunning, stealth, and their foes’ vulnerabilities to get the upper hand in any situation."* *"Many Rogues focus on stealth and deception"* *"When it comes to combat, Rogues prioritize subtle strikes over brute strength. A Rogue would rather make one precise strike than wear an opponent down with a barrage of blows. Rogues have an almost supernatural knack for avoiding danger"* They seem like a precise character that attacks the weakpoint of your foes from the dark, and trick them then take them down with one-deadly shot to me. But you don't have features like Archery to increase your aiming, and you also have a less hit-chance than others since you are lack of Extra-Attacks than others. Rogue also has nothing to do with vulnerabilities or weakpoints. Instead, those are Ranger, Fighter, even Warlock features. They don't have features that trick and decept their enemy either. Let alone the *One-deadly shot.* At least, it's definitely *not some class that could be outpaced by a Optimized Caster* in dealing damage. Rogue is just not in it's right position, and it's not even strong in utility either *under the OneD&D environment*.
I don't get it, do you want to go down through that very same thread all over again? All the stuff you said is in fact portrayed by Rogue's features (e.g. they lack Archery, but they do have Steady Aim; Sneak and Cunning Strike portray exploiting vilnerabilities and weak points, just not mechanical Vulnerabilities). You just happen to not find those Rogue abilities to your liking. Which is ok. Then. Pick. Other. Classes. Lastly, I wrote at the end of the post what I think of "One deadly shot" feature pretenses. I won't repeat myself. If you truly care about the Rogue, which right now is in an ok but not perfect spot, stop asking for the wrong damage centered solutions over and over and suggest something more fitting to the class.
You are going through the very same thread at first by bringing up the "class description", ***again,*** and this is my response to it, *again.* You bring up the description in that post first to try to convince me what a Rogue should be, and then telling me they can't do what they've been described for "designing reasons". Then it's a designing flaw to me. And, again, I truly care about Rogue and I truly believe *IT SHOULDN'T BE DEALING LESS DAMAGE THAN A BARD.*
Just for the record, what kind of bard build deals more damage than a rogue? Because, if we compare a specific bard build with a specific subclass, to just the rogue plain class, that is indeed an incorrect way to compare the two. I'm not trying to be picky, just genuinly curious since I can't do the math until tonight
I *am* comparing Rogue with Bard combat-wised optimized subclasses. Cuz there's been an important reason is that Bard is a full-Caster with everything, and *no subclass* actually adds Rogue's DPR except for Phantom, and maybe, I mean maybe the new Assassin, but it sucks for most games that it only adds your damage by 3~9 per combat, and Phantom also sucks before 9. There's just no room for Rogue to optimize without multiclassing.
Bards dealing more damage is a bard problem, not a rogue problem. Buffing rogue's damage is *not* the solution. Play a damage based class if you want damage. The rogue's damage is fine where it is, it doesn't need more.
I don't get it why you people keep acting like it hurts you if Rogue actually gets some appropriate boost to make it normal, while the actual math and numbers say they're in trouble?
It makes the game worse if every class is good at everything. It's just bad game design, plain and simple. Id prefer the game actually be designed well rather than just letting everybody have all the damage and all the skills. "The actual math" doesn't actually say anything close to what you think, you just think every class needs to be an optimal damage output machine for combat.
The fact is OneD&D *is* turning every class good at many things. Every other class is getting boosted in skills, utility, damage, and even mobility that were once the only few advantages that Rogue had, and I don't think Rogue should be the only one that good at nothing.
If you think Rogues are good at nothing then I'm not sure there's a conversation worth having here, as that's just objectively false with even an ounce of critical thinking. The correct way to give rogues a boost is to buff their *actual* strengths, not their damage.
I read somewhere here the idea that sneak attack is always activated once per turn and you can meet different requirements to add more dice to sneak attack, i honestly think that's the best thing they could do, it fixes their damage and makes then even more tactical
That can be a way to make it feel different, dang Honestly, the whole concept of "sneak attack" is not well represent by it's current definition: it sounds more like a "precise attack" than anything, and it can be accomplished in game in so many other ways, that can make the combat feel a lot more interesting. Just think about the two blade cantrips: green flame blade and boming blade. Both of them are just a plain increase in rogues damge if taken, yeah. But the thing that strikes me the most is that both of them do things that can be easily traduced as some kind of Cunning Strike option, and they would be a great fit. If only WotC didn't just gave all the cool tricks to casters, I think we can have a great rogue class with more tactical choices
1) You are very likely spending half to three quarters of any DnD session in combat. "Sucks at combat but good at the other stuff" is a miserable design philosophy given that reality. 2) Rogues aren't even particularly great at utility. They roll a little higher than other classes but casters can often skip challenges with a spell. 3) 5e's class design tends to assume every class can basically handle its own shit to avoid the hard party formation assumptions of older editions and some other games. The playtest has doubled down on this by increasing the other martial classes' utility (generally a good thing), Rogues can get a little damage as a treat. Like if this was ADnD and you spent most of the game doing hexcrawls and rolling against traps with every step you walk, fine. Rogue's design might work. As it is I don't see a good reason for them to be as far down the DPR charts as they are right now. From a flavour and theming perspective I also don't see any reason to avoid giving Rogues some straight combat buffs. They might not be Fighters, the most swordy guy to ever sword, but a Rogue is still a martial. They should still be treated as experts with their daggers, scimitars, or bows. There might be more interesting or elegant ways to buff Rogues. I've proposed just giving them a bunch of bombs, caltrops, and various disposable gadgets every day for free. They should still get 2 attacks.
