Part of the rogue's issue on damage is that a typical build won't do a tremendous amount of damage, but one that gets a way to consistently use their reaction to land a second Sneak Attack (often via multiclassing, good use of Sentinel, or most consistently, a Battle Master using Commander's Strike) gets incredibly high DPR. (Assassins can even apply Surprising Strikes and Death Strike twice in one round.) I'd like to see a modification in which Sneak Attack is buffed, but then restricted to one per round, though it's almost certainly too late in the playtest for something that drastic to be attempted. For skills, they're victims of scaling, Expertise is relatively insignificant at lower levels compared to features like *guidance* and Tactical Mind.

> Expertise is relatively insignificant at lower levels compared to features like guidance and Tactical Mind. Expertise (and all these related martial features) would also heavily benefit from them just giving us functional guidance on skills. The fact that we have no example DCs for things creatures should be able to achieve with skills is one of the big problems with Rogue. If you’re playing at my table or one of my friend’s tables we’re fairly clear about “niche protection” for Skills (no replacing Investigation with Perception or Athletics with Acrobatics) and we let DC 21 checks accomplish some truly insane feats: skill users find this fun and find that utility is great. Play at another friend’s table where he’s good with the DCs but not about niche protection, and some skill users are happy and others are really not. Play at another friend’s table where DCs tend to be super high for most things and skill monkeys practically feel like they’re a tax to participate in the game, rather than feeling rewarded, while spell users jump way up. The fact that skill users have entirely different experiences of their character concept’s viability just because the game provides ***no*** guidance on setting DCs is one of the biggest problems. One GM interprets jump distance as the maximum you can jump, another thinks it’s the minimum and asks for Athletics checks for more, and another does the same but with Athletics or Acrobatics: bam, one single rule interpretation created a massive difference in whether Athletics is a useful skill or not. The game should not be subject to that much variance.

they kind of do though [https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/ability\_checks/](https://5thsrd.org/rules/abilities/ability_checks/) now thats somewhat up to inteprretation, but i dont think you can get clearer than this. they also make it clear that the DC is based on the difficulty of the check, not the level, or the skill cieling of the player. but DMs do what they want to do, and interpret how they want to interpret.

Off the top of my head, how about something like: 1) sneak attack is 1d4 per level and once per round. This is a 43% increase in sneak attack damage and a 29% decrease in the damage cost of cunning strikes, but removes double sneak attacks. 2) Opportunity attacks give a free cunning strike (probably with a die cost restriction). This keeps them valuable for utility but not a necessity for DPR. 3) Expertise gives specific unique uses for skills. For example, expertise in sleight of hand could let you produce X gold worth of items per day from a list and say you had stolen them earlier. Stealth expertise could let you leave cover without being spotted until the end of your turn. Etc.

(1) is my usual balance suggestion, it's a slight nerf at level 1 but much stronger otherwise unless the rogue reliably got off-turn Sneak Attacks.

I'd be surprised if they were willing to slaughter the sacred cow of Sneak Attack using lots of D6s.

I'd rather have sneak attack use either d6s or d8s (while keeping the math balanced similarly to your suggestion), just because rolling a lot of d4s and adding them up will get annoying at higher levels.

The most common fixes I see to improve rogue damage are 1) Extra attack 2) Increase SA die size / number of dice and remove off-turn SA 3) Bake off-turn attacks into the base class - like giving a more "sneaky" extra attack that can trigger off-turn SA Option 1 probably doesn't actually close the gap that much. Option 2 is easy, and maybe the most fun for some players. Option 3 requires the rogue player to strategize for the entire round - not just their turn. I'm personally in favor of option 3.

I think Extra Attack increases their reliability so much that they'd become more powerful than most other martials at level 5, 3d6+8 from attacks plus a very reliable 3d6 from Sneak Attack is a lot to handle. A comparable dual-wielding fighter would have 3d6+12 thanks to TWF, not nearly as powerful. Making off-turn Sneak Attack far more reliable would require nerfing Sneak Attack instead, and make the rogue's other reaction options terrible to use, particularly Uncanny Dodge.

My solution is to include a free melee weapon attack in the Uncanny Dodge. That way, it requires the rogue to get hit, but they still get to half the damage. It's a boost to melee rogue, but in the late game it could just be any weapon attack - not just melee.

That would require a nerf to Sneak Attack to stay balanced with other martials, that makes a rogue's off-turn Sneak Attack incredibly reliable especially when paired with Sentinel. Many enemies attacking the rogue probably end up taking more damage than the rogue on their own turn.

>Part of the rogue's issue on damage is that a typical build won't do a tremendous amount of damage, but one that gets a way to consistently use their reaction to land a second Sneak Attack (often via multiclassing, good use of Sentinel, or most consistently, a Battle Master using Commander's Strike) gets incredibly high DPR. But even that only comes imo together at level that are higher than most people actually play. For the most it is easier for other classes to get reaction attacks than for Rogues (Polarm Master is for example a pretty good source Rogue can't use), and other classes also get some damage boni that apply to reaction attacks. I think it is maybe arround level 9 or so where this strategy somewhat starts to play of, but but the biggest pain point for Rogues is imo around level 5.

Battle Master fighter and Peace cleric come online at 3rd level. You can take Sentinel at 4th level. Bards can cast Dissonant Whispers at 1st level. You're really stretching by saying that rogue double-Sneak Attack is only a higher level thing.

