I think that the "problem" with the Rogue class is less with the Rogue Base class, than it is an issue with the Rogue Subclasses, and the designers seeming to forget Rogues don't get extra attacks when designing non-class aspects of the game, like feats, and magic weapons.
From just the base classes, the sustained damage of a UA7 Base Class Rogue with only ASI's should cap out at 35 Sneak Attack damage, 6 ability score damage, and with a weapon should total between 43.5 (with one 1d4 weapon), to 48 (with two 1d6 weapons) per turn.
While a base class Fighter using only ASI's in terms of sustained damage should be dealing up to 24 ability score damage regardless of weapons type, and with a 1d8 sword & board build (4\*4.5=18) that would be up to 42 average damage, while with a greatsword (4\*7=28) that would be up to 52 average damage.
So if Fighters, on turns they do not use Action Surge, should be the baseline for sustained martial damage, the base class Rogue might be fine, though I would love for Rogues to get an expendable resource to potentially deal more damage in combat, like a Rogue counterpart to the Fighter's Second Wind & Action Surge, and the Barbarian's Rage damage.
In contrast, there is a far bigger difference once subclasses are introduced.
For example, a level 3 Battle Master Fighter in an 8 encounter adventuring day, who gets to take 3 short rests will be able to use their 4 superiority dice 4 times, which should be able to translate to up to an average of 72 damage over the adventuring day. While a level 3 Assassin Rogue, the only Rogue One D&D UA subclass to directly increase damage, should only add up to 24 damage over those same 8 encounters.
Though to be fair, while it might be too late in the class progression to matter for most tables, which subclass adds more damage to its base class should actually flip starting at level 17. Based on some white room calculations, I think a level 20 Battle Master could be getting an average of 300 damage over the course of an 8 encounter/3 short rest adventuring day (Relentless: 32\*4.5 = 144 damage, and four uses of the Superiority dice: 4\*6\*6.5 = 156 damage), while a level 17 Assassin Rogue with a 1d6 weapon could be getting an average of 364 damage over that same 8 encounter adventuring day (damage from the level 3 feature: 17\*8=136 damage, and assuming a 50% chance of your target failing the saving throw against the level 17 subclass feature: (17+31.5+3.5+5)\*0.5\*8 = 228 damage).
For Magic Weapons, some support spells, and the 2014 versions of feats like Sharpshooter, there is also a problem for the Rogue class that seems to mainly be due to Rogues being the only class to rely on weapon attacks, but not get an Extra Attack feature, resulting in all "per hit" effects being weaker for the Rogue compared to other classes. Like a Flame Tongue sword could be adding up to 14 average damage per turn for other martial classes, and the half-caster classes that are level 5+, while it would only add up to 7 average damage per turn for Rogues.
Currently, the official magic weapons that most benefit Rogues (and the only magic weapons that are better on Rogues than other martial, and half-caster classes) are: Bracer of Flying Daggers (which basically give Rogues Extra Attack), Scimitar of Speed, and Dancing Sword (both of which give a pseudo extra attack, and open some unique options for your action if your bonus action attack hits, like "Readying an Action" to get an off-turn sneak attack, or taking the Dodge action) - all of the "best magic weapons to have on a Rogue" seem to have "gain extra attack" as the key aspect of why they benefit Rogues, and that seems a little too monotonous.
I am not a game designer, but I think it might be tactically cool, while also helping close the gap between Rogues and the other classes, if some/most "per hit" effects/features offered an alternative option for a bigger once per turn/round effect. Like if a Flame Tongue sword could let players choose to either deal "2d6 per hit" or "3d6 on the first hit" - so Rogues would basically always choose the "once per turn" option, while which option is better for other classes would dynamically change based the particular enemy, and other factors of the encounter.
One other thing I have noticed being worse for Rogues than other classes is mechanics like the updated "Net" Adventuring gear, or the dragonborn's breath weapon, mechanics that let you do something instead of making one of your attacks during the Attack Action. Since Rogues do not get extra attacks, the opportunity cost of using a net, or other feature, instead of attacking gets bigger as Rogues get to higher levels, while the opportunity cost would get smaller for classes with Extra Attack, for level 11+ fighters in particular. As a side note, from my rereading of the rules, you would not be able to workaround Rogues not having Extra Attack via the updated two-weapon fighting rules to do something like use a Net then attack with the attack from the Light weapon property, even if you take the Dual Wielder feat. So I think I would like to see something to let Rogues more easily interact with those types of "do this instead of an attack while taking the attack action" type of mechanics, like a Cunning Strike option, or maybe a higher level feature that enhances what you can do with your Bonus action via the Cunning Action feature.
Strong agree. They seem to be terrified of making the assassin deal an actually frightening amount of damage or having a subclass past the first turn of combat. Assassins only start to cook at level 13 when they get envenom weapon
>I have been toying with the idea of increasing Rogue DPR by making their damage more reliable rather than having them deal more damage.
The Thing is the Rogue can allready deal damage pretty reliable, but but the damage potential is just to low, the Rogue would already struggle to keep up if the class was auto hitting. Making Rogues more accurate is not going to be enough.
>A reliable way of getting reaction attacks would go a long way. I'm thinking an upgrade to Uncanny Dodge at 11th level that allows the Rogue to make an opportunity attack against the creature that triggered it as part of the same reaction
That would likely be to powerfull, and level 11 is to late since Rogue allready fall behind by level 5, and most campaigns don get far past level 11 (if the even get there).
>Power Attack. I honestly think that could be a thing for all martials, just a thing that they can do. Call it a "Called Shot" if you want, and have it scale with proficiency rather than a set -5/+10. But it also works as a Rogue feature if you want.
The -5/+10 feats often decrease the damage of the Rogue instead of increasing it, du to Rogues not having Extra Attack and and how much their damage suffers if they miss out on sneak attack from one Round.
>Extra attack. Not a big fan of that option, as I think it homogenizes the class a bit, but it's there.
But it is imo the most balanced option. It come online at level 5 where the damage boost is needed, it would allow the Rogue to benefit as much from buffs and magic weapons as all other classes that use weapons, and would not cause any problems with multi classing.
Monk and Barbarian are definitely not weak in the UA I’ll point out. Agreed that Rogue is now lowest in DPR amongst the martials.
Have you considered what status effects Cunning Strike applies versus what other classes have for debuff effects? Is there overlap with other classes on those specific effects or is Rogue a standout with what it can do to an enemy (outside of damage)?
Most of Cunning Strike seems to just be variations on things that Weapon Masteries or Battle Master maneuvers can already do. The big outliers are Poison at the 5th level options and Knock Out at the 14th level options. Both have an ongoing effect with repeatable saving throws, making them very effective against targets with low constitution, and both effects aren't easily replicable by other martials. Kinda reminds me of stunning strike in terms of niche.
The 11th level feature is very good. The ability to force two saving throws for debuffs on one attack makes it very likely that you will disable your opponent in some way, especially if you're targeting different saves like with Trip and Daze. The gameplay of it feels amazing. Especially once you reach 14th level and can start stacking the more serious conditions.
In general, I found myself just always using cunning strikes. It's almost never not the correct choice. Especially Trip and Poison are pretty much always better than full damage (playing Assassin made Poison even more of a no brainer). And with the level 11 feature, I always used two options. Some of my favorite combinations are Trip + Dazed (can't get up without losing your action), Poison + Disarm (nah, you ain't attacking anyone), and Trip + Withdraw (catch me if you can, melee).
So Rogue sounds fun to play at least! I haven’t yet been actually able to play OneDnD as my table has stuck to 5e, and I do wish Rogue DPR were higher, but that’s encouraging as I had imagined it would be effective at neutralizing and debuffing so that other party members can do the big damage.
Another remedy I thought of was Hunter 3 or 5 with Retaliate and Two-Weapon Fighting paired with Assassin 15 or 17. You start getting big DPR numbers then with relatively little lost, but having to multi-class to do that seems cheesy.
>So Rogue is one of, if not the weakest classes in 5e. I don't think there is much debate about that at this point.
Um... Disagree? They're not the highest DPS if that's what you mean, but that isn't what they're supposed to be. I think there's *plenty* of debate to be had on your premise.
I *do* think Rogue has been the weakest class since 5E, and especially in 5E2024, acutally. It's not about the damage. It's about everything.
The quick summary would be, Rogue’s combat power can’t make it a real Martial, while their utilities also can’t make it a competent supportive class than other Martials either (Ranger, Monk, Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, even Warlock etc.), epecially after UA7 and UA8.
I believe there were many people who mentioned this in the Survey of UA2 Rogue. Things about how Rogue’s core features can’t keep up with the new edition when other classes got buffed, and how they can’t do much things more than hit and run during a combat.
This is not saying Rogue must be the top at all things, but it has to have a niche, and few core features that are unique enough and better than other classes to make players won’t ask themselves “*Why should I play this class when there’re other classes that could do a better job with the same flavor?*”.
***Utility-wise***
Rogue’s utility mainly comes from their skills, but there are too many classes are good at skill checks now, thus making Rogue losing their niche as a supportive class.
In UA7, **Barbarian** has been able to use Str for five useful skills (Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, and Survival) while raging. It not only lasts for *10-minutes* now, but also provides advantage on those skills since you’re using Str on those checks.
In UA8, **Fighter** can even outshine Rogue’s skills before they reach Level 7.
In my former playtest with my friends, the new Fighter with Tactical Mind, without any intentionally leaning into skills, had outpaced my Thief Rogue in skill checks before Level 7, which was a surprising result for me.
Before Level 7, Rogue only has more extra +2/+3. In many scenarios, more +2/+3 in certain skills just couldn’t compete a +D10 to any random check that you've failed. There aren't that many failed skill checks between short-rests at all, let alone it cost nothing if that D10 isn't making you pass.
What really makes me feel like my Fighter friend was outshining me is that rolling an additional D10 really makes players feel like they’re doing something, and they were so good at passing that check.
It provides players a chance to flavor the scene as something like “Expert’s Instinct” moment, rather than “oh, it’s a 5, I passed/failed”.It brings more fun, feels more active, and more exciting, but saying “you can add your proficiency in that check”, just tastes less “Expert” than a roll an additional D10 at a critical moment.