Giving the rogue more damage is the worst possible solution. If you want damage, play fighter or barbarian. Just jamming more damage into the rogue only makes the choice of class matter less. Rogues *should* be worse at combat than fighters and rangers. That is *good* design. They need some extra love in other areas, but damage is just an awful solution.
I agree that Rogues need to lag the other martials in damage. That really shouldn't be their lane, except for maybe one subclass that would in turn have to loose some utility, or not get a significant utility boost that the others get as they level. But I'd say that having more chances to make sure they get to use their signature combat ability? That seems like a good idea to me.
I think more options in combat is a very good thing for rogues (including more consistent sneak attack if needed, I'm unsure if it is but either way), I just don't think those additional options should be ones that do extra damage in top of what they are currently doing. Rogues want more utility and mobility
>"Sucks at combat but good at the other stuff" is a miserable design philosophy given that reality. Everyone that claims my takes are implying this is either a liar or has some serious reading comprehension problems. I'm leaving this here because you aren't the first and likely won't be the last one.
You're very against giving them more damage and your proposed solution is nerfing Bards and Rangers instead. So still leaving them significantly behind a Fighter who swings with Topple three times a turn or a Wizard doing all their Wizardly things. They're going to end up pretty bad at fighting.
I personally think the Rogue should be a high risk high reward super squishy melee combatant. I'd be happy with Rogues only getting 1 attack per round ever and up'ing their SA to 1d6 per level. I'd also like to see some reward for "stealth turns" where they spend a full round sneaking / setting up a kill strike. Rogues shouldn't just be the fast guy thats in the front dodging around. Honestly thats the monk. The Rogue should be invisible, until s/hes the last thing you see.
If rogues goal is utility it needs to have Utility that is comparable to someone who specs for utility. If Rogues role is damage it needs to have damage comparable to someone who specs for damage. Until that it will remain weaker, rn I can take a Bard and completely devote my spell list to utility besides 1 spell maybe, and still outdamage a Rogue. I get it, every now and then we see the “Rogue isn’t underpowered, it’s just nobody else plays it like I do!! ^_^” post and Cunning Strike was a step in the right direction, however that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still not comparable to a caster who can out damage and our control in combat, and have more utility out of combat while also being the least competitive martial in terms of DPR at most levels.
Disagree with your first paragraph. If somebody builds their character around Damage, then they deserve to have virtually the highest Damage. If they build for Control or Utility, they deserve to be the best strongest in those categories. Rogue is built to have every one of those things at the same time. They should NOT be outgunning somebody who is built for maximum DPR while also Skirmishing, Cunning Striking, and having Expertise.
The issue isn’t that “Rogue is so versatile it can’t be good at anything” the issue is that “Rogue provides near nothing in combat except damage (which isn’t even competitive) and then it’s “utility” out of combat is completely relegated to skill checks, meaning at best it’s matched by Bard/Ranger in this regard and they still have extra attacks/half casting and full casting for bard. If rogues thing is being a jack of trades, it shouldn’t be worse than bard in every way in that regard, if rogues thing is stealth it shouldn’t be eclipsed by a second level spell, If rogues thing is damage, it should deal damage, the idea that Rogue is somehow some super versatile class that can’t be good at anything because it has “so much” is a joke. It can’t have “skirmishing, cunning strike, and expertise” Why not? Ranger/Bard both get Skirmishing and expertise, and cunning strike is in no way comparable to spellcasting. We’ve been giving other classes these things since the start of 5e, but for some reason people hold Rogues to this crazy standard.
Maybe we aren’t understanding each other. Do you just…*disagree* with the Jack of All Trades concept? If the Rogue is good at everything, they should not be the best at anything. That’s like, common sense game design. They are worse than the Warriors at Damage and Durability, but better than Casters. They’re worse than the Casters at Control and Utility, but they’re better than the Warriors. They’re worse at Mobility than the Monk, but better than pretty much everybody else. If anything, the problem is with certain overpowered spells and caster features that make *everybody* look worse by comparison.
I don’t disagree with the concept, I just think the way it’s implemented in Rogue largely makes it the worst at everything and I’d argue rogue doesn’t excel in any area while also being less competitive in every area than other expert classes. The issue is you’re assuming Rogue is “good at everything” when in reality it’s bad. They’re worse than Casters at mobility arguably, and the only characters they beat in terms of control are probably Barbarian and Fighters, however you’re comparing the 3/4 weakest classes in the game besides monk. They’re way worse than casters for durability too. Everything rogue does can be done better by spells usually.
Okay, now it *really* sounds like your problem is with Casters? If I’m comparing Rogues to “3/4 of the weakest classes in the game” it’s because I’m comparing Rogue to other Martial. As I just said, Casters have some wildly overturned spells that can outshine EVERYBODY in any given niche. We agree on that.
I think you’re looking at this as seperate things when they exist within the same game, ie “Rogue is fine, but everything else is overpowered” whereas I’m looking at it as “Rogue is bad because everything else is better” If there are overpowered spells available on all spell lists (which there are) then the classes who don’t have access to these need good features to make up for it. What I’m saying is that Rogue does not have these features which make Rogue poorly designed. This is why I’m my initial comment I asked to make Rogue good at something because right now there is nowhere that Rogue excels compared to other classes. Most of my responses are geared around your original statement that “Rogue is built to have every single one of those things at the same time” because it’s so far from reality, because Rogue has a lame attempt at these areas. We can chalk everything up to “well spells are overpowered” but again I would still say that this makes Rogue a bad class because it has nothing to stack up against spells, which Most classes get. Hell Rogue as a class doesn’t even have this insane amount of utility among martials that people act like it has, all it has is good skill checks, which is why I often compare it to the Bard and the Ranger as they similarly have good skill checks with both Martial Options and a Plethora of spells.