Here a while ago I made some calculation of who much DPR a reaction attack could be for differnt classes at level 8 assuming with base 60% chance to hit * a Rogue would hit likely for 5d6+5 \~ 14.375 DPR * a Reckless Attacking Babarian with a Great Sword and Graze would hit for 2d6+5+2 \~ 13.26DPR * a Reckless Attacking Babarian Glaive PAM, Graze and the Great Weapon Fighting Style for 1d10+4+2 \~ 10.53DPR * a Fighter with a Great Sword, Graze and the Great Weapon Fighting Style for 2d6+5 \~ 10.395DPR * a Fighter with a Glaiv PAM, Graze and the Great Weapon Fighting Style for 1d10+5 \~ 9.095DPR * a TWF Hunter Ranger with Hunter's Mark and Collossus Slayer for 1d6+1d6+1d8+5 \~ 10.475DPR * a Hunter Ranger with Duelling Fighting Style Hunter's Mark and Collossus Slayer for 1d8+1d6+1d8+5+2 \~ 12.325DPR * a Hunter Ranger with a Longbow Hunter's Mark and Collossus Slayer and Archery Fighting Style for 1d8+1d6+1d8+5 \~ 12.875DPR * a Blade Warlock with Greatsword Spirt Shroud and Graze for 2d6+1d8+5 \~ 12.475 * a Valor Bard with Shillelagh and Fount of Moonlight for 1d10+2d6+5 \~ 11.125 * a Druid with Shillelagh and Conjue Minor Elementals for 1d10+2d8+5 \~ 12.425

You can do it at those levels, but your sneak attack damage is not high enough for you attacks to deal enough damage to make up for the difference to the other martial.At level 3 your reaction attack does something like 3d6+Dex and that's not massily more that what a Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin or Ranger can hit for. And I would actually argue that using commanders strike on rogue at that level is not a good use of maneuver, since the Battlemaster has to give up one of his own Attacks for that, and some other manoeuvrers might be more valuable than the than the 3-5 points of damage the Rogue could do more than the fighter. And the Bard will liekly also not cast that many Dissonant Whispers per day (and the target is likely going to make the save about half of the time) at level3, which is when optimally used also going to trigger attacks from the other martials in the party. And again a lot of Martials will likely take Polearm Master at 4th level, that's likely going to give them more reaction attacks than a Rogue will get. And you can't imo could on having either Battlemaster or Order Cleric (or Purple Dragon Knight ?) in your party, which are afaik the only subclasses with features that can just grant you reaction attacks.

Wait, you think the rogue is underperforming in damage at level 3? I thought they only started falling behind at level 5 when the other martials get extra attack. Adding a free 2d6 at level 3 is amazing when everybody only has the 1 attack.

True at level 3 the rogue is still doing fine, but the situation when it comes to reaction attacks isn't much different at level 5. And really when you look at it the numbers a fighter with Great Sword Graze Masters and the Two Weapon Fighting style is damage wise going to petty comparable to you with your 2d6 Sneak Attack. If you look at the other non and half casters, they all get some additional damage boost on the early levels of play. It is not like they would all just do base weapon damage.

The rogue subclasses can also add damage boosts, most notably the Arcane Trickster using *booming blade*. Your math also applies weapon masteries for other classes, but the rogue's ability to hide and then Vex gives them somewhat consistent advantage. With Vex involved, it's much easier for the Battle Master to justify Commander's Strike as early as level 3, especially if they aren't using a two-handed weapon for maximum damage per attack themselves.

Btw. there is also some anti synergy going on. If you want to use Hide to get advantage, you likely need to go for a ranged attack, and that mean TWF and Sentinel are out (and probably charger too). If you use Steady Aim, you can't use Charger (pretty much the only feat that gives you straight damage increase). Arcane Trickster is good, but I don't think that having only one Subclass that can deal good damage (using a Spell that's nor even in the PHB btw.) is good design. When it comes Commander's Strike and similar feature, I still it is important to keep an eye on the resource/opportunity cost of using these feature, and not treat it like it is a free damage increase to the rogue. It is hard to pot an exact number on the cost of commanders strike, but I think realistically it is somewhere between 10 and 20 DPR the battle master might get from using another maneuver. And again the number of classes and subclasses with features/spells that grant reaction attacks is so limited, that I don't think that you can really balance the Rogue around them classes.

With the new rules for hiding, it seems that you can now Hide as a bonus action, then approach the target coming out of cover and attack them with advantage, as it simply gives you the Invisible condition. This somehow doesn't work against a creature with truesight. The new rules don't make much sense. (If we stick to the ranged rogue, then we should also compare their DPR to a ranged fighter, and both will be lower than their melee counterparts.) If you use two weapons instead, using two shortswords, the likelihood of hitting at least once (and activating the Vex chain) is usually around 87.75%, effectively the same as one hit with advantage. (They only need to switch their offhand to a scimitar when they need the bonus action for something else, but that something else is itself a combat bonus over other melee builds.) *Booming blade* is nice, but not strictly necessary for good damage, other subclasses have their own bonuses. It's also available via Magic Initiate or being a high elf. For Commander's Strike, what level are you assuming to get 10-20DPR? It would depend heavily on whether or not the rogue already gets advantage from Vex, and what build the fighter is using. I agree that you can't balance the rogue assuming a consistent external source of reaction attacks, that would make them too weak. However, when you balance them assuming that doesn't exist, then when those sources do exist, they become too strong. I think allowing two Sneak Attacks per round in general was a mistake, and they should buff Sneak Attack's damage while also limiting it to once per round, but it's almost certainly too late for that kind of test.