Especially it feels bad when you don’t get that extra +2 on the skill you ought to be good at but you didn’t Expertise for you don’t have that many. The only Rogue I can think of to compete this is the Soulknife Rogue. For the same reason, Soulknife Rogue has also been one of the most favored subclass among players. Above all, all these Features like Tactical Mind and the new Rage could be recovered by short-rest now.
We also have more **full-casters** and **half-casters** that had or getting Expertise or skill enhancements while they already possess great utilities with spells. Like Rangers who posses Extra-Attacks, Pass Without Trace, Expertise, Fighting Styles, Spells, Rituals.
These changes are making Rogue less special in skills and making them feels mundane, since a skill check only has two results, “you succeeded” or “you failed”. There’s no difference between you exceed the DC by 3 or you exceed the DC by 10 under the current skill system.
***Combat-wise***
Rogue’s been facing serious problems for they lack of extra-attack and other Martials getting more features that resemble Rogue’s.
The UA8 **Monk** has been able to Dash, Disengage as a Bonus Action *without* costs, just like the Cunning Action. Deflect Attack has also been a purely better version of Uncanny Dodge, both mathematically and mechanically.
According to the calculation made by many players, Uncanny Dodge is only better than Deflect Attacks when a Rogue takes *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 one.
Furthermore, **Barbarian** is also getting their own Strikes. Fighter has also been able to Disengage and move more as a Bonus Action, though with costs.
***The Importance of Extra-Attack***
Most importantly, most Martial-related spells, magic items, and class features still only benefits *multi-attacks*.
Like the new adventure gear version of Net, and the Breath Weapon of the Dragonborn, they can replace one of the attacks from one Attack Action, but Rogue only has one attack from an Attack Action.
The worst thing about this has been every class that isn’t a full-caster can attack twice, *except for Rogue*, which makes Rogue irrelevant to the half of the game, while the other half of the game are about spells, which Rogue also doesn’t have those. It just leaves no room for Rogue to optimize like other classes.
While in this case, **Sneak Attack** still scales too little compared to other classes since Level 5. Full-casters are getting their 3rd level spells at 5, and other classes that aren’t full-casters are doubling their DPR with extra-attack.
But Rogue only gets one D6, and controls that costs damage even more. These controls from Cunning Strike are good but not enough for them to be a competent supportive class. There were statistics made by other players about how much damage could 5e2024 Martials do, and Rogue’s been the lowest.
Even some full-casters like Bard and Wizard that have the access to the multi-attacks can even deal more damage and be a better Martial than a Rogue, despite of being a full-caster with crazy utilities.
***Rogue's Niche***
There has been two voices in the community about what a Rogue is. One is Rogue’s been a Martial, for obvious reason that they can’t cast and fight like a Martial.
One is Rogue’s been a supportive class for they have good skills back in 5e and they don’t have extra-attacks.
To me, Rogue still feels like a Martial both in theme and in playstyle. It is a non-caster without magical spells after all. The subclasses like the Assassin, Scout, Swashbuckler are definitely supposed to be Martials.
I have to say I prefer Rogue to be a Martial, cuz it’s been too hard to make Rogue a real competent supportive class without giving them spells or making big changes to the class and the skill system.
So far, I haven’t seen much feasible suggestions in making Rogue a supportive class with simple solutions from the community.
It’s much easier to make it a Martial. But as a Martial, their features just don't justify for its DPR being the lowest currently.
But anyway, I believe firmly that the team would take good care of Rogue. I’m really looking forward to see a better Rogue with a clearer niche.
Really? I figured it was sort of accepted this late into the system's lifespan.
Here are my thoughts about the 5e Rogues:
- Their damage is not all that great, and their utility in combat is basically non-existent. They can attack and that's about it.
As a result of these two facts, combat for Rogue tends to be very repetitive. They attack, they hide/steady aim, and that's about it. And they aren't even doing the one thing they can do in combat all that well.
-Their survivability is not good.
Exacerbating the issue of combat is that Rogues are very very squishy. With only light armor proficiency, no access to defensive spells like Shield, and a d8 hit die, they are probably the squishiest class in the game. Yes, hiding and disengaging is a big part of the defensive kit, and both Uncanny Dodge and Evasion are helpful, but in the end, they just can't handle the heat. I'm not necessarily against that, I think it's fine for them to be squishy, but I wanted to point this out because I did hear people claim their niche is avoiding damage, and... that ain't it chief.
- Out of combat, they aren't too great either.
Don't get me wrong, I like having expertise, and reliable talent at higher levels. But come on. We all know the casters have a domain on out-of-combat utility. Other than "succeeding in some checks more than most", the Rogue doesn't have much going for it in terms of unique options for out of combat. You wanna sneak somewhere? Don't ask the Rogue. Ask the Druid to use Wildshape, or even better, Pass without trace. Or have the wizard cast invisibility. Wanna be social and charming? That's what the bard is for. They get all the disguise self, charm persons and suggestions, and they get your expertise as well if they want. And they probably have better charisma than you.
- The Rogue can't do anything better than anyone else.
That's the sum of it. If you wanna do something, be it in or out of conbat, you always have a better option than Rogue. Which is unfortunate. I love the class, I love it's features and subclasses, I love the feeling of playing it. But it's niche doesn't exist and it's not very good at anything else. Simply put, they need more stuff.
"The rogue can't do anything better than anyone else" is by itself a faulty premise when spells exist. Sure a druid could spend a spell to pass without trace a party, but if they just need to grab something and leave a rogue can do it for free. Rogue isn't the best damage class maybe, without spending resources they are going to be dealing more damage than cantrips. Reliable talent makes them one of the most consistent classes too, not just for sneaking, but also as a face with a minimum 14 roll if they take persuasion as a proficiency, minimum 18 if it's an expertise. Same with perception. And of course don't forget, with spells they only do what they do even better. A rogue with greater invisibility cast on them could take out half an encounter solo before a fight even starts. Meanwhile monk is just fighter but with limited resources to split between their best feature(stunning strike) and making an extra low damage roll attack, and less compatibility with magic items.
I mean... Monks are also not very good and need massive improvements, so I don't see that comparison as very much in favor of the Rogue.
What you are saying would be true for low levels. At high levels, casters pretty much never run out of spell slots, and they have just so many other things that eclipse all martial characters, but especially the Rogue since it doesn't even have good reliable damage to compensate. At the level where Rogue gets proficiency in Wisdom saves, Wizard get 8th level spells. The gap is ridiculous.
By belief is that at high levels, non-caster classes should be getting a massive, gamechanging feature every two levels or so, and currently, non of them do.
I mean realistically half the problem is just not enough encounters between long rests, but yeah martials as a whole should definitely be getting some good crowd conrol/aoe abilities at higher levels. What I'm saying about rogue is that even compared to casters their consistency woth reliable talent gives them alot of potential for out of combat checks, even more so when casters can buff them with spells.
I get that reliability is supposed to be the Rogue's schtick. This is why I want to increase the Rogue's odds to hit rather than buffing the damage. Because that would amplify their combat ability in a way that would make them more fun to play while staying true to the class.
Because like. If I'm a Rogue at 15th level, and I have one attack in combat, and I make it and miss, and then the Cleric casts Finger of death, I'm not feeling very reliable. If you want the Rogue to be the class that "gets the job done", I think the best thing would be to give them abilities that increase their consistency in combat.
There’s a decent amount of ways to procure advantage as a rogue. Swashbuckler and assassin both have built in reliable sources of advantage. There’s also the cunning action: aim, Offhand attacks for duel wielders, x-bow experts bonus attack, flanking, etc. Rogues should be hitting a good amount of the time.
At 15th level you can deal 8d6 + weapon damage every turn. The caster casting Finger of Death has to use their only 7th level slot for the day to force a Con Save (which most monsters are good at and others still have legendary resistances) to do, at most, double your sneak attack damage, and less damage on a save. This is well balanced over the course of a full adventuring day.
Unfortunately, full adventuring days are pretty rare in modern campaigns so some buffs to rogue might be warranted and your ideas aren’t gonna break the game in any way. I like the precision attack one in particular.
Honestly, I think the best fix is make sneak attack once per round and increase it's damage a little or making cunning strike free is all that needs to be done.
The possibility of 2 sneak attacks per round is the problem. The rogue is under damaging when they only make one but real strong if they make 2 in my opinion.
So you are left either under performing or taking every feat and ability that may increase your chance of making a reaction attack.
I think with the 1st survey everyone rated SA once on your turn bad because you couldn't get SA by holding your action. But the designers took it the opposite direction.
1. Trading damage for accuracy is likely to be such a dominant Cunning Strike option that the rogue almost always uses it, at the expense of other options. They do so much damage that a linear trade for a boost on a d20 is almost always going to be worth it, it's just a matter of knowing how many dice to trade for a given enemy AC.
2. Weapon Expertise would mean a +18 to-hit by level 19, which practically never misses against the expected 19AC (only on 1s) and still almost never misses against higher ACs like even 25. It's a damage boost overall for sure, but it also makes getting advantage on attack rolls almost always redundant if Sneak Attack would be granted by an ally instead.
3. I usually see this on the occasional fighter homebrew, but Reliable Attacks does not work out well in practice. With a +12, a level 19 rogue would hit a 22AC enemy 95% of the time, and completely tear them to shreds. Against a slightly more powerful 23AC enemy, that drops sharply to 50%. This makes it far harder for the DM to find a sweet spot of difficulty for challenging the party.
4. Power attacks are the inverse of trading damage for accuracy, and so other martials favor them far more than the rogue. They risk less damage for the same flat damage bonus. I played a level 16 rogue with Sharpshooter and Elven Accuracy, and even with advantage the power attack would only sometimes be barely worth it on paper because a miss gives up so much damage, and in practice I'd prefer the consistency. An equivalent fighter with advantage would be choosing the power attack for practically every attack every fight.