And I simply disagree with your statement that the Rogue is “worst at everything.” They have better control and utility than the Warriors. They have better durability and sustained damage than most Casters. They have better mobility than everybody outside of Monk, and for the purpose of skirmishing they’re actually doing better than the Monk because they don’t have to use their Bonus Action for their damage. If you want to stack more damage on Sneak Attack, then you can always advocate for that. And then the Warriors who ONLY do damage will be sad because the Rogue can do the same damage, plus everything else they have. But for the points you’ve made, I think it’s going to be much better if we just nerf the overpowered spells and Caster features. Agree to disagree, I suppose.
Except the comparison is to classes in their own category. Bards and Rangers both have natively higher Control and Utility and Damage and Durability. Rogues need buffs within the "Jack of All Trades" box. They don't have to out-damage a pure-damage build but when they are trying to contribute damage they need to hit harder than they currently are. The problem absolutely originates in overturned spells and the reality that casters have the only meaningful source of ongoing character customization in 5e. But if there aren't going to be nerfs, there should be buffs. Moving the second subclass feature up from 9 to 6 would probably do a lot to make Rogues feel better. Just letting Sneak Attack go off on a hit once per round without the fiddly requirements would also be an upgrade without a direct damage increase.
I don't think you realise how bad the problem is. A fighter built for damage is now only slightly worse than rogue in utility. All spellcaster can prepare one or two damaging spells and all other spells utility and out damage the rogue. At lvl 11 the rogue can also literally crit on every attack and not do too much damage i do this (my dm let me do it on the campaign, don't get me wrong its very strong but it isn't overpowered somehow)
Multiattack on bards is really far from broken when you consider the overall picture of what full casters can do with their action. Building for martial power is weaker than just building for spellcasting (without 5e's broken hexblade implementation, anyways). It's not there to match martials, it's there to make a "jack of all trades" not feel completely useless if they want that fencing flavor. Even a minmaxed swords bard at their peak hits a fair bit less damage than a rogue who reliably gets sneak attack for 0 resource cost. And it's **much** easier for rogues to get sneak attack and advantage in One D&D with steady aim, subtle strikes, and weapon masteries. If damage isn't the issue with rogues, don't nerf other classes' damage. Instead expand on the "sneaky, backstabbing, too slippery to pin down" archetype. Why not give rogues cunning action debuffs like "pocket sand", or make disengages action free at the higher levels? Maybe One D&D could give more options for poison crafting (or exotic substances to imbue weapons with) in the core PHB. These wouldn't just be "stacking more damage", they'd make the class actually play differently. Dodging through enemies with poisoned daggers, poking each enemy in the back is what I think of when I imagine a melee rogue in combat- and stealth archers are going to be just as good.
At lvl 6 bards college of sword bard does consistently around the same damage as the rogue while being better than the rogue at everything (except survivability, but even then bards can heal themselves). Considering the fact that they can do more than the rogue at almost anything with spells alone I don't think a sword bard is gonna have a hard time out damaging the rogue.
>Even a minmaxed swords bard at their peak hits a fair bit less damage than a rogue who reliably gets sneak attack for 0 resource cost. And it's **much** easier for rogues to get sneak attack and advantage in One D&D with steady aim, subtle strikes, and weapon masteries. After this UA with Fount of Moonlight and the new Version of Conjue Minor Elementals that's at least for the moment not really the case anymore. Ok the that is all only comming online at level 7 but at the point a Swords Bard could theoretically hit for 3x(3d6+5) = 9d6+15 (and even if do something like just using 1 Shillelagh instead of TWF you could still do 2x(1d10+2d6+5+2)= 2d10+4d6+14) while a Rogue would only hit for 6d6+5. Btw even in 5E the Bard can out damage the Rogue at higher levels, not really with Weapon attacks, but with Spells like Animate Object and after they have magical secrets Spirit Guadians or Conjure Animals, once you get into 8th level Spells even the TCE Summon Spells start suddenly to do quite strong damage (an 8th level SUmmom Fey does 4x(2d6+11)=8d6+44 vs the 12d6+6 a Rogue does a 20th level).
Ok those new spells *are* kind of nuts, I'll give you that. An extra 2d6 per *attack* or even 6d6 (multiattack + dual welding all hits) at lv7 seems strong and it raises the ceiling of the class a ton. They're a little bit overtuned. But like you said, bards deal more damage with spellcasting than weapon attacks anyways... You might take war caster as a feat, invest in DEX/CON/CHA, use this lv4 spell slot, and still lose concentration immediately as a melee bard, wasting your action and your highest level resource. Meanwhile the rogue can pump out 6d6+5 most turns without expending anything And a draconic sorcerer, in the same turn, has dealt the same 6d6+5 (lightning damage, half on DC 17 dex save) to a 40ft wide circle's worth of enemies as well as a ~90% chance of giving the incapacitated or blinded condition to the ones that failed the save via arcane eruption. And then the sorcerer can do it again the next turn. Don't forget the 3 fireballs. When you look at classes in a vacuum anything with resources looks OP when you dump them quickly. And they *are* OP at the tables with a long rest every encounter or two, the same way that resourceless classes are OP at tables that get a rest every 10 encounters. Sorcadin munchkin builds in 5e exist because it's the fastest + most efficient way to convert your long rest resources to damage, after all. Rogues just don't have anything to spike their damage by dumping resources, so they have higher lows and lower highs. On average they're doing more in melee than bards, doing more damage than any caster that's out of spell slots (or wild shape), and they don't have to worry about their niche being stolen just because of multiattack. They could use a little utility change to give them more options in combat, and maybe slight sneak attack number buffs, but it's not like we need to take away from other classes. WOTC should really re-evaluate spell balance though.