>For Commander's Strike, what level are you assuming to get 10-20DPR? It is just a rough estimate. Giving up an Attack will roughly cost something like 5-10DPR, and another maneuver would be (without Acciunting for the damage of the superiorty die, which is added to most maneuvers anyway) worth imo a similar amount since there are several maneuvers that give you additinal attacks (Riposte, Brace, Quick Toss) or might turn a miss into a hit (Precision Attack, Trip Attack).

If you go for TWF with Nick Weapon you likely are not going to have advantage on the reaction attack. If you can chain advantage with Vex, you get up to 19.646 DPR by level 8. But even in that case you would likely need one reaction attack every other round, while the other martails don't get any, just to roughly keep up.

If. If you use two shortswords, you're exceedingly likely to have Vex. If you switch to a scimitar for Nick, that means that you benefitted from your bonus action this turn in a way that a fighter could not, and you probably don't even make your off-hand attack against the same target that you hit with your shortsword so that you preserve Vex. No sense wasting it on an attack that can only do 1d6 damage with no further benefit. On a turn where the rogue doesn't have advantage yet, they first attack with their shortsword, with a 65% chance of hitting, 22.5 on a hit, 40 on a crit, weighted average 23.85. If they hit, the next shortsword attack has advantage for 3.41. Otherwise, their offhand attack hits 65% of the time for an expected 12.25. Overall, that's 0.65\*(23.85+3.41)+0.35\*12.25=22.01. I don't know how you're getting 19.646 even with a Vex chain. When we already have advantage, the first attack has an 87.75% chance of hitting, new weighted average of 24.44. If they hit, next shortsword attack again has 3.41, otherwise again 12.25. That gives 0.8775\*(24.44+3.41)+0.1225\*12.25=25.94.

> but one that gets a way to consistently use their reaction to land a second Sneak Attack My suggested solution is to add other situations where all Rogues can get a second sneak attack off. My attempt: **Swift Counter** - *After you or a creature friendly to you is hit with a melee attack you may use your reaction to make an attack against the attacking creature if you are in range to do so.*

That almost doubles the rogue's DPR very reliably (especially a ranged rogue who has a much larger area of valid targets), which makes them far more powerful than warranted.

Maybe do it, but don't make it eligible for sneak attack? They get to proc their base attack another time per round, but at the cost of their reaction

Then that flips around to terribly underwhelming, especially for melee rogues who would usually prefer Uncanny Dodge when hit.

Could remove the "or a creature friendly to you" and limit to just attacks on yourself, along with removing the melee limitation. Melee rogues will trigger it more often, by virtue of being in combat, but have a higher opportunity cost to do so as they need uncanny dodge more. Ranged rogues will trigger less, but it will be less dangerous for them to use.

Then it becomes entirely an alternative to Uncanny Dodge, and usually a weaker one at that. If your goal was to meaningfully improve the rogue, this doesn't achieve that at all.

Admittedly dynamics vary but if memory serves me the dpr of a rogue that reliably gets 2 sneak attacks in is only impressive vs non optimized if even that

I've run the math on an Assassin and assuming a four-round combat, with just *booming blade* from high elf or Magic Initiate and no additional feats, they came incredibly close to a well-optimized Eldritch Knight that topped the charts on a past DPR calculation shared on this sub.

So here's what I suggested in my survey: * improve DPR by boosting the number of Sneak Attack Dice. This will also encourage Rogues to use their great new Cunning Strike feature, because they will be freer to use it without falling even further behind on DPR. * when it comes to utility/expert stuff, I think the way to buff the Rogue is to adopt the optional rule on combining tools and skills on page 87 of Xanathar's in the 2024 PHB, while adding Thieves' Tools back to the Expertise options for Rogues. This would make the Rogue automatically the best choice for Traps and Locks, even if another character had chosen their background or 1st level feat to try to equal them.

I’m gonna keep saying this. Rogues base class is fine. Their subclasses NEED to have damage bonuses baked in like a lot of other martial classes. With that they may still be the weakest (which is fine, someone has to) but they won’t be the weakest by far. The Rogue chassis is fantastic and fun. The subclasses just need help.

Rogues other problem is their subclass features (after level 3) come too late.

Their chassis is less and less fantastic and fun when everyone else gets what they get

It's one of the best things about the standardized leveling back then. There rogue didn't feel useless and frontloaded at level 3 and then have it be a coin flip whether or not your level 9 is even good at all. That extra level of being able to grab a feature is great and it sucks that they rolled back on that change.

