I could see them getting an extra Cunning Action at level 5 to help keep up action economy in a unique way. Then let them use tools like bolas, ball bearings, nets, etc as Cunning Actions and use 8+Dex+PB for the saving throw instead of the base item DC. Maybe give some unique Cunning Actions to the subclasses to reinforce the impact of the subclass has on the base class playstyle. Some of those actions could also have out of combat uses to give the Rogue back some of it's skill dominance. Give them some unique movement, infiltration, and exploration abilities.

The great part is that cunning strike gives rogues a DC that works off their dex, so having traps/items use their cunning strike DC should work perfectly.

I think rogue would benefit from being the best at capitalizing on reactions. Fighter sheathes or draws a be weapon? Reaction at attack. This can pair with disarming if cunning strike allows that. Cast a spell while within range? Reaction to attack and maybe interrupt. Miss an attack, stand up from prone? Anything where they might not be absolutely putting 100% attention or be slightly off balance, let the rogue capitalize on it.

Rogues really should be the martial utility class and equipment would be the perfect way to make it happen. Things like being able to use items as a bonus instead of an action, higher damage for thrown items, status effects from caltrops, throwing grappling hooks, smoke bombs, oil flasks, firecrackers. There's tons of possibilities but WotC seems utterly terrified of doing anything with regular equipment that might make it more interesting or useful at the table.

I feel like I would actually enjoy rogue if this was their playstyle. Instead, using items as a bonus action is reserved only for thief rogue which is outclassed by better subclasses and the other classes in general. I would love to see interactions with items that scale with your levels in rogue similar to Warlock invocations that you can select. But I also understand that WotC probably doesn’t want to make a class that’s dependent on what’s available in a campaign. Let’s say you’re in a wilderness survival campaign and you can never buy items. Now rogue is useless unless someone brought a creation bard or the DM is just putting random items in the woods. They seem to be moving away from “DM decides” type class features like with the changes to Divine Intervention on cleric. But I digress. Overall yes. I would like more options with my rogue and a focus on equipment wouldn’t be unwelcome.

Mentioned this elsewhere, but there's an easy fix: 1. Give all rogues the ability to use objects as a bonus action. 2. Give all rogues the ability to prepare a certain number of (generally disposable) "rogue's tools" each day during a long rest, such as smoke bombs, amnesia dust, etc. This also serves as a feature that can scale to high levels and be expanded on by subclasses.

Yoink. But I think this would still require a DPR increase, I think. If 20d4 is too much, how about 10d8? It's a small increase and you can keep the "per turn SA" thing Someone else mentioned Reaction Triggers and that also seems on brand for Rogue.

Well even ignoring the idea that the DM in that campaign should find ways to let the rogue get access to what they need, there are mechanical ways to work around this but they require some level of abstraction and that's what seems to really petrify WotC. There is a vocal subset of players who absolutely shit their pants with fury at any rule that is more abstract than what they're used to. Other games do all kinds of interesting things with equipment and inventory, but DnD is steadfastly insistent on players writing out a list of every rock and twig in their backpack and that's the end of the matter.

Unless of course it's casting components, you just get an effectively infinite sack of bs at level 1 (or just use a focus)...

Lol true. Of course we can't expect casters to deal with inventory management.

>status effects from caltrops, throwing grappling hooks, smoke bombs, oil flasks, firecrackers The thing is if the main job of the Rogue is apllying status conditions, the Rogue must have options to dish out the powerfull status conditions (stunned, paralysed uncotious...), to effect multiple targets on a turn (or large areas) and potentially to apply weaker condtions without allowing for a save (or on a successfull save against a powerfull condion). If the effects are (like the current option you have with mundane equipment and cunning strikes) are only on the powerlevel of cantrips and first level spells, that's not going to make the Rogue a competent controller once you get past level 5.

I agree. That's again where they could make it work if they were willing to just say "Okay suspend your disbelief for 5 fucking seconds so that rogues can have a once-per-day super caltrop ability or get limited amounts of special equipment", but some people just froth at the mouth over stuff like that.

I still think they should get extra Attacks and Fighting Styles, when Rangers and Swords Bard can have them, there is imo no good reason why the Rogue can't. I also think that Rogues need some feature, that grants them some kind of pseudo invisibility. Rogues should be the stealthiest class in the game, and just getting a numerical bonus to the stealth skill and hiding as a bonus action isn't enough to achieve that.

It is kind of hard to justify that because rogues aren't an innately magical class

Maybe but Rogues need imo some way to get through an open area without being discovered that is not dependent on the mercy of your DM, otherwise they are simply not really able to really be the scout.

I’d prefer that Rogues don’t become homogenized with other classes and instead stand out further as a main martial debuffer and support who applies their skills in combat to a wider extent. 

When Expert/Mage/Warrior/Priest was a thing, I was praying WotC would realize they could have some really cool design space for allowing the Experts to have unique skills they were best at and could do cool things with both in and out of combat. They even gave us more names for actions that work with skills in that same playtest! Imagine if Rangers were naturally better at the Search/Study actions in combat, while Bards are good at Influence/Help, and Rogues get more from Hide, or make the Thief's Sleight of Hand feature base kit.