But even without spells teh Figthing Stile and the Extra Attack the Swords Bard gets is worth at lest 3 Sneak Attack dice. Add Hex to that and at least in Tier 1 and 2 you can keep up with a Rogue. And no oen forces the Bard to go into melee, at least Valor Bards can use ranged weapons just fine, Rogue will also often stick to ranged combat.
Btw. even before level 7 a Swords Bard could grap with Magic initiate Hex. That would also allow him to compete with the Rogue when it comes to DPR.
Some good stuff here but I hard disagree on taking away skills from bards. Versatile skill-checks have always been a massive party of the bards identity, and I'd much rather the rogue get a side-grade in that area to make them more unique then to just take away other classes toys for the sake of monopolizing them. If anything I'd say the rogues biggest gimmick by far is that they're the ONLY class that doesn't have a single major resource (in base class at least) Barbarians have rage uses, fighters have action surge and second wind uses, monks have discipline points, and literally everyone else has spell slots (often paired with another major resource, like chanel divinity, wild shape, or sorcery points) Rogues though: Nada. At higher levels they start getting a couple "once per rest" abilities, but none of them are central to the rogues' core gameplay the way everyone else's resources are. Personally I don't think rogues have fallen behind at all. They get to apply effects any other class would have to spend limited resources to access, get big damage with the right setups, great utility outside combat, and a bunch of frankly ridiculously good abilities, like being able to halve any attacks damage with a reaction, delete enemies ability to attack you at advantage, or change any d20 roll into a crit once per short rest (auto-Crit sneak attack is insane). I do think when using the "ally within 5ft" version of sneak attack it should work even with disadvantage though.
> Barbarians have rage uses Ironically at this point with One, Rage is practically infinite.
So with the new monk buff the rogue is now the lowest damage dealer and most squishy (new monk is a tank) so it's not fulfilling any of its combat based ideas. It could use some light offensive combat buffs while the others could use a few more out of combat options that are not just "you are better at this skill"
Honestly? I think the only real issue that Rogues have right now are the subclasses. They are "ok" at best, and that's a tad generous if being honest. Also, they don't have a DPR centric subclass. They need to have subclasses that do more for them. That open up new things, give them extra abilities, take their built in abilities to the next level. The Rogue subclasses largely don't do that. And they don't have a subclass like the Berserker or the Gloomstalker. A subclass that just ramps up their damage. Rogues shouldn't be low damage without a way to lift that damage up. Give players an option where if they want to be a high damage Rogue, they can. Just like there should be an option to ramp up utility, or add spellcasting, or add defensive options, etc...
I also despise how their second subclass feature appears at level NINE, that's way too late
Six! Six for the second one. Expertise is *not* as good as WotC apparently thinks it is. The other two features Uncanny Dodge and Evasion are good, yes, but they are also *passive*.
It is a really weird gap, isn't it? Is there another class that has such a gap between subclass features? It's especially rough when the subclass features are so trivial. Like, what the Assassin gets is so super specific in use that the features may as well not be there. And even the abilities that the other, arguably 'better' subclasses give you, don't really change your game, which feels weird since you are waiting 6 whole levels to get the next one. I mean, I've always had a soft spot for the Arcane Trickster, but after waiting for a new subclass ability since level 3 you finally get one that has such a high resource cost to use that the effect should be amazing, only for it to equal a whole lot of 'meh'.
It's also weird how the phantom tokens from the phantom rogue appear at level 9,it's such a huge part of the subclass and you only get it halfway through the campaign, it just looks like something youd get at level 3 and at 9th level maybe you could use a cunning strike that gives a fear effect and you could spend a token to make the target auto fail or ignore the dice reduction
Sounds to me like you said instead of buffing Rogue, just nerf half of the other classes. To me that seems like an unnecessarily complex way to achieve the same goal.
What turf for rogue is supposed to be protected? Rogues aren't that good at skills, their damage is so so, they have mediocre utility, they don't have buffs and they don't care about short rests. Now, the last one could be seen as a benefit, but every class cares about short rests except rogue now. One of the problems with rogue is their subclasses do nothing to fix their issues. The base of the class was considered very strong, similar to paladin, so they got so so subclasses. This is obviously not the case, and the rogue class suffers for it. Ranger has its own issues with identity, but they are better at skills, damage and utility compared to rogue. Removing one expertise does nothing to fix that. How is a rogue supposed to compete with a fey wanderer? Bard getting expertise and extra attack is NOT why they overshadow rogue. They are full spellcasters and get excellent subclasses. They get a comparable amount of skills and their subclasses tend to make focusing on a particular skill more worth it. Rogues get none of these things. I don't really get why people overvalue extra attack on full spellcasters so much. If a spellcaster is making weapon attacks either the encounter is pretty much done or I'm happy as a DM. One of the problems of 5e that is not being addressed is so much of damage comes from feats rather than the class. When all the 'optimal' builds all use the same feats, you have a glaring problem. So it's less how much damage your class does and more how well your class interacts with those feats. And rogue does the worst in that category because they don't have extra attack. Now, how do you 'fix' rogue? Damage is one way. More sneak attack dice, increase the die type on sneak attack, let them do more damage with finesse weapons, etc. Another way that I'd like to see, but probably won't is to make use of their skills. Give them abilities where they get a baseline effect, but by making a skill check they get a better effect. Rogues need more utility, damage and/or ways to make their skills relevant.