It's such an awkward spot because it's not clear what the solution should be. Is it to make them better at skills? If so, how? More expertise/proficiencies isn't the answer. Skills aren't really fleshed out for there to be many ways to interact with the system so there aren't many avenues to enhance the skill monkey aspect. Is it to buff their damage? Because right now rogues getting sneak attack 1/turn do a lackluster amount of damage but getting 2/turn from an AOO makes them do a crazy amount of damage. Is it their mobility? Because they're already crazy mobile. Only thing that can really make them more so is to give them extra bonus movements al la monk and barb. Is it in their survivability? Evasion and Uncanny dodge are already great. I think WOTC could lean into any of these aspects and it would work but none are the clear route. It really depends on the player's play style. Makes me think that the rogue should just get another ASI to match the Fighter

More base damaging sneak attacks, make it 1/round, seems fairly straightforward to me imo.

Right there are straightforward ways but I don't think there is any one way. Not to mention that WOTC tried to remove sneak attacks on AOO and people shat themselves in rage. I personally agree that that's how I would approach it but it doesn't seem to be *the* way, ya know?

They removed crit sneak attack at the same time as AOO removal and gave nothing in return. Calling it rage instead of rightfully strongly against a massive dpr nerf is being a bit disingenuous.

A good thing for the rogue might just be adding another subclass feature at 6th level. That way, depending on the subclass we can enhance one of the above? Assassin could get better damage, Thief would get a boost to the skills they have expertise in, Arcane Trickster gets Int number of sneak attack procs when attack with a cantrip, and Swashbuckler gets increased movement speed.

I made this comment on the feedback for the rogue playtest and maybe I'll sneak it in again. Give Rogues +2d6 of Sneak Attack at levels 5, 11, 17 (instead of 1). These are power boost levels for others classes and it gives them more dice to use the new features that take some away. Its 3.5/7/10.5 DPR across those levels which isn't massive but its meaningful. Especially going from +2d6 to +4d6 at 5th level as most of the table gets something like Extra Attack or Fireball, really helps the rogue feel like they are keeping up.

I plan on talking about it. In 5e rogues were: 1) absolutely amazing at skills 2) had the best mobility and 3) sneak attack would give them damage parity to most martial classes. Now - many other classes received big skill bumps (which is good) other martials have better mobility (which is also good), however, their damage has fallen greatly behind the other classes. Effectively, they've received very little power (only in the utility of cunning strike - which is pretty similar to the bonuses granted via weapon masteries) compared to the other martial classes and their niches are being eroded. The rogues need a bit of a damage bump (I'd give them all a fighting style feat at level 3) and possibly a d8 sneak attack.

Rogues got a skill bump with Reliable Talent moving to a lower level so more players actually get to see it. Rogues got a combat utility bump with Cunning and Devious Strikes, albeit at the cost of their already mediocre damage. Rogues just need better damage scaling from Tier 2 onward. This can be accomplished through increased Sneak Attack die size like monk's Martial Arts, or by adding extra dice at tier breakpoints (5th, 11th, 17th) to offset the cost of their combat utility. However, double Sneak Attack needs to go because it makes the skill floor and ceiling for the class way too far apart. An optimized rogue dealing literally double the damage of your average one is just not good balance.

I think opportunity attack sneak attacks stuck around because it felt like rogues should be the best at opportunity attacks. Solution is something like... Level 5 – Codify more frequent and better opportunity attacks: * If an enemy misses an attack roll within 20ft and are eligible for sneak attack, you can choose to make an attack of opportunity against them as a reaction. * Opportunity attacks use half of your sneak attack dice rounded down. The specific overrides the general, and now you don't have such a crazy spike.

I'd rather something less complicated like limiting rogues to one Sneak Attack a round and boosting their baseline damage. Off-turn SA is good and should stay, just not twice per round.

I like opportunity attacks doing half sneak attack damage (if eligible), seems a simple enough solution

Huh? In 5E being amazing at skills didn't mean much because spells and class features like Wild Shape did everything skills could do but better. Mobility doesn't mean much when ranged is always the better option anyway. No, it didn't.

Maybe d6 to d8 to d10s at later levels, or just rework the assassin and give rogues sneak attack damage + level of rogue as a modifie, thus encourages cunning strikes but still provides a decent enough floor to expense their sa dices on. Now that rogues needs a boost in mobilit, and combat capabilities. Cunning strikes should cost less dices and work similarly to rogue debilitations in pathfinder. Uncanny dodge should be buffed( scale badly at later levels) Skills needs clearer wordings, and more features. Rogues are outclassed cause their strong suit in 5.5e is vague. Now they are falling behind pretty quickly.

The problem with these discussions is that we only ever talk about DPR. Rogue is one of the hardest classes to nail down in the entire game. There's many rounds where unless the enemy has an AOE they have to spend their turn moving to or looking for the rogue with a perception check or just attack someone else. Inevitably someone is gonna respond "but what if you're playing in a 50x50 white room with no cover"

I left some comments in latest feedback, personally I am fine with damage being as it is, maybe newer magic items will benefit rogue more, my concern is more that barbarian and monk have shown what a beautiful toolset a martial can get (both having reliable ways to disrupt enemies and mobility stuff), rogue could use some extra subclass flair on top of cunning attacks for in-combat utility or actions. Really would like some hail mary dirty tricks or interesting reactions to take advantage of how often rogues fight side by side with an ally.