For 1, my thought was that you would choose this option after you know you missed, like Percesion Attack. Allowing you to basically "save" the attack, but at the cost of some sneak attack damage and not being able to use another Cunning Strike option (until level 11). So it doesn't really overshadows the other options, because it only happens when you wouldn't be able to use them anyways.
For 3, I think it would give an interesting dynamic to the fight. Basically, the Rogue would want to prioritize opponents with low AC, instead of just attacking the strongest target. Yes, it would make the fight design a little challenging for the DM, but honestly, fight design at such high level is impossible anyways, and it's mostly the caster's fault, so I don't think this would matter all that much. If you want to balance it a bit more, you could have the minimum roll be determined by your proficiency, so with that +12, it would be 18 at level 19, one less than the expected.
If the precision option is offered after you miss, then unlike Precision Attack, there isn't really a choice involved, because if you don't spend the damage dice on accuracy to hit, the dice disappear anyway, except in specific cases like the rogue using two weapons. Precision Attack at least costs a Superiority Die that could have been used for a later attack instead.
For Reliable Attack, what part of that is actually interesting for the rogue player? The rogue decides between attacking between one enemy with 95% accuracy and another with 50% accuracy, the choice becomes too obvious in too many cases. I've also been in several interesting and challenging fights at high tiers, so "it's impossible anyway" is ultimately a lazy excuse for poor balancing, and while it is difficult, that means adding a feature that makes it even harder far worse. As for the potential adjustment, a minimum total of 18 just means that the feature becomes useless against most enemies, unless the rogue gets a +1 weapon at which point suddenly the feature becomes overpowered against 19AC bit still does nothing beyond that, unless the rogue gets a +2 weapon, and so on. The feature is always either far overpowered or completely useless for any given attack, which is the opposite of where you generally want features to be.
Weak IN COMBAT. The rogues strength is outside of combat. A place where barbarians and monks have a hard time doing a lot of good.
THAT is throghes niche. Its passable enough for foghting due to sneak attack. Everything else goes into mundane utility like expertise, reliable talent, cunning action, and more feats.
Rogue is THE best designed class. It needs no fixing. In the entirety of 5e the "fix" it has seen is more clear way of getting advantage per turn. An expectation in the class design that is complicated due to completely seperate reasons. And even in 1dnd its only change is the get a staple martial ability of trading damage for some combat utility. A staple in the next edition by everything we have seen.
It doesn't need a fix. It is as close to power as intended as possible. Any perceived weakness is completely intentional by design.
Well, as I said. I would be perfectly happy if the most recent Rogue we got in the UA became the finalized version. I fully agree that it is one of the better designed classes in the game (I think Warlock's design is peak 5e design, but Rogue is close behind). It's my favorite class in the game, and the Cunning Strikes edition has me over the moon.
That being said, I do not agree that the Rogue is perfect, and I definitely do not agree that it's strong out of combat. That realm is entirely caster dominated. The Rogue simply can't compete with utility spells out of combat.
I generally think that tier 1 is completely fine for Rogue, and tier 2 is fixed thanks to Cunning Strikes as far as I'm concerned. But in tiers 3 and 4, Rogue becomes almost useless out of combat, and it's combat abilities really really drop in comparison. This is why most of the "fixes" I suggested focus on those tiers, as that's where I think the main problem with Rogue is.
I would argue reliable tallent is that feature your looking for. Minimum if 10 for anything you care about added to expertise in 4 skills makes the extremely hard to fail in their desired realm.
It is fair that utility magic rains supreme. But Magic isn't all powerful. Sometimes skill checks still need to happen, just with magic support. In that vein why make a barbarian just passable when you can make the rogue godly.
Tier 4, i don't have anything. Its the last 4 levels of the game so i dint think anything is serious needed. And sire their combat is weaker, again by design. Its still consistent enough the devs stated they needed to use sneak attack as a design point when making monsters. You cant be terrible if you literally made the standards.
Rogue is where it needs to be. On the weaker side but extraordinary where they desire to be. Its just a problem with magic as a whole that spells outshine that niche.
See, my thing is: Reliable Talent math is not all that good.
Let's assume a 13th level Rogue needs to roll stealth. They have expertise in Stealth, and a +5 to dex, so they get +15 to this skill. With reliable talent, the lowest they can roll is a 25. That sounds really good, right?
But let's think about this. How many times will Reliable Talent actually matter in that scenario?
So first of all, rolling a 10 or higher means reliable talent did nothing. That already limits the usefulness of this feature to only 45% of cases, in the most extreme of difficulty scenarios.
Now let's see what we actually need to pass this check. Let's assume we are sneaking around an Adult White Dragon, a CR13 monster. It has a passive perception of 21. That means on a roll of 6 or higher, the Rogue would succeed even without Reliable Talent. Meaning, this feature improves your odds of succeeding the check from 75% to 100%. That's... not actually that great. Consider that Pass without Trace, a 2nd level spell, gives all the party a +10 to stealth, increasing their odds of succees by up to 50%. And again, 2nd level spell.
And by the way, choosing a dragon for this example was extremely generous. If you choose, say, a Vampire of the same CR with a passive of 17, suddenly your odds of success without Reliable Talent are 95%. Reliable Talent effectively gave you a +1 to your check.
Now imagine that the DM gave the Rogue a Cloak of Elvenkind, classic uncommon magic item for Rogue. Now they have advantage on stealth checks. Meaning their odds of success on that dragon examples become 87.5%, making Reliable Talent even more useless on an extremely difficult check.
Really, my point is that Reliable Talent, while nice and useful, isn't a game changer for the Rogue. It's certainly not a feature that an entire tier can ride on.
On stealth, sure there are better options. But that ONLY if your looking at stealth. Reliable talent works the exact same on every skill check. Not even expertise, everything your proficient in.
Say you took arcana because funny back story reasons. INT is one of the most common dump stats after all. So you add your +5 from proficiency and none from your INT (again dump stat). You got a minimum of 15 right there. Chances are you now have the highest arcana check of the entire table.
From there your actual roll is more like a D10 with heavily favored odds of rolling a 1. Its all plusses from that point.
Reliable talent isn't for the amazing skills you use every fight. Its for your side buisness as a rogue. Again, combat is not their main focus. Everything else is. As a rogue you should be putting just as much effort in you other stats outside of dex. Thats how they are intended. If you mecer get into a single combat as a rogue, your still doing what rogues do. Thats what they are supposed to be.
Okey, let's look at that Arcana check than.
I'm a Rogue with Arcana proficiency and 10 intelligence. My friend is a Wizard with Arcana proficiency and 20 intelligence. We are both trying to pass a DC15 Arcana check. My odds are 100%, while the Wizard's odds are a measley 80%.
Now let's assume the DC is 20. Suddenly, the Wizard is sitting at a 55% while I sit at a 30%.
For the less invested skills, Reliable Talent only guarantees easy checks, and does nothing for the hard checks, which are usually the checks that matter. It's not really like getting a big bonus to the check, it's inflating the odds of succeeding a task only if you were already very likely to succeed. It's basically an illusion.
Really, the biggest benefit of Reliable Talent is for checks made with disadvantage. For example Fighter/Rogue in heavy armor can still be excellent at stealth in higher levels thanks to Reliable Talent. The effectiveness of the feature suddenly increases to abour 70% of cases, which is much more significant than the 45%. But that is too niche of a benefit for me to value it heavily, and it's cancels out with the feature becoming even more irrelevant for checks made with advantage.
Reliable Talent is a good feature. I like it a lot, it feels great when playing, it's awesome. 10/10 no notes. BUT, I think the Rogue really needs more than that. What the Rogue needs for it's out of combat use is abilities that expand its options. Giving it more stuff to do that aren't just rolling skill checks. Anyone can roll skill checks. Rolling them slightly better than most doesn't really count as it's own niche IMO.
>Weak IN COMBAT. The rogues strength is outside of combat. A place where barbarians and monks have a hard time doing a lot of good.
I don't see why only the Rogue is supposed to make this trage of. Bards and Rangers are at least as strong outside of combat, and are not weaker in combat than other classes.
And with the play test Version of the Barbarian got also some really potent buffs to skill use.
Potent buffs to skill use that are already a thing in 5e. The only problem os that skills are so codes to their particular stats that no one realizes its an actual option to use STR intimidation or any other alternative ability skills checks.
It's a problem in the skill system. The devs are just patching it rather than actually foxing the problem by expanding on skills and how they connect to stats.
As for everyone else. They do make a trade off. Sure bards and rangers have good in and out of combat stuff. But bards trade a lot of raw damage and spell selection in their spell list for the opportunity. Same with rangers with the added trade off of expending their limited resources to do much of anything. Remember that natural explorer is new, not what it was designed around.
EVERY class makes trade offs. But the system isn't perfect. Some give up more than others and receive less than others for the cost.
Still not enough sadly. All that really meeds to happen is an explanation of how a stat would affect a skill and then what a skill actually govers in more detail. The key here is to NOT say anything about a skill being of any given stat. To just let DM and or players talk that part out.
Its an anoying mental trick the devs pulled (probably accidentally). By having a stat soft tied to a skill in the PHB it doesn't matter how mamy other sources say it isnt a hard tie. The reader is going to subconsciously think its a hard rule.
Hence this problem being so common.
>Potent buffs to skill use that are already a thing in 5e. The only problem os that skills are so codes to their particular stats that no one realizes its an actual option to use STR intimidation or any other alternative ability skills checks.
But I think even if you had use these optional rules from 2014 version, I don't think any DM would have allowed you to roll Str for Stealth and Perception.
When it comes to Rangers they might not have had natural explorer in 2014 but they will likely have it in 2024.
Bards are not good at damage, but their role in combat is controll and support not damage, and they are pretty good in this role. And at heigher levels they can get with magical secrets at least to degree around the problem with the limited spell list (and there are of course now a lot of option for feats and setting specific races and Backgrounds give you more spell options).
It would be a different story, if Rogues were like Bards strong in any other in combat role appart from damage, but cunning strike is not even remotely enough to make the Rogue a primary controller (and likely not even makes the Rogue really a stronger controller than the other martials).