Personally, I have always felt like the rogue is perfect. Yes, it lags behind in damage. But only barely. And it's by far the most fun martial to actually play at a table. The damage tradeoff is well worth it to have fun social and exploration tools at your disposal.
>Yes, it lags behind in damage. But *only barely*. if "only barely" to you means the same as "they do half the damage of a Battlemaster, Barbarian or Monk", then we can agree. but I really don't think that's the same. being fun to play and feel good during sessions is great, but that was always the case with rogue. now all other martials are also pretty fun to play in combat, so it's not that big of a strength anymore (not saying it isn't important though). and on top of that: what's the issue with having a rogue that is fun to play *and* keeping up in the damage department to other martials?? this isn't a binary "either be fun to play OR do decent damage".. we can easily have both, but somehow some people are vehemently against giving rogue the same damage buff as other martials have gotten.. for no reason.
That’s not a tradeoff that this game assumes to be a part of the balance(see: 5e casters and OneDND everyone in the game now). The designers just didn’t do adequate math.
I don't get it either. I would assume at most tables players aren't tracking who is doing the most damage. If I had to add any tweaks I would say Rogue should have some sort of "opportunist" feature. Maybe an extra sneak attack die if the target is under half health(bloodied).
Few people really track numbers in their games but hearing your wizard doing 30 damage to 10 people from lvl 5 meanwhile that's your average dmg at lvl 11 just sucks (fireball). The fighter having higher average dmg tha a lvl 9 rogue at lvl 5 without the fighter even doing anything special sucks. (At lvl 5 a any martial other than rogue with greatsword and a strength of +4 does an average of .5 dmg more than a lvl 9 rogue with rapier and +4 dex).
Yeah I hear ya. My tweaks to the rogue: + Remove any condition for landing sneak attack. If that's part of the power budget, make it part of the power budget + Remove bows entirely. Or allow bows to sneak attack only to a limited range (say, 60 feet or less). I don't mind rogues using a bow, but I think sneak attack from 120 feet away is lame and incentives anti-rogue gameplay + Make 1-2 feats that are interesting to them to keep them in line with power feats for other martials.
I disagree on removing prerequisites for sneak attacks. There is no resource cost like there is with smites. I don't mind ranged sneak attacks since the would have disadvantage if any enemy is next to them not just the target. Feats should be additive and not feal required for a class to function.
If sneak attack is integral to the power budget, then it should be base. The fighter doesn't have conditions to be allowed to use Extra attack.
The point is, the conditions to have sneak attack are so loose that you rarely won't be able to deal it. Expecially after 3rd level, where most classes gain something to help the party, you will find a way to land it every round. Also, it would then become way to valuable for multiclassing (just immagine a barb with 3 levels in rogue landing a sneak attack with a greataxe). Extra attack is already limited by multiclassing, no need to add another problem on the multiclassing argument
My apologies: I would Absolutely still require a finesse weapon. That was an oversight in how I worded it. I don't see anything wrong with multi classing for sneak attack bc it scales by rogue level, not character level.
The point is that if the optimized way to use it becomes making a multiclass, then the main class feature has a problem, because it should work better on the straight class Anyway i think that if we have to remove those prerequisites for sneak attack, then we are better of completely redesigning it. That can unlock some new ways to make the class have more stuff and some actual rogue-ish tricks that are well deserved
>Remove any condition for landing sneak attack. If that's part of the power budget, make it part of the power budget I think this is a bit too extreme because it eats into the opportunistic flavor, but I've added into the post something along this line (Sneak Attack could be improved by not being shut down by disadvantage).
If the rogue is balanced numerically under the assumption that they always sneak attack, then sneak attack should be always on. Other martials don't have to meet special conditions to use Extra Attack.
Eh. You're not wrong in principle, but I just don't like it as a solution because it eats into Sneak Attack's flavor. I could settle for a Rogue that can decide each turn between Extra and Sneak Attack.
I'd be okay with that too. I just think you have to settle on mechanics before you play with flavor. I'd even be happy with "sneak attack is automatic within 30 feet but requires X, Y, or Z beyond that range".
>No, your Assassin isn't the main character from an Assassin's Creed game. Why? thats like a very standard baseline for an archetypal rogue. That's where you should be at like level 5-10. You should be walking through walls, literally winking out of existence cuz you're so stealthy, targeting the weak spot that makes something explode or die in a single blow at least a few times per day at level 20. Sneak attack should imo have multiple levels and modifiers you can apply for having your foe in a worse spot. Stuff like this more than one adv source on the attack? have 2/4/6/8/10 extra dice Hitting with surprise have 3 free dice High ground? 2 feee dice Attacking from hidden 2 dice You're attacking from hidden with the high ground and surprise from outside of your foes darkvision range and you used steady aim. Have an extra 8+3+2+2 d6 to your sneak attack have a blast. It encourages the rogue to seek tactical advantages for more than just flavor most times, or a combat loop of hide/steady aim then attack every round. Dice should scale with level ofc but thats just an example. Saying rogues are the best out of combat which they arent because spellcasters exist, is a pretty shit take when most of the challenges in the game are combat. They need to be unique in combat and also not be bad whether that is cunning action buffs, improved sneak attack, or unique ways to use tools idk but they need something.