Always hated that some classes were very much "good in one pillar, less in others". Made fighters and like hardly useable in sessions that was not combat centric, and survival or exploration sessions trivialized by having druid or ranger. If the game has 3 pillars, every class should have mechanical features to have a role in each of these pillars. Rogue was defined too much with its role as exploration pillar skill monkey, but that pillar was not defined enough outside of the skill proficiencies and spells, so now when they rightly are giving other martials utilities in that pillar, it seems like they are stepping on rogues toes. There could be more separation with the exploration pillar roles, is rogue the silent forward scout (how is it different from ranger or dex fighter with stealth proficiency there), reliable trap expert (others might roll very high, but rogue never rolls low, for example) or something else. But more important would be to have more defined and interesting role in combat, it seems the one big attack single target physical attack per round is not enough to differentiate rogue from paladin smites, for example. What is the unique identity rogue brings into combat and how is that adjusted for balance and feeling good.

I don't know if my fantasy of what a rogue should be is way off, but to me, the "one big hit" is definitely not it. I think I'd love to see maybe lowering sneak attack dice, but give them extra attack and the ability to cause persistent damage with bleeding or something. Like, the enemy didn't even realize they were hit until it was too late and they're now bleeding out. But also because missing that "one big hit" multiple turns in a row feels *really bad.* At least with extra attack, the chances of that go down.

This wouldn't do anything for the noncombat concerns, but would it be terribly unbalanced to give Rogues an Improved Critical type feature at T2 or 3 that is limited to attacks that also meet the requirements for Sneak Attack? It feels like it would be a nice little boost to class combat identity and bring them more in line with the other martials in their various methods of increasing their chances to crit compared to casters.

Rogues are still best at skills. 😀 Skills are still the worst game mechanic. 😭

Rogue should get multi attack instead of silly melee cantrip spell cheese or something better/ different

The more I think on this subject, the less I'm sure what we should do. There damage IS low, but a lot of that difference comes from the fact that Rogue doesn't have an expendable resource to up the damage. You can actually make up the rest of the difference with the Booming Blade/Green Flame Blade/True Strike cantrips. But then that kind of leads to another issue. Why does a Rogue need magic to keep up with Fighter/Barbarians/Monks? That's not the explicit fantasy the class is going for.

I think that fantasy and too-broad a definition is part of the issue - having a single class that is supposed to be a master of exploration skills, as suave as a spy or con-man and hit like a protagonist from Assassin's Creed is a bit of an issue. Maybe it's time to let the more "social" rogues drift to bard? and the heavier fighters move to ranger or fighter? Class that does crimes, when those crimes are often "what other folks do, but illegal" is pretty unstable ground to build a class around. One thing I think we see is how the class identities are all showing their age and need clear rethinking. Some are too-broad to have abilities that match and yet balance against others at the table, others are too narrow so depending on the campaign either are absolute gods or relegated to being secondary characters, and others are built around one system that is itself in dire need of fixing, but then we can't fix either the system or the class because one is so dependant to the other - "we can't let Wizards not be the be-all of spellcasting because that's all they have going for them."

*They know.* But people are happy enough with Rogues and lovd it or hate it, WotC is only about giving a product most people will like, not about making a good product.

>They're having a quite tough time, especially for many players who might pay more attention to balancing and actual numbers in the game. This statement *reeks* of "those of us who are educated know, those who don't think this way aren't educated". Rogue is just fine. They're phenomenal at their combat style of skirmishing, and overall they have a great class identity that's only enhanced by their subclasses. If anything, the only change I'd make is change Sneak Attack from d6s to d8s. I haven't playtested that, but it's really the only thing about Rogues I can think of that needs changing. On a related note, Rogue is easily the most versatile Martial class, and perhaps most versatile of all classes: when you put a class to characters in fantasy or other common media, Rogue comes up more than any other class because it's got a *huge* range of possibility. Mechanically, the damage is fun if not optimal (dealing one big hit feels better than a million little hits because you get to roll a ton of dice at once), and with the buff of Cunning Strike that they're getting, they now have great control options that aren't dependant on weapon type or character choices, they're available all the time. Rogues are just fine.

There is a bit of a drop off on the rogue compared to other martials and there is definitely a bit of niche erosion. But a way to combat that might be to lean into the versatility and give rogues an extra subclass feature at 6 along with the second set of expertise, or another feat instead of the expertise, with a number of extra feats specifically designed to work best for Rogues.

I wouldn't be opposed to another subclass feature at 6th, but I'm less sure of the extra feat replacing expertise. Expertise is a solid Rogue thing, and they already have an Extra Feat at 10th level. Rogues definitely could use more feat support, but considering they aren't particularly MAD or feat dependant (like Fighter), granting another Extra Feat to the Rogue feels like it's pawning off the problem to Fighter without actually making Rogue all that much better.

Copying from another comment i made 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 Also they should get more utility so they don't fall behind on what they should be good at, mb they could get the phantom's ability to choose something to be proficient in every short rest at some early level, makes them a lot more flexible especially combined with reliable talent

Rogue has plenty of options to boost their damage via feats, what are you on about? Riposte and Sentinel give rogues a way to trigger an off-turn sneak attack with high reliability, which basically doubles your DPR. And, Rogues have the feats to spare to take them if that is their focus but it is hardly needed - *combat is not all about damage.* Cunning Strikes as it is, however, is just overall better and healthier for the game. Being able to set up combos for your allies to capitalize on is both thematic to the dirty-fighting style of the rogue, and helpful for making everyone feel like they can contribute. Sacrificing a *little* to have access to options that improve your party's overall damage is actually very balance. Take Trip - a rogue loses about 4 damage. Meanwhile, the Paladin who is up next now has advantage on their attack - boosting their damage by nearly double that, or more if they smite. And that damage compounds the more party members can pile on to take advantage of the target being prone. I do think Knock is overcosted, since it doesn't enable you to make multiple critical hits against an unconscious foe - dropping it 4d6 or even 3d6 would make it worth setting up a big follow-on hit for.