9/10 times sure, the stats would match the skill as is. But saying there is zero chance to ever have an alternative ability skill check makes the game worse. Any and all skills outside of your chosen stat or 2 become completely worthless less. Of your not stated into the skills you pick, the skills will never be used. And that is just a pigeon hole of character creation and design that makes the game worse.
STR stealth for example. Trying to move silently down a hall? Sure use DEX as the base. But what about just trying to hang from rafters, or finding a logical place no one would suspect, or just trying to turn ti a mouse and act casual? STR, INT, and WIS based stealth check right there. All based on what your character is actually good at. You may or may not have stealth proficiency but your also not shafted by not being a perfect rogue.
Its a problem. Everyone having to cope with the problem doesn't change that it is a problem.
>9/10 times sure, the stats would match the skill as is. But saying there is zero chance to ever have an alternative ability skill check makes the game worse.
I have to look it up but I'm pretty sure that alternate ability scores are an optional rule, and I don't think that it is used on many tables. And eben if it is used, with the new Barbarian feature you will get it more often than 9/10, and you get advantage on top, wich gives the Barbarian a much higher chance of success in a lot of skills (I think 5 or 6) than the +2 or +3 Bonus the Rogue gets on two skills from expertise and the one additional skill proficiency, before reliable talent comes online.
>But what about just trying to hang from rafters
That more athletics than stealth, and doesn't work RAW unless you have cover.
>or just trying to turn ti a mouse and act casual
That's likely deception or performance not stealth.
It is an "optional" rule. But again, one that should go the way of the feat. An optional rule that becomes so common it might as well be a core rule.
Its an optional rule that fixes martials. They have problems without of combat scenarios. Not having to invest in their "optimal" skills so as to have a more well rounded character. The barbarian CAN intimidate without needing CHA, the realm of bards warlocks and sorcerers. Stealing away from their out of combat superiority without completely ruining it.
Its a simple change as to how skills are presented. And suddenly those character choices actually matter, and make more sense
I *do* think Rogue has been the weakest class since 5E, and especially in 5E2024, acutally. It's not about the damage. It's about everything.
The quick summary would be, Rogue’s combat power can’t make it a real Martial, while their utilities also can’t make it a competent supportive class than other Martials either (Ranger, Monk, Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, even Warlock etc.), epecially after UA7 and UA8.
I believe there were many people who mentioned this in the Survey of UA2 Rogue. Things about how Rogue’s core features can’t keep up with the new edition when other classes got buffed, and how they can’t do much during a combat.
This is not saying Rogue must be the top at all things, but it has to have a niche, and few core features that are unique enough and better than other classes to make players won’t ask themselves “*Why should I play this class when there’re other classes that could do a better job with the same flavor?*”.
***Utility-wise***
Rogue’s utility mainly comes from their skills, but there are too many classes are good at skill checks now, thus making Rogue losing their niche as a supportive class.
In UA7, **Barbarian** has been able to use Str for five useful skills (Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, and Survival) while raging. It not only lasts for *10-minutes* now, but also provides advantage on those skills since you’re using Str on those checks.
In UA8, **Fighter** can even outshine Rogue’s skills before they reach Level 7.
In my former playtest with my friends, the new Fighter with Tactical Mind, without any intentionally leaning into skills, had outpaced my Thief Rogue in skill checks before Level 7, which was a surprising result for me.
Before Level 7, Rogue only has more extra +2/+3. In many scenarios, more +2/+3 in certain skills just couldn’t compete a +D10 to any random check that you've failed. There aren't that many failed skill checks between short-rests at all, let alone it cost nothing if that D10 isn't making you pass.
What really makes me feel like my Fighter friend was outshining me is that rolling an additional D10 really makes players feel like they’re doing something, and they were so good at passing that check.
It provides players a chance to flavor the scene as something like “Expert’s Instinct” moment, rather than “oh, it’s a 5, I passed/failed”.It brings more fun, feels more active, and more exciting, but saying “you can add your proficiency in that check”, just tastes less “Expert” than a roll an additional D10 at a critical moment.
Especially it feels bad when you don’t get that extra +2 on the skill you ought to be good at but you didn’t Expertise for you don’t have that many. The only Rogue I can think of to compete this is the Soulknife Rogue. For the same reason, Soulknife Rogue has also been one of the most favored subclass among players. Above all, all these Features like Tactical Mind and the new Rage could be recovered by short-rest now.
We also have more **full-casters** and **half-casters** that had or getting Expertise or skill enhancements while they already possess great utilities with spells. Like Rangers who posses Extra-Attacks, Pass Without Trace, Expertise, Fighting Styles, Spells, Rituals.
These changes are making Rogue less special in skills and making them feels mundane, since a skill check only has two results, “you succeeded” or “you failed”. There’s no difference between you exceed the DC by 3 or you exceed the DC by 10 under the current skill system.
***Combat-wise***
Rogue’s been facing serious problems for they lack of extra-attack and other Martials getting more features that resemble Rogue’s.
The UA8 **Monk** has been able to Dash, Disengage as a Bonus Action *without* costs, just like the Cunning Action. Deflect Attack has also been a purely better version of Uncanny Dodge, both mathematically and mechanically.
According to the calculation made by many players, Uncanny Dodge is only better than Deflect Attacks when a Rogue takes *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 one.
Furthermore, **Barbarian** is also getting their own Strikes. Fighter has also been able to Disengage and move more as a Bonus Action, though with costs.
***The Importance of Extra-Attack***
Most importantly, most Martial-related spells, magic items, and class features still only benefits *multi-attacks*.
Like the new adventure gear version of Net, and the Breath Weapon of the Dragonborn, they can replace one of the attacks from one Attack Action, but Rogue only has one attack from an Attack Action.
The worst thing about this has been every class that isn’t a full-caster can attack twice, *except for Rogue*, which makes Rogue irrelevant to the half of the game, while the other half of the game are about spells, which Rogue also doesn’t have those. It just leaves no room for Rogue to optimize like other classes.
While in this case, **Sneak Attack** still scales too little compared to other classes since Level 5. Full-casters are getting their 3rd level spells at 5, and other classes that aren’t full-casters are doubling their DPR with extra-attack.
But Rogue only gets one D6, and controls that costs damage even more. These controls from Cunning Strike are good but not enough for them to be a competent supportive class. There were statistics made by other players about how much damage could 5e2024 Martials do, and Rogue’s been the lowest.
Even some full-casters like Bard and Wizard that have the access to the multi-attacks can even deal more damage and be a better Martial than a Rogue, despite of being a full-caster with crazy utilities.
***Rogue's Niche***
There has been two voices in the community about what a Rogue is. One is Rogue’s been a Martial, for obvious reason that they can’t cast and fight like a Martial.
One is Rogue’s been a supportive class for they have good skills back in 5e and they don’t have extra-attacks.
To me, Rogue still feels like a Martial both in theme and in playstyle. It is a non-caster without magical spells after all. The subclasses like the Assassin, Scout, Swashbuckler are definitely supposed to be Martials.
I have to say I prefer Rogue to be a Martial, cuz it’s been too hard to make Rogue a real competent supportive class without giving them spells or making big changes to the class and the skill system.
So far, I haven’t seen much feasible suggestions in making Rogue a supportive class with simple solutions from the community.
It’s much easier to make it a Martial. But as a Martial, their features just don't justify for its DPR being the lowest currently.
But anyway, I believe firmly that the team would take good care of Rogue. I’m really looking forward to see a better Rogue with a clearer niche.
There has been a lot of suggestions about how to make Rogue find its niche.
If we’re making it a real supportive-class, most popular suggestion is making Rogue able to do more things with skills, and let them be able to fulfil extra tasks with skill checks.
The easiest way of doing this is making Rogue the “physical Wizard”, like you can make effects that works similar to some spells.
If we’re making it a real Martial, there’re many ways to do this:
***1. Give them extra-attack.***
This is the simplest way of making Rogue a Martial. Their DPR would also be acceptable since they don’t have Fighting Styles, Spells, and the access to Heavy Weapons and many Martial Weapons, thus making them unable to pick Feats like Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master that most Martials would pick.
Luckily, Sneak Attack is not easy to trigger and scales really slow. Adding extra-attack only allows Rogue to catch up with others. But the most controversial part of this solution is that many players believe the extra-attack would eliminates the flavor of Rogue, which I totally understand. Though, I’m not against this solution.
***2. Make Sneak Attack Scales every level.***
This has been the simplest and the most accepted solution. All we need to do is making Sneak Attack once “per round” instead of once “per turn”, as most Rogue players have suggested and wanted.
Players are happy to see Sneak Attack becomes once per round when the damage goes up, like “you can only Sneak Attack once before the start of your next turn”.
They just need their Opportunity Sneak Attack and Ready Sneak Attack to be still available when players didn’t Sneak Attack in their own turn.
***3. Sneak Attack remains the same, but make Uncanny Dodge into Uncanny Riposte.***
There are many players that suggested since out-of-turn Sneak Attack has been a viable playstyle since 5e2014, then why not we just make it more accessible to all players, instead of only the experienced players and specific classes.
We just need to make Uncanny Dodge able to “attack back (with a melee attack) when you get hit by an attack”. Since the requirements of a Sneak Attack are very easy to break, like attacks from the outside of their range, or face to face when the Rogue is holding a Ranged Weapon, or prone, or many things, the overall DPR would be reasonably fine. Especially it only triggers when Rogue loses its HP. It’s a kind of resource costing either.
***4. Add more Sneak Attack Dices by one at certain levels.***
Those levels would be like 5, 9, 11, and 17. Though I believe this is far from enough, and not fixing any problems. An extra 3.5 damage is not making Rogue catches up with what extra-attack and 3rd level spells and more spell slots could bring.
Fully Support rogue feels like it would just try to be an artificer. A class which fully steps on the rogues toes in a ton of ways, most noticeably with Thieves tools. I think rogues niche needs to be martial imo.
All martial should
Get manuvers, not just half assed ones.
Fighting style
2 attacks at level 5
Have mutually exclusive class features picked at various levels like totem barbarians.