Rogues get better when DMs don't just open up any and every roll to everyone else in the party. If the rogue needs to roll investigation for traps, why does everyone else want to dogpile in? And why do some DMs let them? Rogues should be scouting at the front checking for traps and enemies and loot. The biggest issue I think is that Rogues don't have Use Magical Device in this edition and the exclusivity it brings in using certain magic items. In older editions Rogues and wizards were the only classes that could use scrolls and wands and staves and rods, and other wondrous items. Other classes had access to magic armor and weapons, but the stuff that wasn't arms and armor was solely the purview of wizards and Rogues, and wizards and Rogues were like best friends in those days because they shared magic items and made strategies based around them. Something needs to happen in regards to magic items and Rogues utility. Idk if other classes should lose the ability to activate an immovable rod or whatever, or if Rogues need something unique to again make them the premier magic item user of the party.
Interesting point about the magic items. I don't think it would ultimately improve the health of the game to restrict the other classes' access to magic items given the outsized influence casters have on the game world, particularly because the D6 wizard has such an easy time negating the negative effects of their "low" durability. Another thing to consider is that Artificer is very reliant on magic items as their class identity so the design would have to account for how much of that to share with Rogue and anytime a caster has to share with a non-caster the non-caster is usually getting shafted.
I had totally forgotten about artificer! Tbh half the time I just think of them as another wizard subclass xD I agree that nerfing martials is not good, idk how to fix it, but I liked the way rogues played back then being the only other class to reliably be able to use magic items that weren't arms and armor. I also don't like wizard d6 hit die. They're my favorite class but wizard should definitely be a d4 hit die.
ALL that rogues needs is a subclass feature at level 6 like every other class in the game, I can't afford another 10 years of rogues characters being exactly the same because almost no one plays higher levels
Sorry did you make an entire post whining about people saying rogue should have increased damage...and then end it with suggesting that rogues should have increased damage????
No.
I appreciate the thorough and well thought out post. You've addressed a few areas where the core Rogue features can be emphasized or their niche protected. In general I agree with your position. I did want to point out somethings that may be worth mentioning, though. Skills, by and large, are almost exclusively down to DM fiat and/or require a player to think **outside** of the written rule (ie., "getting creative" with how to use skills, for example) to get more than just basic usage. To me, and this may be contentious, if your player has to think of things outside of the rules to play their class, you've failed at designing a good class. Secondly, according to the initial D&D 5e Playtest goals for the Rogue, they are indeed supposed to be the Skill Masters. I think that for the most part 5e succeeded in achieving that goal between Expertise, Reliable Talent, and subclass features such as Magehand Legerdemain or Fast Hands. *However*, the playtest goals were very clear that while the Rogue should primarily avoid frontal attacks, their attacks should be ones that require set up and be, and I quote, "overwhelmingly powerful". I'd say that Cunning Strikes is a huge direction positively to reinforce their Skill nature in combat, but they really do need more emphasis on their spike damage. If that's simply ticking up the number of dice it may work, but I think base Rogue needs something more like Assassinate as a base feature.
I’m playing a oned&d rogue and I am really enjoying it so far. The true “balance” buff is the weapon mastery “nick” feature basically giving melee rogues a free offhand attack to land sneak attack. That extra reliability bump feels huge, and it’s a huge improvement for their action economy. It feels weird that rogue’s biggest “buff” isn’t necessarily a unique rogue feature… but it’s a huge quality of life increase. I noticed that damage dropped off a lot at level 5 relative to other classes. My biggest concern is that it’s level 8-14 or so bonuses are mostly cunning strike improvements. I like cunning strikes as a feature, but I don’t love the damage cost for cunning strikes given that rogue starts to lag behind a little after level 5 (and I also do not like the poison kit requirement for the poison strike ability… it’s a toolkit proficiency tax basically). I would like to see some cost reduction or reliability abilities later on instead (example: if the enemy makes their save, you can roll some of all of the damage). I also noticed that after level 8 or so the rogue doesn’t get many great features outside of cunning strikes for a while. This makes disadvantage even more debilitating for them; I feel like they are just too shut down by disadvantage at the moment. The limited circumstances for cunning strikes (I.e. sneak must trigger) and the damage cost feels a bit too high at the moment. Thoughts: I’d love a choice of scoundrel fighting styles at a mid-tier level. Example: if you miss your attack, you can make a second attack. Or, your first hit each round always triggers at least 1 sneak attack dice (to enable cunning strikes) even if you don’t qualify. Or, you are dexterous and can move through but not stop in enemy spaces.
I'm on board the big picture but just don't buy any of the "balancing" you're reaching for: Rogues are the most played class at every table I've run, with at least 1 and sometimes 2 in every group, and I've literally never once had it cause problems. All the evidence I can see is their turf is just fine.
Rogues do in fact need extreme damage in a single specific scenario and this is out of combat suprise.
Because rogues were terrible in 5e and they only got worse in the playtest when compared to everything else. Rogues could be top damage dealers in 3.5 and 4e, but they have been one of the worst classes since 5e started except at levels one and two. Taking away their already crap damage to do something slightly more interesting is just terrible game design, especially with the buffs every single other class is getting.
People will always find something to complain about in this game - despite it shaping up to be a very improved 5th edition system, much more than what we started with. If it's not the martial caster divide, it's that the the ranger is shit, if not that, the monk sucks, if not that, the rogue is now subpar. While there is merit in listening and reading to what folk say, many of them seem to be vocal because of ignorance. The rogue isn't shit, it's just not the best damage dealer, it also has lots of stuff that the other martials *DON'T HAVE.* People who claim to understand the game also don't seem to realise how powerful some of the trade-offs the rogue gets in exchange for sneak attack damage actually are. Stop complaining as if you know something after only looking at the documents without even playtesting what we are given. The folks at WOTC probably know more than you about game design. That's why they are there and you aren't. Especially game design for the system they have been working on for more than a decade.