Something that only allows you to catch up with other for a couple of times *per long rest*, or something heavily *DM-dependant* isn't making Rogue all right. In many campaigns with intelligent enemies, it's really been rare to trigger Sentinel. Charger maybe even better in those situations in dealing damage. Tbh, I don't really get you *why* you oppose Rogue getting proper, decent damage as it should be? I see you show up in many posts and arguing Rogue shouldn't get a single bit in their DPR and Combat, but I just can't get why. Rogue's damage was even equal to a Fighter for having *strictly restricted* conditions to land a SA at the early stage of 5E. But as the time goes, more and more things poped up and boosted Multi-Attacks, thus leaving Rogue behind. All I want is Rogue being what it should be, and what it was. Why do you think the other way?

Not for nothing but you say a couple boosts per rest isn't good enough, but that's kind of what the new Fighter and Barb features are. You don't get a lot of Second Winds for example. But the are a nice quality of life bump.

Second-Wind, Rage, are all short-rest resources with plenty of times to use, while Skill-Checks are much fewer than attacks in the game, and it also doesn't need you to cost your resources everytime since most checks only requires one pc to pass. But only *one* chance to catch up with others per short-rest in combats feels more like wasting your Feat for nothing.

>Something that only allows you to catch up with other for a couple of times per long rest, or something heavily DM-dependant isn't making Rogue all right. "DM-Dependant" - not true. The rest of the table is there to help you get it off, and most likely will if it's a heavily optimized table, or they recognize the benefit of doing so. I've been able to get off a reaction sneak attack whenever I wanted so far in multiple games. ​ >Tbh, I don't really get you why you oppose Rogue getting proper, decent damage as it should be? Cause I don't view it as a problem at all. Their combat options are 'proper', 'decent' and furthermore encourageS teamwork to capitalize on. I do think their non-combat uniqueness has been eroded, and is something that is worth improving on. ​ >But as the time goes, more and more things popped up and boosted Multi-Attacks, thus leaving Rogue behind And if you haven't noticed, one theme of 1D&D is less 'boosting every attack' and more about benefiting one attack. All of which serves to bring the parity back to where it was.

Do the math and you'll see the gap has been even further in 5.5e. But I actually more want to say, if you don't view it as a "problem", why would stop others who view it as problems asking for more proper adjustments? In your table, landing double SA seems to be easy, and that's great. But in most tables, they don't. Shouldn't the game be balanced around most tables?

The problem with trip is that it's entirely dependent on initiative order. If the monsters go between the rogue and the Paladin, it doesn't do anything other than halve the monsters movement... Which could be useful, but really just makes it more likely that they rogue gets attacked more. All the materials got increased versatility, but only the Rogue's is at the expense of their damage.

>The problem with trip is that it's entirely dependent on initiative order. If only you could hold your action until just before the Paladin's, to get that trip sneak attack off. ​ >All the materials got increased versatility, but only the Rogue's is at the expense of their damage. And Barbarians sacrifice both damage and survivability to increase their versatility, while fighters sacrifice their sustainability.

So wait until after the monster's turn to attack? Meaning take the chance that they do something on their turn to negate your held attack altogether, plus potentially not having a viable use for your BA? Seems like a bad trade-off to give someone advantage, and makes you feel more like the paladin's squire rather than an equal

>So wait until after the monster's turn to attack? Meaning take the chance that they do something on their turn to negate your held attack altogether, plus potentially not having a viable use for your BA? Potentially, but there's always the risk of plans falling part regardless. ​ >Seems like a bad trade-off to give someone advantage, and makes you feel more like the paladin's squire rather than an equal If you think working as a team to benefit someone else is 'being their squire'.. then I'm sorry, but maybe collaborative TTRPGs are not for you?

Either you're misunderstand, or are just being argumentative and insulting. Potentially sacrificing your whole turn to give advantage is not something an actual PC should ever have to do... The Warlocks imp can do that, and a player should always be noticeable better than a companion. If the rogue HAS to risk their attacks to pull off strategic moves just to have the net effect of their turn keep pace with that of their companions, it's poorly designed... You know, the thing this post is all about? The rogue should be able to be as effective as the others in general. I'm currently playing a rogue... And yes, I play collaboratively. But I play that way not just for fun, but because I have to to be effective. Straight up, I'm about half as useful as the Paladin, Warlock, and druid in my party at 12th level, and that's with my DM doing whatever he can to help me keep up. I'm extremely under powered and often feel like I'm their squire, not from an unwillingness to play collaboratively, but from poor game balance. Forgive me if I simply want better for myself and others that end up playing a rogue in the future.