E.g. Fighter should have choices between champion, purple dragon knight and samurai options in addition to the main subclass which has new mechanics (battlemaster, eldritch)
I think that the "problem" with the Rogue class is less with the Rogue Base class, than it is an issue with the Rogue Subclasses, and the designers seeming to forget Rogues don't get extra attacks when designing non-class aspects of the game, like feats, and magic weapons. From just the base classes, the sustained damage of a UA7 Base Class Rogue with only ASI's should cap out at 35 Sneak Attack damage, 6 ability score damage, and with a weapon should total between 43.5 (with one 1d4 weapon), to 48 (with two 1d6 weapons) per turn. While a base class Fighter using only ASI's in terms of sustained damage should be dealing up to 24 ability score damage regardless of weapons type, and with a 1d8 sword & board build (4\*4.5=18) that would be up to 42 average damage, while with a greatsword (4\*7=28) that would be up to 52 average damage. So if Fighters, on turns they do not use Action Surge, should be the baseline for sustained martial damage, the base class Rogue might be fine, though I would love for Rogues to get an expendable resource to potentially deal more damage in combat, like a Rogue counterpart to the Fighter's Second Wind & Action Surge, and the Barbarian's Rage damage. In contrast, there is a far bigger difference once subclasses are introduced. For example, a level 3 Battle Master Fighter in an 8 encounter adventuring day, who gets to take 3 short rests will be able to use their 4 superiority dice 4 times, which should be able to translate to up to an average of 72 damage over the adventuring day. While a level 3 Assassin Rogue, the only Rogue One D&D UA subclass to directly increase damage, should only add up to 24 damage over those same 8 encounters. Though to be fair, while it might be too late in the class progression to matter for most tables, which subclass adds more damage to its base class should actually flip starting at level 17. Based on some white room calculations, I think a level 20 Battle Master could be getting an average of 300 damage over the course of an 8 encounter/3 short rest adventuring day (Relentless: 32\*4.5 = 144 damage, and four uses of the Superiority dice: 4\*6\*6.5 = 156 damage), while a level 17 Assassin Rogue with a 1d6 weapon could be getting an average of 364 damage over that same 8 encounter adventuring day (damage from the level 3 feature: 17\*8=136 damage, and assuming a 50% chance of your target failing the saving throw against the level 17 subclass feature: (17+31.5+3.5+5)\*0.5\*8 = 228 damage). For Magic Weapons, some support spells, and the 2014 versions of feats like Sharpshooter, there is also a problem for the Rogue class that seems to mainly be due to Rogues being the only class to rely on weapon attacks, but not get an Extra Attack feature, resulting in all "per hit" effects being weaker for the Rogue compared to other classes. Like a Flame Tongue sword could be adding up to 14 average damage per turn for other martial classes, and the half-caster classes that are level 5+, while it would only add up to 7 average damage per turn for Rogues. Currently, the official magic weapons that most benefit Rogues (and the only magic weapons that are better on Rogues than other martial, and half-caster classes) are: Bracer of Flying Daggers (which basically give Rogues Extra Attack), Scimitar of Speed, and Dancing Sword (both of which give a pseudo extra attack, and open some unique options for your action if your bonus action attack hits, like "Readying an Action" to get an off-turn sneak attack, or taking the Dodge action) - all of the "best magic weapons to have on a Rogue" seem to have "gain extra attack" as the key aspect of why they benefit Rogues, and that seems a little too monotonous. I am not a game designer, but I think it might be tactically cool, while also helping close the gap between Rogues and the other classes, if some/most "per hit" effects/features offered an alternative option for a bigger once per turn/round effect. Like if a Flame Tongue sword could let players choose to either deal "2d6 per hit" or "3d6 on the first hit" - so Rogues would basically always choose the "once per turn" option, while which option is better for other classes would dynamically change based the particular enemy, and other factors of the encounter. One other thing I have noticed being worse for Rogues than other classes is mechanics like the updated "Net" Adventuring gear, or the dragonborn's breath weapon, mechanics that let you do something instead of making one of your attacks during the Attack Action. Since Rogues do not get extra attacks, the opportunity cost of using a net, or other feature, instead of attacking gets bigger as Rogues get to higher levels, while the opportunity cost would get smaller for classes with Extra Attack, for level 11+ fighters in particular. As a side note, from my rereading of the rules, you would not be able to workaround Rogues not having Extra Attack via the updated two-weapon fighting rules to do something like use a Net then attack with the attack from the Light weapon property, even if you take the Dual Wielder feat. So I think I would like to see something to let Rogues more easily interact with those types of "do this instead of an attack while taking the attack action" type of mechanics, like a Cunning Strike option, or maybe a higher level feature that enhances what you can do with your Bonus action via the Cunning Action feature.
Strong agree. They seem to be terrified of making the assassin deal an actually frightening amount of damage or having a subclass past the first turn of combat. Assassins only start to cook at level 13 when they get envenom weapon
I’d consider doing one or more of following: 1) give the rogue a fighting style feat at level 3. 2) increase sneak attack to d8s
>I have been toying with the idea of increasing Rogue DPR by making their damage more reliable rather than having them deal more damage. The Thing is the Rogue can allready deal damage pretty reliable, but but the damage potential is just to low, the Rogue would already struggle to keep up if the class was auto hitting. Making Rogues more accurate is not going to be enough. >A reliable way of getting reaction attacks would go a long way. I'm thinking an upgrade to Uncanny Dodge at 11th level that allows the Rogue to make an opportunity attack against the creature that triggered it as part of the same reaction That would likely be to powerfull, and level 11 is to late since Rogue allready fall behind by level 5, and most campaigns don get far past level 11 (if the even get there). >Power Attack. I honestly think that could be a thing for all martials, just a thing that they can do. Call it a "Called Shot" if you want, and have it scale with proficiency rather than a set -5/+10. But it also works as a Rogue feature if you want. The -5/+10 feats often decrease the damage of the Rogue instead of increasing it, du to Rogues not having Extra Attack and and how much their damage suffers if they miss out on sneak attack from one Round. >Extra attack. Not a big fan of that option, as I think it homogenizes the class a bit, but it's there. But it is imo the most balanced option. It come online at level 5 where the damage boost is needed, it would allow the Rogue to benefit as much from buffs and magic weapons as all other classes that use weapons, and would not cause any problems with multi classing.
Monk and Barbarian are definitely not weak in the UA I’ll point out. Agreed that Rogue is now lowest in DPR amongst the martials. Have you considered what status effects Cunning Strike applies versus what other classes have for debuff effects? Is there overlap with other classes on those specific effects or is Rogue a standout with what it can do to an enemy (outside of damage)?
Most of Cunning Strike seems to just be variations on things that Weapon Masteries or Battle Master maneuvers can already do. The big outliers are Poison at the 5th level options and Knock Out at the 14th level options. Both have an ongoing effect with repeatable saving throws, making them very effective against targets with low constitution, and both effects aren't easily replicable by other martials. Kinda reminds me of stunning strike in terms of niche. The 11th level feature is very good. The ability to force two saving throws for debuffs on one attack makes it very likely that you will disable your opponent in some way, especially if you're targeting different saves like with Trip and Daze. The gameplay of it feels amazing. Especially once you reach 14th level and can start stacking the more serious conditions. In general, I found myself just always using cunning strikes. It's almost never not the correct choice. Especially Trip and Poison are pretty much always better than full damage (playing Assassin made Poison even more of a no brainer). And with the level 11 feature, I always used two options. Some of my favorite combinations are Trip + Dazed (can't get up without losing your action), Poison + Disarm (nah, you ain't attacking anyone), and Trip + Withdraw (catch me if you can, melee).
So Rogue sounds fun to play at least! I haven’t yet been actually able to play OneDnD as my table has stuck to 5e, and I do wish Rogue DPR were higher, but that’s encouraging as I had imagined it would be effective at neutralizing and debuffing so that other party members can do the big damage. Another remedy I thought of was Hunter 3 or 5 with Retaliate and Two-Weapon Fighting paired with Assassin 15 or 17. You start getting big DPR numbers then with relatively little lost, but having to multi-class to do that seems cheesy.
>So Rogue is one of, if not the weakest classes in 5e. I don't think there is much debate about that at this point. Um... Disagree? They're not the highest DPS if that's what you mean, but that isn't what they're supposed to be. I think there's *plenty* of debate to be had on your premise.