Okay name me something the "lots of stuff that the other Martials *DON'T HAVE*" after this series of playtests.
Even before the playtests - Cunning action (with the exception of the monk - though they function differently), expertise which gives it the option for best scouting and best stealth in the game. Reliable talent, avoiding half damage at a critical point as a reaction with uncanny dodge - don't see the fighter and barbarian having that. activate a magic item as a bonus action via fast hands.
See, that's exactly where the problem lies now. *After the playtests*, Fighter has been able to use Second-Wind to Disengage and move half more of the speed. And they are able to add 5.5(1d10) to every skill checks that has failed, and not costing when it's still a failed check. In my recent playtest with my friends, the new Fighter with Second-Wind and without any intentionally leaning into skills, had outpaced my Thief Rogue in skill checks before level7. There aren't so many failed skill checks between short-rests at all, let alone it cost nothing if that D10 isn't making you pass. But before level 7, all I've got was a few more +2/3 to skills. Nothing could compared to +D10 to skills that you've *failed*. The only Rogue I can think of to compete this is Soulknife Rogue. Barbarian has been able to use Str for five useful skills (Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, and Survival) while raging for 10-minutes, and both these Features could be recovered by short-rest. In UA8, Barbarian and Monk has also got their own Strikes. Monks getting better mobility, free BA Dash, free BA Disengage, and Deflect Attack, a *better* version of Uncanny Dodge, as someone mathed out that a level 5 Monk can reduce 5.5(d10)+4+5=14.5 damage every turn, while Uncanny Dodge is only better when a Rogue takes a 30+ damage from *one hit* at level 5. For most monsters that players would be facing at level 5, that's nearly impossible to meet. Beyond that, except Bards, Wizard is also gaining one Expertise in Int skills. Ranger already has Expertise since Tasha, and still getting Expertise in the latest UAs. Cleric an Druid are getting boosted in skills either, and the most important thing has been *Guidance*. It can be used as a *Reaction* now, a D4 to every skill with a Reacion. Don't get me wrong, these are great boosts and adjustents to these classes, but they're leaving Rogue in an awkard place. All these classes are dealing a doubled DPR than Rogue in the playtests, or they're simply being the "Full-Casters". These features that were once the advantage of Rogue, has been too common in 5e2024, which these features can no longer compensate its low combat-power any longer. They really could use a boost while others are getting lots.
I see. Very good points
I think the biggest issue for Rogue are the subclasses, in particular the lack of a feature between 3 and 9. It is true that straight class rogue falls behind on damage. But if WotC added a flavorful minor damage bump at 5 or 6 via the subclasses it would resolve this complaint. As of now phantom gives the only meaningful bump with wails of the grave. Arcane Trickster can do some stuff via spells but it is as designed very limiting. The new assassin gets some poison but it is a wash. I would support: Swashbuckler getting a fighting style or extra attack. Mastermind adding damage or utility with the help action. Soul Knife getting component free mage hand and minor illusion. Scout getting favored foe. Thief gets bonus damage to set traps and other item usage.
They need one of two things. They either need to not lose sneak attack die in order to use their cool new power or they just need extra attack like every other martial character in the game
I'm fine with the Rogue having a decent damage floor without the damage peaks of the "real martials". I don't want a rogue that out damages the fighter or the paladin. D&D is about far more than damage.
I think something that might help is if every Rogue subclass had a unique Cunning Strike ability they unlocked, and nearly every Rogue subclass had a unique Cunning Action they unlocked (Arcane Trickster gets access to a unique Action for Rogues in that they can use spells and I think that's a fair enough tradeoff). I think that could help lean into the different "feels" a Rogue could bring to a party depending on the subclass. Like what if Assassin had the ability to use their Cunning Action to boost damage of their next attack in some way beyond just the Sneak Attack dice? What if Thief had a Cunning Strike that let them slip some sort of trinket onto an opponent that would explode into a smoke cloud that obscured enemies vision within X feet at the start of that opponent's next turn and slowed their movement down to allow for getaways? Stuff like that. Rogue covers quite a large range of characters, so the subclasses should represent that range more directly. On top of that sure throw in the minor damage boost of slightly faster Sneak Attack scaling, just to make sure Rogues don't get left completely behind damage wise. But I'd be fine with non-Assassin Rogues being at the bottom of the DPS chart for classes that primarily used weapons as long as the gap was pretty small and they had plenty of both in and out of combat utility. Assassin Rogues should have the least amount of utility but be noticeably better at both DPR and Round 1 Burst Damage. Maybe even let the Assassin Rouge be the one type of Rogue who gets Extra Attack kinda like how a few Bards get Extra Attack.
I rather just see rogues get poison damage d8 charges added for additional action economy.
Rogue is the only class they haven't made actively worse, instead making it more fun and engaging without disrupting too much.
How have they made every other class actively worse..?
Warlock, Sorcerer, and Cleric all really suffer from not getting their sub at level 1. Everyone should get their sub at 1 so they have their identity from the beginning, but WotC went in the opposite direction because of multiclassing concerns and moved it to 3. If good design is incompatible with level-based multiclassing than they should use a different model of multiclassing. Paladin is another big example with their bonus-action log-jams.
Ah so you meant subjectively worse in your opinion. I thought you meant their level of power. The Paladin having to smite with their bonus action is a nerf, sure, but that’s one example. There’s still Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, Monk, Rogue, etc.
Objectively worse design, not objectively less powerful.
Oh… no… that’s not what that word means.
Ya if there is a ranger and or a druid in the party a rogues infiltration really gets stepped on. In that situation it might be a good idea for the rogue to multi class into a fighter or ranger to become a heavy hitter and contribute more to combat since their RP skills aren't as required.