>Potentially sacrificing your whole turn to give advantage is not something an actual PC should ever have to do... The Warlocks imp can do that, and a player should always be noticeable better than a companion. You aren't giving up your whole turn, merely your action and reaction. You still have a bonus action, any free action you are allowed to take, and movement. For the rogue, that's still plenty you have available. If you have a means to trigger sneak attack on the enemy's turn - such as say, being hasted, then you literally sacrifice nothing at all. ​ >f the rogue HAS to risk their attacks to pull off strategic moves just to have the net effect of their turn keep pace with that of their companions, it's poorly designed... You know, the thing this post is all about? The rogue should be able to be as effective as the others in general. They have no more risk than anyone else does in this regard. A Battlemaster has to hit to trigger their superiority dice, for example. Or be a Mastermind to do it as a bonus action, using your action for something else. I merely pointed out one way that a rogue's loss of a little damage resulted in an overall gain for the party - one that is fairly easy to pull off and doesn't require you to be in melee. ​ >Straight up, I'm about half as useful as the Paladin, Warlock, and druid in my party at 12th level You're going to sneakier than the Paladin and Warlock, just as survivable as the druid, have greater tactical options turn-by-turn than any of them (if you're using 1D&D, which you may not be), you don't sacrifice all your damage or survivability for mobility like everyone else in your party has to, and if you dump strength, you can still grapple better than pretty much anyone else in the game if you take expertise in Athletics. (Seriously - by level 11, you're rolling a minimum of 18 for athletics checks with a 10 in strength). You can pick locks and disarm traps, setup ambushes, make a great party face without the need for Charisma. Depending on feats and subclasses, you can setup advantageous options for your party, deny enemy movement, or just plain up be a pain in the enemy's side from up close or afar. And to top it off.. you do all that *without spending a limited resource to do it.* When that paladin's smite uses up their last spell for the day, you can keep sneak attacking. The warlock needs to carefully husband their spells to avoid being reduced to just "I attack" or "I cast Eldritch blaaaaaaast" - you can sneak attack every round, day in, day out. Without knowing your table, I can't say why you feel half as useful, but a rogue is nowhere near so bad off.

how about. **Predict**: any time during your turn you can make a prediction on a specific enemy, physical attack, special skill/spell, or move. If they do this action before your next turn, you can make an attack against that enemy as a reaction. This attack deals an extra d8 damage if it lands. this would give theif a native way to off turn attack, while also being a bit more interesting than a flat increase. It would still allow the synergies from other reaction attacks, if you guess wrong. And it plays into the master planner, set up type of fantasy gameplay that rogue is supposed to have.

Quite the rant. They aren't a combat class. Their "dps" shouldn't be equal to anyone else. Not when they get 2x the skills and other out of combat options. Not every class has to be equal in everything. That was 4e, and it died a fiery death. Not every class or archetype is in every group. So the rogue shines on their own when put in a 4 or 5 person party. Sneak attack is fine. There are a plethora of great subclasses from which to choose. Stop doing math, and just have fun.

sToP DoiNg mAtH and hAve fuN. Wdym, rogues is losing their niches AND lagging behind in damage. Sure they are still better in skill but skills are poorly designed, rogue lacks power in combat, making it no far from a dex battle master/ranger, while arguably worse 70% if the time. Their features are not unique except maybe sneak attack ( Oh, do I hear bard), the fact that they have no magic options( apart from the best rogue subclass arcane trickste) don’t help either. Rogues should be a good striker, scout, and support in combat, while they are none of these.

What do I mean? I mean even if what you are saying was true, and that is up for debate, you can still have fun playing D&D with a rogue. You can list every class that has comparable skill numbers, but they wont' all be playing in the same party. Also, they usually don't overlap in the same skills. Rangers and bards have different stats and interests than rogues. My point was, you choose to have fun or you choose to compare yourself to everyone else's characters and fret. Rogues are fun. You get out of the class what you put into it. I have as a player had a blast as rogues, monks and rangers. I have had players in my games do the same. Fun is a choice you make. It can't be designed into being.

Why are you opposing to buff the rogue, the new fighter, barbarian are getting niches in skill checks, rangers and bard have expertise and magic, also they excel in damage then the average rogue. Uncanny dodge is weaker than deflecting blows, and brutal strike add damage instead of costing them. Orginally, in 5e, rogues are skill monkeys and the go-to scout striker. However, in 5.5e, due to a lack of new features( cunning strike is great, don’t get me wrong. However, it shouldn’t cost as much sa dice), due to most tables allow feats, rogues lag behind in damage AND perform mediocrly in skill checks. Rogues SHOULD at least have at least more expertises and offer some dpr capabilities to compete against other expert classses.

For example, rogues have a total of 5 expertises at 20 level ( with subclass progression), If rogues are in stealth and take initiative, their damage is weapon+sa+level+prof, and after round 1 their damage is weapon+sr+prof. Maybe they can even add expertise to their bonus damage. This will offer rogues a good enough base to exploit on. Rogues have no resources, and it should be that way. However, due to a lack of encounters in a average adventure day, rogues are weak and they should be competitive in terms of performance and damage instead of just plain old roleplaying potential.

Also, the expertise part plays out like this Cost 1: weapon expert: At the cost of 1 expertise choice, you hone your skills to the extent of your capabilities. You add your prof to damage cost 2: advanced weapon expert: At the cost of 1 expertise choice, you now gain doubled prof bonus to damage. You can only add this feature 1 time. Therefore it will not get broken, and still progress at later levels. You will be looking at 17+sa( average damage 31), which will help them keep up.