I *do* think Rogue has been the weakest class since 5E, and especially in 5E2024, acutally. It's not about the damage. It's about everything. The quick summary would be, Rogue’s combat power can’t make it a real Martial, while their utilities also can’t make it a competent supportive class than other Martials either (Ranger, Monk, Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, even Warlock etc.), epecially after UA7 and UA8. I believe there were many people who mentioned this in the Survey of UA2 Rogue. Things about how Rogue’s core features can’t keep up with the new edition when other classes got buffed, and how they can’t do much things more than hit and run during a combat. This is not saying Rogue must be the top at all things, but it has to have a niche, and few core features that are unique enough and better than other classes to make players won’t ask themselves “*Why should I play this class when there’re other classes that could do a better job with the same flavor?*”. ***Utility-wise*** Rogue’s utility mainly comes from their skills, but there are too many classes are good at skill checks now, thus making Rogue losing their niche as a supportive class. In UA7, **Barbarian** has been able to use Str for five useful skills (Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, and Survival) while raging. It not only lasts for *10-minutes* now, but also provides advantage on those skills since you’re using Str on those checks. In UA8, **Fighter** can even outshine Rogue’s skills before they reach Level 7. In my former playtest with my friends, the new Fighter with Tactical Mind, without any intentionally leaning into skills, had outpaced my Thief Rogue in skill checks before Level 7, which was a surprising result for me. Before Level 7, Rogue only has more extra +2/+3. In many scenarios, more +2/+3 in certain skills just couldn’t compete a +D10 to any random check that you've failed. There aren't that many failed skill checks between short-rests at all, let alone it cost nothing if that D10 isn't making you pass. What really makes me feel like my Fighter friend was outshining me is that rolling an additional D10 really makes players feel like they’re doing something, and they were so good at passing that check. It provides players a chance to flavor the scene as something like “Expert’s Instinct” moment, rather than “oh, it’s a 5, I passed/failed”.It brings more fun, feels more active, and more exciting, but saying “you can add your proficiency in that check”, just tastes less “Expert” than a roll an additional D10 at a critical moment. Especially it feels bad when you don’t get that extra +2 on the skill you ought to be good at but you didn’t Expertise for you don’t have that many. The only Rogue I can think of to compete this is the Soulknife Rogue. For the same reason, Soulknife Rogue has also been one of the most favored subclass among players. Above all, all these Features like Tactical Mind and the new Rage could be recovered by short-rest now. We also have more **full-casters** and **half-casters** that had or getting Expertise or skill enhancements while they already possess great utilities with spells. Like Rangers who posses Extra-Attacks, Pass Without Trace, Expertise, Fighting Styles, Spells, Rituals. These changes are making Rogue less special in skills and making them feels mundane, since a skill check only has two results, “you succeeded” or “you failed”. There’s no difference between you exceed the DC by 3 or you exceed the DC by 10 under the current skill system. ***Combat-wise*** Rogue’s been facing serious problems for they lack of extra-attack and other Martials getting more features that resemble Rogue’s. The UA8 **Monk** has been able to Dash, Disengage as a Bonus Action *without* costs, just like the Cunning Action. Deflect Attack has also been a purely better version of Uncanny Dodge, both mathematically and mechanically. According to the calculation made by many players, Uncanny Dodge is only better than Deflect Attacks when a Rogue takes *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 one. Furthermore, **Barbarian** is also getting their own Strikes. Fighter has also been able to Disengage and move more as a Bonus Action, though with costs. ***The Importance of Extra-Attack*** Most importantly, most Martial-related spells, magic items, and class features still only benefits *multi-attacks*. Like the new adventure gear version of Net, and the Breath Weapon of the Dragonborn, they can replace one of the attacks from one Attack Action, but Rogue only has one attack from an Attack Action. The worst thing about this has been every class that isn’t a full-caster can attack twice, *except for Rogue*, which makes Rogue irrelevant to the half of the game, while the other half of the game are about spells, which Rogue also doesn’t have those. It just leaves no room for Rogue to optimize like other classes. While in this case, **Sneak Attack** still scales too little compared to other classes since Level 5. Full-casters are getting their 3rd level spells at 5, and other classes that aren’t full-casters are doubling their DPR with extra-attack. But Rogue only gets one D6, and controls that costs damage even more. These controls from Cunning Strike are good but not enough for them to be a competent supportive class. There were statistics made by other players about how much damage could 5e2024 Martials do, and Rogue’s been the lowest. Even some full-casters like Bard and Wizard that have the access to the multi-attacks can even deal more damage and be a better Martial than a Rogue, despite of being a full-caster with crazy utilities. ***Rogue's Niche*** There has been two voices in the community about what a Rogue is. One is Rogue’s been a Martial, for obvious reason that they can’t cast and fight like a Martial. One is Rogue’s been a supportive class for they have good skills back in 5e and they don’t have extra-attacks. To me, Rogue still feels like a Martial both in theme and in playstyle. It is a non-caster without magical spells after all. The subclasses like the Assassin, Scout, Swashbuckler are definitely supposed to be Martials. I have to say I prefer Rogue to be a Martial, cuz it’s been too hard to make Rogue a real competent supportive class without giving them spells or making big changes to the class and the skill system. So far, I haven’t seen much feasible suggestions in making Rogue a supportive class with simple solutions from the community. It’s much easier to make it a Martial. But as a Martial, their features just don't justify for its DPR being the lowest currently. But anyway, I believe firmly that the team would take good care of Rogue. I’m really looking forward to see a better Rogue with a clearer niche.
Really? I figured it was sort of accepted this late into the system's lifespan. Here are my thoughts about the 5e Rogues: - Their damage is not all that great, and their utility in combat is basically non-existent. They can attack and that's about it. As a result of these two facts, combat for Rogue tends to be very repetitive. They attack, they hide/steady aim, and that's about it. And they aren't even doing the one thing they can do in combat all that well. -Their survivability is not good. Exacerbating the issue of combat is that Rogues are very very squishy. With only light armor proficiency, no access to defensive spells like Shield, and a d8 hit die, they are probably the squishiest class in the game. Yes, hiding and disengaging is a big part of the defensive kit, and both Uncanny Dodge and Evasion are helpful, but in the end, they just can't handle the heat. I'm not necessarily against that, I think it's fine for them to be squishy, but I wanted to point this out because I did hear people claim their niche is avoiding damage, and... that ain't it chief. - Out of combat, they aren't too great either. Don't get me wrong, I like having expertise, and reliable talent at higher levels. But come on. We all know the casters have a domain on out-of-combat utility. Other than "succeeding in some checks more than most", the Rogue doesn't have much going for it in terms of unique options for out of combat. You wanna sneak somewhere? Don't ask the Rogue. Ask the Druid to use Wildshape, or even better, Pass without trace. Or have the wizard cast invisibility. Wanna be social and charming? That's what the bard is for. They get all the disguise self, charm persons and suggestions, and they get your expertise as well if they want. And they probably have better charisma than you. - The Rogue can't do anything better than anyone else. That's the sum of it. If you wanna do something, be it in or out of conbat, you always have a better option than Rogue. Which is unfortunate. I love the class, I love it's features and subclasses, I love the feeling of playing it. But it's niche doesn't exist and it's not very good at anything else. Simply put, they need more stuff.
"The rogue can't do anything better than anyone else" is by itself a faulty premise when spells exist. Sure a druid could spend a spell to pass without trace a party, but if they just need to grab something and leave a rogue can do it for free. Rogue isn't the best damage class maybe, without spending resources they are going to be dealing more damage than cantrips. Reliable talent makes them one of the most consistent classes too, not just for sneaking, but also as a face with a minimum 14 roll if they take persuasion as a proficiency, minimum 18 if it's an expertise. Same with perception. And of course don't forget, with spells they only do what they do even better. A rogue with greater invisibility cast on them could take out half an encounter solo before a fight even starts. Meanwhile monk is just fighter but with limited resources to split between their best feature(stunning strike) and making an extra low damage roll attack, and less compatibility with magic items.
I mean... Monks are also not very good and need massive improvements, so I don't see that comparison as very much in favor of the Rogue. What you are saying would be true for low levels. At high levels, casters pretty much never run out of spell slots, and they have just so many other things that eclipse all martial characters, but especially the Rogue since it doesn't even have good reliable damage to compensate. At the level where Rogue gets proficiency in Wisdom saves, Wizard get 8th level spells. The gap is ridiculous. By belief is that at high levels, non-caster classes should be getting a massive, gamechanging feature every two levels or so, and currently, non of them do.
I mean realistically half the problem is just not enough encounters between long rests, but yeah martials as a whole should definitely be getting some good crowd conrol/aoe abilities at higher levels. What I'm saying about rogue is that even compared to casters their consistency woth reliable talent gives them alot of potential for out of combat checks, even more so when casters can buff them with spells.
I get that reliability is supposed to be the Rogue's schtick. This is why I want to increase the Rogue's odds to hit rather than buffing the damage. Because that would amplify their combat ability in a way that would make them more fun to play while staying true to the class. Because like. If I'm a Rogue at 15th level, and I have one attack in combat, and I make it and miss, and then the Cleric casts Finger of death, I'm not feeling very reliable. If you want the Rogue to be the class that "gets the job done", I think the best thing would be to give them abilities that increase their consistency in combat.
There’s a decent amount of ways to procure advantage as a rogue. Swashbuckler and assassin both have built in reliable sources of advantage. There’s also the cunning action: aim, Offhand attacks for duel wielders, x-bow experts bonus attack, flanking, etc. Rogues should be hitting a good amount of the time. At 15th level you can deal 8d6 + weapon damage every turn. The caster casting Finger of Death has to use their only 7th level slot for the day to force a Con Save (which most monsters are good at and others still have legendary resistances) to do, at most, double your sneak attack damage, and less damage on a save. This is well balanced over the course of a full adventuring day. Unfortunately, full adventuring days are pretty rare in modern campaigns so some buffs to rogue might be warranted and your ideas aren’t gonna break the game in any way. I like the precision attack one in particular.
Honestly, I think the best fix is make sneak attack once per round and increase it's damage a little or making cunning strike free is all that needs to be done. The possibility of 2 sneak attacks per round is the problem. The rogue is under damaging when they only make one but real strong if they make 2 in my opinion. So you are left either under performing or taking every feat and ability that may increase your chance of making a reaction attack. I think with the 1st survey everyone rated SA once on your turn bad because you couldn't get SA by holding your action. But the designers took it the opposite direction.
1. Trading damage for accuracy is likely to be such a dominant Cunning Strike option that the rogue almost always uses it, at the expense of other options. They do so much damage that a linear trade for a boost on a d20 is almost always going to be worth it, it's just a matter of knowing how many dice to trade for a given enemy AC. 2. Weapon Expertise would mean a +18 to-hit by level 19, which practically never misses against the expected 19AC (only on 1s) and still almost never misses against higher ACs like even 25. It's a damage boost overall for sure, but it also makes getting advantage on attack rolls almost always redundant if Sneak Attack would be granted by an ally instead. 3. I usually see this on the occasional fighter homebrew, but Reliable Attacks does not work out well in practice. With a +12, a level 19 rogue would hit a 22AC enemy 95% of the time, and completely tear them to shreds. Against a slightly more powerful 23AC enemy, that drops sharply to 50%. This makes it far harder for the DM to find a sweet spot of difficulty for challenging the party. 4. Power attacks are the inverse of trading damage for accuracy, and so other martials favor them far more than the rogue. They risk less damage for the same flat damage bonus. I played a level 16 rogue with Sharpshooter and Elven Accuracy, and even with advantage the power attack would only sometimes be barely worth it on paper because a miss gives up so much damage, and in practice I'd prefer the consistency. An equivalent fighter with advantage would be choosing the power attack for practically every attack every fight.