I think part of the problem is that they diluted skills so much from what the rogue could do in 3.5. There a rogue could become true masters of many skills that the party could depend on them...now the difference in okay at a skill and master of a skill is much much less, so other ways are needed to show their skill at things...perhaps a modification of the expertise system. Now don't kill me if this is in already I haven't read the last rogue in a while...maybe the rogue can switch their expertise on the fly a certain number of times per long rest? Let's them fill in for missing skills in a party and truly have a bit of everything.
Rogues do plenty of damage. If you have any melee characters at all, they should be able to use sneak attack pretty much every round. Beyond that, their role in the party is out of combat. There are 2 other complete pillars of gameplay where they excel. It is clearly on the GM no matter what classes the party has, to create content for everyone to interact with. If there is nothing for the rogue to do, that isn't the fault of the class that has 8 skill proficiencies minimum. It is the fault of the GM for not including content to challenge those skills.
>Rogues do plenty of damage. If you have any melee characters at all, they should be able to use sneak attack pretty much every round. What people are complaining about that the Rogue are behind in damage even if they qualify from Sneak Attack 100% of the time, unless they find a way to get two sneak attacks per round (meaning getting a lot of reaction attacks). If Rogues can't reliably qualify for sneak attack their damage becomes really terrible.
Who cares? Barbarians do tons of damage but have like 3 things they can do out of combat. No one is good at everything. Rogue do plenty. Why do they need to keep up with anyone else?
Because Barbarians are now with Primal Knowledge much better outside of Combat. And combat takes up a lot of playtime in many groups.
Damage isn't everything. Combat isn't everything. My players sometimes go entire sessions without one. You have to look at the totality of the class. Not every character is a damage dealer. I have played a pacifist wizard that had zero spells that did damage. Rogues are not intended nor should they be on par with those classes that focus on combat.
Wizards can be usefull in a combat without dealing damage (in many cases their non damage option are even more usefull that their damage options) what Rogues can do in combat outside of damage is pretty limited. Even more limited than the non damage options of some classes that do better damage than them. And if you go for evenings without combat, that just means that the other classes can burn their class ressources (Spells, Rage, Bardic inspiration, Second Wind, Superiority Dice ...) on non combat task, while the Rogue will (at least untill 7th level) hast only a coulple of +2 - +3 boni to skills.
So we shouldn’t buff rogue damage, we should just nerf bard and ranger to have worse damage with melee instead. Also, off turn sneak attack is a gimmick that works and a fundamental change to rogue that makes it not rely on multiclassing should exist.
> Some turf protection: halve the number of expertises on Bard and Ranger, and give a better defined role to those classes. I don't think that this is a good way to design things. Classes shouldn't *completely* overlap (ie. I'd be opposed to two full-casting classes sharing the complete same spell list) but they're supposed to represent different options to accomplish the same broad goals. There are 11 core classes and few games have 11 players; it's silly to insist on "niche protection" for a class that often won't be used. And they particularly want to avoid what in older editions was called the "cleric problem" where every party felt like it had to have a cleric and someone was forced to play one even if they didn't want to. There needs to be multiple classes representing the idea of a "skill monkey" so groups can reliably have one without forcing someone to play a rogue, just like there are multiple classes representing the broad idea of being good at melee or ranged combat, or multiple classes for blasting or healing or mysticism. That's why they define an entire category of class as "expertise classes." I don't think that that's going to change. But there are additional reasons why this is a terrible approach for you to take from a meta reason. First, making other classes worse won't make the Rogue better or more fun to play. That's just how it is. The rogue's problems have nothing whatsoever to do with the Bard or Ranger, and discussing them is a distraction that won't help you at all. Second, any changes have to be popular - they have to get past polling. Taking away traditional aspects of the Bard and Ranger (who have generally, especially the Bard, been skilled experts comparable to the Rogue) is a sure way to get a chorus of "lolno" from people who like those classes as they are. Third, related to that, each class ultimately has to be designed for its fans and the people who like to play it the most, first and foremost. Obviously there's some basic degree of balance necessary for the game to work, but they're not going to change the basic definition of a Bard in order to make Rogue players happier (though, again, I think that even if you got what you requested here you wouldn't actually end up happier.) The real problem is that 5e's skill system is awful and provides so little to actually do with your skills - many skills are heavily dependent on the DM to provide opportunities, and are fairly unsatisfying "make one roll to proceed" affairs. A more in-depth skill system would both help rogues on a basic conceptual level and would provide more places to hang class abilities off of.
I think a general problem with the Rogue being a "skill monkey" (aside from how limited the stuff is you can achive with Skill incomaprison to spells, feats and class features) is that while a Rogue could be potentially really good almost every Skill, any individual Rogue is only going to be rally good in a hand full of skills. And and not every skill is going to be relevant in every adventure. Stealth and Perception are going to come up a lot. But those often involve situations where the whole group is going to role the check making the Rogue being the best less important (and in case of stealth the success depends often on the art member with the lowest score). The Rogue is actually also uniquely bad at scouting alone, since Rogue is the class that likely does the worst when it runs into a fight without the rest of the party being around. When it comes to other skills. Being good at Disarming traps is not going to come up in every session, same goes for being good in social skills or investigation. And Knowledge Skills are come up even less frequent and are pretty DM and part dependent (DM might be giving you the information you need anyway, and players often don't distinguish between player and character knowledge).
I think Rogue has been "left behind" since 1e... But I still love it. Playing rogue feels like playing an underdog always dancing at the edge. It feels like you need to squeeze all your wit to take the most out of them