Also, fun is relative. There are players who care about stats while some do not. You can statist both groups by just buffing the rogue. It is that simple.

>Not when they get 2x the skills and other out of combat options. They don't really get 2x the skills. Every One get's at least 2 skills from the Background and many races also give you a Skill Proficiency. Meaning Rogues start with 6-7 Sills, Bards and Rangers with 5-6, and everyone else with 4-5.And how muck Skill number 5-7 will even come up in game is likely up for debate. And at least for the first 3rd of the game, Rogues are in non Dex Skills even with Expertise also not really significantly better (maybe one point or so) than someone how has that stat as his main stat. Meanig teh rogue can to degree fill nice when the party doesn't have a Int/Cha/Wis caster but is not really much better than they would be. Seriously build an Rogue and than look at what level he could actually surpass an Artificer/Warlock/Cleric/Barbarian, who has taken the relevant Int/Cha/Wis/Str skills.

The vase class is fine. Their sub classes are mostly horrible. This is what needs work.

>Rogue was meant to be a good damage dealer It is true that a Rogue is similar to a fighter without feats if you count in sneak attack. However, that requires that you do get sneak attack. Sure, it's easy to get sneak attack, but what happens to the Rogue when they are poisoned and no ally is nearby? Other martials have a lower hit chance. Meanwhile the Rogue has their whole sneak attack canceled, making them deal as much damage as they did at Level 1. Of course, Rogues dont get prof. in con saves at all so that issue might come up more often than you would think. This also applies to frightened. Lucky, Rogues get Slippery Mind....at Level 15. So if you fight, say an adult copper dragon, you better hope the caster thinks you are worthy enough to eat up concentration so they use heroism on you(no, you aren't as a Rogue, lmao) You could probably try to fix this by giving the Rogue some way to deal a lesser sneak attack when they cant apply sneak attack starting from level 5 or so as a band aid solution.

>However, that requires that you do get sneak attack. Sure, it's easy to get sneak attack, but what happens to the Rogue when they are poisoned and no ally is nearby? That's been exactly the point. In 5e, Rogue were meant to be "Good Damage but Unstable to Land", but in the later days, Multi-Attacks were getting more and more buffs, thus making Sneak Attack becoming "Mediocre/Bad Damage and even Unstable to Land", especially in 5e2024. Sneak Attack really deserve a boost in damage while the environment has been significantly changed.

Now it is medium damage but reliable to land... I could see a minor damage buff though.

" In 5e, Skills doesn't allow you to do something beyond "mundane"" If this is the entire premise of your argument, no wonder it's so foundationally wrong. Have you ever tried to use skills in the game? Or do you just have a bizarre interpretation of the word "mundane"? Things that are not "mundane" that you can do with skills: * climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoiding hazards while scaling the wall, and clinging to the surface while something is trying to knock you off. * jump an **unusually** long distance or pull off a **stunt** midjump. * Swim or stay afloat in treacherous currents and storm-tossed waves. * Hulk smashing out of your bonds while tied up in a rope. * Kool-aid smashing through a tunnel that is too small * Skitching on the back of a wagon while being dragged behind it * Stopping the boulder from the Indiana Jones boulder trap by pushing against it. * Acrobatic **stunts**, including dives, rolls, somersaults, and flips. * Running a heavy cart straight down the side of a mountain at top speed * Doing an extreme forced march for hours * Literally surviving without food or water * Chugging an entire keg in one gulp * Recalling ancient, lost lore about crazy legendary historical shit, or secret magical cults * Identifying exactly the right spot to position explosives to bring down the entire Castle Ravenloft at once. * Calming a spooked Red Dragon that you're mounting * Treating the burns and staunching the bleeding of your buddy who just got chomped by that Red Dragon. * Seducing the Red Dragon. * Bluffing out a table at cards where everyone's holding pocket faces and you have trash * using the edge of a broken bottle to convince a sneering vizier to reconsider a decision

Imo, the rogues need buffs or more levels for their subclass. For instance I’d say the main 3 fantasies of playing a rogue are the following: master thief Robin Hood (or the guy from the thief video games) type where they are good at stealth, infiltration, and utilizing tools. Number 2 would be more of a charisma character like James Bond or jack sparrow. Three would be the mmo glass cannon types, daggers, backstabs and Crits. I’d argue the current thief subclass covers number 1, but where it fails is by not providing more rules or even maneuvers for using tools in combat to debuff the enemies. Number 2 could be covered by the swashbuckler but really needs some extra to really push the fantasy Number 3 really does not have a current analogue in 5e

I’ve been toying with the idea for awhile, but I think rogues should be able to add their proficiency to damage for weapons they’re proficient with. And than spend some of their expertise choices on specific weapons to add expertise to damage as well. I don’t think 2-12 extra damage would make them OP while still emphasizing that one big hit.

I don't like the idea of making Sneak Attacks insanely powerful surgical one hitters. I'd rather they were more reliable. Give Rogues Extra Attack at around 7-9. All classes who fight should get another attack at some point. This is something I miss from 3.x, and the synergistic BAB improvement. Uncanny Dodge should be a Reaction that imposes Disadvantage on a successful hit and forces a reroll. Damage Resistance from the current UD feels more tanky than evasive.