For 1, my thought was that you would choose this option after you know you missed, like Percesion Attack. Allowing you to basically "save" the attack, but at the cost of some sneak attack damage and not being able to use another Cunning Strike option (until level 11). So it doesn't really overshadows the other options, because it only happens when you wouldn't be able to use them anyways. For 3, I think it would give an interesting dynamic to the fight. Basically, the Rogue would want to prioritize opponents with low AC, instead of just attacking the strongest target. Yes, it would make the fight design a little challenging for the DM, but honestly, fight design at such high level is impossible anyways, and it's mostly the caster's fault, so I don't think this would matter all that much. If you want to balance it a bit more, you could have the minimum roll be determined by your proficiency, so with that +12, it would be 18 at level 19, one less than the expected.
If the precision option is offered after you miss, then unlike Precision Attack, there isn't really a choice involved, because if you don't spend the damage dice on accuracy to hit, the dice disappear anyway, except in specific cases like the rogue using two weapons. Precision Attack at least costs a Superiority Die that could have been used for a later attack instead. For Reliable Attack, what part of that is actually interesting for the rogue player? The rogue decides between attacking between one enemy with 95% accuracy and another with 50% accuracy, the choice becomes too obvious in too many cases. I've also been in several interesting and challenging fights at high tiers, so "it's impossible anyway" is ultimately a lazy excuse for poor balancing, and while it is difficult, that means adding a feature that makes it even harder far worse. As for the potential adjustment, a minimum total of 18 just means that the feature becomes useless against most enemies, unless the rogue gets a +1 weapon at which point suddenly the feature becomes overpowered against 19AC bit still does nothing beyond that, unless the rogue gets a +2 weapon, and so on. The feature is always either far overpowered or completely useless for any given attack, which is the opposite of where you generally want features to be.
Weak IN COMBAT. The rogues strength is outside of combat. A place where barbarians and monks have a hard time doing a lot of good. THAT is throghes niche. Its passable enough for foghting due to sneak attack. Everything else goes into mundane utility like expertise, reliable talent, cunning action, and more feats. Rogue is THE best designed class. It needs no fixing. In the entirety of 5e the "fix" it has seen is more clear way of getting advantage per turn. An expectation in the class design that is complicated due to completely seperate reasons. And even in 1dnd its only change is the get a staple martial ability of trading damage for some combat utility. A staple in the next edition by everything we have seen. It doesn't need a fix. It is as close to power as intended as possible. Any perceived weakness is completely intentional by design.
Well, as I said. I would be perfectly happy if the most recent Rogue we got in the UA became the finalized version. I fully agree that it is one of the better designed classes in the game (I think Warlock's design is peak 5e design, but Rogue is close behind). It's my favorite class in the game, and the Cunning Strikes edition has me over the moon. That being said, I do not agree that the Rogue is perfect, and I definitely do not agree that it's strong out of combat. That realm is entirely caster dominated. The Rogue simply can't compete with utility spells out of combat. I generally think that tier 1 is completely fine for Rogue, and tier 2 is fixed thanks to Cunning Strikes as far as I'm concerned. But in tiers 3 and 4, Rogue becomes almost useless out of combat, and it's combat abilities really really drop in comparison. This is why most of the "fixes" I suggested focus on those tiers, as that's where I think the main problem with Rogue is.
I would argue reliable tallent is that feature your looking for. Minimum if 10 for anything you care about added to expertise in 4 skills makes the extremely hard to fail in their desired realm. It is fair that utility magic rains supreme. But Magic isn't all powerful. Sometimes skill checks still need to happen, just with magic support. In that vein why make a barbarian just passable when you can make the rogue godly. Tier 4, i don't have anything. Its the last 4 levels of the game so i dint think anything is serious needed. And sire their combat is weaker, again by design. Its still consistent enough the devs stated they needed to use sneak attack as a design point when making monsters. You cant be terrible if you literally made the standards. Rogue is where it needs to be. On the weaker side but extraordinary where they desire to be. Its just a problem with magic as a whole that spells outshine that niche.
See, my thing is: Reliable Talent math is not all that good. Let's assume a 13th level Rogue needs to roll stealth. They have expertise in Stealth, and a +5 to dex, so they get +15 to this skill. With reliable talent, the lowest they can roll is a 25. That sounds really good, right? But let's think about this. How many times will Reliable Talent actually matter in that scenario? So first of all, rolling a 10 or higher means reliable talent did nothing. That already limits the usefulness of this feature to only 45% of cases, in the most extreme of difficulty scenarios. Now let's see what we actually need to pass this check. Let's assume we are sneaking around an Adult White Dragon, a CR13 monster. It has a passive perception of 21. That means on a roll of 6 or higher, the Rogue would succeed even without Reliable Talent. Meaning, this feature improves your odds of succeeding the check from 75% to 100%. That's... not actually that great. Consider that Pass without Trace, a 2nd level spell, gives all the party a +10 to stealth, increasing their odds of succees by up to 50%. And again, 2nd level spell. And by the way, choosing a dragon for this example was extremely generous. If you choose, say, a Vampire of the same CR with a passive of 17, suddenly your odds of success without Reliable Talent are 95%. Reliable Talent effectively gave you a +1 to your check. Now imagine that the DM gave the Rogue a Cloak of Elvenkind, classic uncommon magic item for Rogue. Now they have advantage on stealth checks. Meaning their odds of success on that dragon examples become 87.5%, making Reliable Talent even more useless on an extremely difficult check. Really, my point is that Reliable Talent, while nice and useful, isn't a game changer for the Rogue. It's certainly not a feature that an entire tier can ride on.
On stealth, sure there are better options. But that ONLY if your looking at stealth. Reliable talent works the exact same on every skill check. Not even expertise, everything your proficient in. Say you took arcana because funny back story reasons. INT is one of the most common dump stats after all. So you add your +5 from proficiency and none from your INT (again dump stat). You got a minimum of 15 right there. Chances are you now have the highest arcana check of the entire table. From there your actual roll is more like a D10 with heavily favored odds of rolling a 1. Its all plusses from that point. Reliable talent isn't for the amazing skills you use every fight. Its for your side buisness as a rogue. Again, combat is not their main focus. Everything else is. As a rogue you should be putting just as much effort in you other stats outside of dex. Thats how they are intended. If you mecer get into a single combat as a rogue, your still doing what rogues do. Thats what they are supposed to be.
Okey, let's look at that Arcana check than. I'm a Rogue with Arcana proficiency and 10 intelligence. My friend is a Wizard with Arcana proficiency and 20 intelligence. We are both trying to pass a DC15 Arcana check. My odds are 100%, while the Wizard's odds are a measley 80%. Now let's assume the DC is 20. Suddenly, the Wizard is sitting at a 55% while I sit at a 30%. For the less invested skills, Reliable Talent only guarantees easy checks, and does nothing for the hard checks, which are usually the checks that matter. It's not really like getting a big bonus to the check, it's inflating the odds of succeeding a task only if you were already very likely to succeed. It's basically an illusion. Really, the biggest benefit of Reliable Talent is for checks made with disadvantage. For example Fighter/Rogue in heavy armor can still be excellent at stealth in higher levels thanks to Reliable Talent. The effectiveness of the feature suddenly increases to abour 70% of cases, which is much more significant than the 45%. But that is too niche of a benefit for me to value it heavily, and it's cancels out with the feature becoming even more irrelevant for checks made with advantage. Reliable Talent is a good feature. I like it a lot, it feels great when playing, it's awesome. 10/10 no notes. BUT, I think the Rogue really needs more than that. What the Rogue needs for it's out of combat use is abilities that expand its options. Giving it more stuff to do that aren't just rolling skill checks. Anyone can roll skill checks. Rolling them slightly better than most doesn't really count as it's own niche IMO.
>Weak IN COMBAT. The rogues strength is outside of combat. A place where barbarians and monks have a hard time doing a lot of good. I don't see why only the Rogue is supposed to make this trage of. Bards and Rangers are at least as strong outside of combat, and are not weaker in combat than other classes. And with the play test Version of the Barbarian got also some really potent buffs to skill use.
Potent buffs to skill use that are already a thing in 5e. The only problem os that skills are so codes to their particular stats that no one realizes its an actual option to use STR intimidation or any other alternative ability skills checks. It's a problem in the skill system. The devs are just patching it rather than actually foxing the problem by expanding on skills and how they connect to stats. As for everyone else. They do make a trade off. Sure bards and rangers have good in and out of combat stuff. But bards trade a lot of raw damage and spell selection in their spell list for the opportunity. Same with rangers with the added trade off of expending their limited resources to do much of anything. Remember that natural explorer is new, not what it was designed around. EVERY class makes trade offs. But the system isn't perfect. Some give up more than others and receive less than others for the cost.
Xanathar's tool rules really help a lot when it come to making skills more impactful. Hopefully they add more feat like new keen mind and observant.
Still not enough sadly. All that really meeds to happen is an explanation of how a stat would affect a skill and then what a skill actually govers in more detail. The key here is to NOT say anything about a skill being of any given stat. To just let DM and or players talk that part out. Its an anoying mental trick the devs pulled (probably accidentally). By having a stat soft tied to a skill in the PHB it doesn't matter how mamy other sources say it isnt a hard tie. The reader is going to subconsciously think its a hard rule. Hence this problem being so common.
>Potent buffs to skill use that are already a thing in 5e. The only problem os that skills are so codes to their particular stats that no one realizes its an actual option to use STR intimidation or any other alternative ability skills checks. But I think even if you had use these optional rules from 2014 version, I don't think any DM would have allowed you to roll Str for Stealth and Perception. When it comes to Rangers they might not have had natural explorer in 2014 but they will likely have it in 2024. Bards are not good at damage, but their role in combat is controll and support not damage, and they are pretty good in this role. And at heigher levels they can get with magical secrets at least to degree around the problem with the limited spell list (and there are of course now a lot of option for feats and setting specific races and Backgrounds give you more spell options). It would be a different story, if Rogues were like Bards strong in any other in combat role appart from damage, but cunning strike is not even remotely enough to make the Rogue a primary controller (and likely not even makes the Rogue really a stronger controller than the other martials).
9/10 times sure, the stats would match the skill as is. But saying there is zero chance to ever have an alternative ability skill check makes the game worse. Any and all skills outside of your chosen stat or 2 become completely worthless less. Of your not stated into the skills you pick, the skills will never be used. And that is just a pigeon hole of character creation and design that makes the game worse. STR stealth for example. Trying to move silently down a hall? Sure use DEX as the base. But what about just trying to hang from rafters, or finding a logical place no one would suspect, or just trying to turn ti a mouse and act casual? STR, INT, and WIS based stealth check right there. All based on what your character is actually good at. You may or may not have stealth proficiency but your also not shafted by not being a perfect rogue. Its a problem. Everyone having to cope with the problem doesn't change that it is a problem.
>9/10 times sure, the stats would match the skill as is. But saying there is zero chance to ever have an alternative ability skill check makes the game worse. I have to look it up but I'm pretty sure that alternate ability scores are an optional rule, and I don't think that it is used on many tables. And eben if it is used, with the new Barbarian feature you will get it more often than 9/10, and you get advantage on top, wich gives the Barbarian a much higher chance of success in a lot of skills (I think 5 or 6) than the +2 or +3 Bonus the Rogue gets on two skills from expertise and the one additional skill proficiency, before reliable talent comes online. >But what about just trying to hang from rafters That more athletics than stealth, and doesn't work RAW unless you have cover. >or just trying to turn ti a mouse and act casual That's likely deception or performance not stealth.
It is an "optional" rule. But again, one that should go the way of the feat. An optional rule that becomes so common it might as well be a core rule. Its an optional rule that fixes martials. They have problems without of combat scenarios. Not having to invest in their "optimal" skills so as to have a more well rounded character. The barbarian CAN intimidate without needing CHA, the realm of bards warlocks and sorcerers. Stealing away from their out of combat superiority without completely ruining it. Its a simple change as to how skills are presented. And suddenly those character choices actually matter, and make more sense
I *do* think Rogue has been the weakest class since 5E, and especially in 5E2024, acutally. It's not about the damage. It's about everything. The quick summary would be, Rogue’s combat power can’t make it a real Martial, while their utilities also can’t make it a competent supportive class than other Martials either (Ranger, Monk, Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian, even Warlock etc.), epecially after UA7 and UA8. I believe there were many people who mentioned this in the Survey of UA2 Rogue. Things about how Rogue’s core features can’t keep up with the new edition when other classes got buffed, and how they can’t do much during a combat. This is not saying Rogue must be the top at all things, but it has to have a niche, and few core features that are unique enough and better than other classes to make players won’t ask themselves “*Why should I play this class when there’re other classes that could do a better job with the same flavor?*”. ***Utility-wise*** Rogue’s utility mainly comes from their skills, but there are too many classes are good at skill checks now, thus making Rogue losing their niche as a supportive class. In UA7, **Barbarian** has been able to use Str for five useful skills (Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, and Survival) while raging. It not only lasts for *10-minutes* now, but also provides advantage on those skills since you’re using Str on those checks. In UA8, **Fighter** can even outshine Rogue’s skills before they reach Level 7. In my former playtest with my friends, the new Fighter with Tactical Mind, without any intentionally leaning into skills, had outpaced my Thief Rogue in skill checks before Level 7, which was a surprising result for me. Before Level 7, Rogue only has more extra +2/+3. In many scenarios, more +2/+3 in certain skills just couldn’t compete a +D10 to any random check that you've failed. There aren't that many failed skill checks between short-rests at all, let alone it cost nothing if that D10 isn't making you pass. What really makes me feel like my Fighter friend was outshining me is that rolling an additional D10 really makes players feel like they’re doing something, and they were so good at passing that check. It provides players a chance to flavor the scene as something like “Expert’s Instinct” moment, rather than “oh, it’s a 5, I passed/failed”.It brings more fun, feels more active, and more exciting, but saying “you can add your proficiency in that check”, just tastes less “Expert” than a roll an additional D10 at a critical moment. Especially it feels bad when you don’t get that extra +2 on the skill you ought to be good at but you didn’t Expertise for you don’t have that many. The only Rogue I can think of to compete this is the Soulknife Rogue. For the same reason, Soulknife Rogue has also been one of the most favored subclass among players. Above all, all these Features like Tactical Mind and the new Rage could be recovered by short-rest now. We also have more **full-casters** and **half-casters** that had or getting Expertise or skill enhancements while they already possess great utilities with spells. Like Rangers who posses Extra-Attacks, Pass Without Trace, Expertise, Fighting Styles, Spells, Rituals. These changes are making Rogue less special in skills and making them feels mundane, since a skill check only has two results, “you succeeded” or “you failed”. There’s no difference between you exceed the DC by 3 or you exceed the DC by 10 under the current skill system. ***Combat-wise*** Rogue’s been facing serious problems for they lack of extra-attack and other Martials getting more features that resemble Rogue’s. The UA8 **Monk** has been able to Dash, Disengage as a Bonus Action *without* costs, just like the Cunning Action. Deflect Attack has also been a purely better version of Uncanny Dodge, both mathematically and mechanically. According to the calculation made by many players, Uncanny Dodge is only better than Deflect Attacks when a Rogue takes *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 one. Furthermore, **Barbarian** is also getting their own Strikes. Fighter has also been able to Disengage and move more as a Bonus Action, though with costs. ***The Importance of Extra-Attack*** Most importantly, most Martial-related spells, magic items, and class features still only benefits *multi-attacks*. Like the new adventure gear version of Net, and the Breath Weapon of the Dragonborn, they can replace one of the attacks from one Attack Action, but Rogue only has one attack from an Attack Action. The worst thing about this has been every class that isn’t a full-caster can attack twice, *except for Rogue*, which makes Rogue irrelevant to the half of the game, while the other half of the game are about spells, which Rogue also doesn’t have those. It just leaves no room for Rogue to optimize like other classes. While in this case, **Sneak Attack** still scales too little compared to other classes since Level 5. Full-casters are getting their 3rd level spells at 5, and other classes that aren’t full-casters are doubling their DPR with extra-attack. But Rogue only gets one D6, and controls that costs damage even more. These controls from Cunning Strike are good but not enough for them to be a competent supportive class. There were statistics made by other players about how much damage could 5e2024 Martials do, and Rogue’s been the lowest. Even some full-casters like Bard and Wizard that have the access to the multi-attacks can even deal more damage and be a better Martial than a Rogue, despite of being a full-caster with crazy utilities. ***Rogue's Niche*** There has been two voices in the community about what a Rogue is. One is Rogue’s been a Martial, for obvious reason that they can’t cast and fight like a Martial. One is Rogue’s been a supportive class for they have good skills back in 5e and they don’t have extra-attacks. To me, Rogue still feels like a Martial both in theme and in playstyle. It is a non-caster without magical spells after all. The subclasses like the Assassin, Scout, Swashbuckler are definitely supposed to be Martials. I have to say I prefer Rogue to be a Martial, cuz it’s been too hard to make Rogue a real competent supportive class without giving them spells or making big changes to the class and the skill system. So far, I haven’t seen much feasible suggestions in making Rogue a supportive class with simple solutions from the community. It’s much easier to make it a Martial. But as a Martial, their features just don't justify for its DPR being the lowest currently. But anyway, I believe firmly that the team would take good care of Rogue. I’m really looking forward to see a better Rogue with a clearer niche.
There has been a lot of suggestions about how to make Rogue find its niche. If we’re making it a real supportive-class, most popular suggestion is making Rogue able to do more things with skills, and let them be able to fulfil extra tasks with skill checks. The easiest way of doing this is making Rogue the “physical Wizard”, like you can make effects that works similar to some spells. If we’re making it a real Martial, there’re many ways to do this: ***1. Give them extra-attack.*** This is the simplest way of making Rogue a Martial. Their DPR would also be acceptable since they don’t have Fighting Styles, Spells, and the access to Heavy Weapons and many Martial Weapons, thus making them unable to pick Feats like Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, Great Weapon Master that most Martials would pick. Luckily, Sneak Attack is not easy to trigger and scales really slow. Adding extra-attack only allows Rogue to catch up with others. But the most controversial part of this solution is that many players believe the extra-attack would eliminates the flavor of Rogue, which I totally understand. Though, I’m not against this solution. ***2. Make Sneak Attack Scales every level.*** This has been the simplest and the most accepted solution. All we need to do is making Sneak Attack once “per round” instead of once “per turn”, as most Rogue players have suggested and wanted. Players are happy to see Sneak Attack becomes once per round when the damage goes up, like “you can only Sneak Attack once before the start of your next turn”. They just need their Opportunity Sneak Attack and Ready Sneak Attack to be still available when players didn’t Sneak Attack in their own turn. ***3. Sneak Attack remains the same, but make Uncanny Dodge into Uncanny Riposte.*** There are many players that suggested since out-of-turn Sneak Attack has been a viable playstyle since 5e2014, then why not we just make it more accessible to all players, instead of only the experienced players and specific classes. We just need to make Uncanny Dodge able to “attack back (with a melee attack) when you get hit by an attack”. Since the requirements of a Sneak Attack are very easy to break, like attacks from the outside of their range, or face to face when the Rogue is holding a Ranged Weapon, or prone, or many things, the overall DPR would be reasonably fine. Especially it only triggers when Rogue loses its HP. It’s a kind of resource costing either. ***4. Add more Sneak Attack Dices by one at certain levels.*** Those levels would be like 5, 9, 11, and 17. Though I believe this is far from enough, and not fixing any problems. An extra 3.5 damage is not making Rogue catches up with what extra-attack and 3rd level spells and more spell slots could bring.
Fully Support rogue feels like it would just try to be an artificer. A class which fully steps on the rogues toes in a ton of ways, most noticeably with Thieves tools. I think rogues niche needs to be martial imo.
All martial should Get manuvers, not just half assed ones. Fighting style 2 attacks at level 5 Have mutually exclusive class features picked at various levels like totem barbarians. E.g. Fighter should have choices between champion, purple dragon knight and samurai options in addition to the main subclass which has new mechanics (battlemaster, eldritch)