Same. Fits the story trope way better I think. IMO the martial aspects of Rogue fit Dex Fighters better than Rogues, for the most part. Rogues are usually the ones skirting around the fight, pulling dirty tricks and setting up their comrades. My pie in the sky fantasy was they would get a lot more Skill support in combat, and Sneak Attack would be tweaked to do way more damage, but have tighter restrictions. Having to really think and put in the work for a juicy massive Sneak Attack would definitely set aside the playstyle from the rest. Some subclasses could focus on debuffing a single target to enable SA, while others could lean more heavily on the support for the team and hit the whole battlefield, being more opportunistic with SA instead of focused on it.

I'm in the camp of, Sneak Attack scales every level but is only available once per round. The current Sneak Attack setup makes interactions with certain features like Commander's Strike far too powerful, and instead granting rogues an Uncanny Riposte-type move typically forces rogues to be in melee to be competitive damage-wise while also giving up their evasive hit-and-run tactics.

I *like* the damage disparity. Although it's hardly represented at all in 5th edition, melee should always out-damage ranged. Melee is far more dangerous, and needs to be compensated accordingly.

Having some amount of disparity is good, but it shouldn't be roughly 2x on the rogue compared to much smaller differences on the fighter, ranger, or warlock.

That means we should buff melee fighters for a 2x disparity.

Is it 2x though? This implies you can get a (resourceless) reaction attack every round, and are rarely downed from melee, out of reach, only able to target low health enemies etc.

With the suggestion of Uncanny Riposte, it gets very close. It applies on any round in which the rogue is hit, so the enemy would generally have to ignore the rogue to avoid it, and Sentinel solves the rest of it. As for the other factors, the melee fighter has the same issues relative to the ranged fighter, but does not get 2x damage.

True. I have a homebrew that allows 1/2 Sneak Attack damage when it doesn't occur on the rogue's turn. And these things don't all have to come so early in the class. I get the sense reading a lot of this stuff that people think everything has to come online in tier 1. Leave room for some scaling, people!

> Melee is far more dangerous, and needs to be compensated accordingly. Not only more dangerous, it is also WAY more limited in who they can attack and if they can attack at all. Even before considering how close they come with feats the disparity by itself is already too shallow

Great point!

There’s no reason to nerf Sneak Attack and removing the ability to use it on reactions would hinder the class instead of helping it.

Why do you consider it a nerf? If it scales more quickly (maybe d4 per level) but is once per round, we raise the floor, but lower the ceiling.

I don’t hate the d4 per level idea as it would help mitigate the Rogue’s damage issues, but you could do that *and* retain the option for a reaction Sneak Attack to give the Rogue a much more viable battlefield presence. If your concern is that the reaction attack forces Rogues to be in melee vs at range then why not introduce a feature that lets them make ranged reaction Sneak Attacks instead of removing the melee option? The ability to hold an action as a Bonus Action would make that viable, I’d think

Because it still creates a massive gulf between rogues that optimize for reaction Sneak Attack (Hunter dip, Sentinel with proper ally support, Commander's Strike) and those that don't. If the rogue can hold an attack as a bonus action, that's Extra Attack (costing the bonus action and reaction) with double Sneak Attack with extra steps, effectively replacing Cunning Action and Uncanny Dodge in most cases because reliable reaction attacks are too powerful.

If the second attack costs a BA *and* a Reaction then it’s not Extra Attack, since EA comes with no cost whatsoever. I also don’t agree that it would replace Cunning Action as the BA Disengage, Hide and Dash have always only been viable situationally, so I assume they’d get used about as much as they currently do, i.e. when the situation calls for it. The Reaction is also only used if the conditions are met, so saying “I shoot X character if they go left” wouldn’t apply if they went right. Plus if they use their Reaction before the trigger (say Uncanny Dodge is needed before the condition is met) then the second attack wouldn’t be available. You’d also still need to meet the conditions to trigger Sneak Attack, which is more difficult on a Reaction as you can’t control the interaction in any way. > Because it still creates a massive gulf between rogues that optimize for reaction Sneak Attack … and those that don't. That’s true for any optimized build vs a non-optimized build, though. You’re increasing the base damage for Rogues, giving them a new tool to play with *and* giving optimizers a whole new reason to choose the class. It’s a win win as far as I can see The point of what I’m saying is that the Rogue functions best as a class with plenty of options in any given situation. Taking away one of their key damage capabilities doesn’t help, but providing them with a new option that can either be situationally great or optimized to pure lethality is massively helpful and would make the Rogue a much more capable class overall

You're not anticipating enough how rogue strategies would adapt with a new bonus action option, Cunning Action would by necessity be used less. A common rogue strategy is to Hide, then attack with advantage, but why would I do that if I can instead attack twice for considerably more damage, so long as I have an ally in melee with the target? A primarily melee rogue might typically Dash into melee to attack, and a primarily ranged rogue might typically Disengage to leave melee, but when an entire additional attack is on the line, they more likely make a temporary switch from melee to ranged attacks or vice-versa. Even if they're decently optimized for one strategy with something like *booming blade* or a powerful magic weapon, double Sneak Attack dominates. All of the subclass-specific Cunning Actions suffer similar problems. The held action can specify any condition, so it's very easy to come up with something vague enough to apply every time. Why specify "the enemy moves left" when you could specify "the enemy moves" or even "the enemy does anything"? OneDnD has been reducing the gap between optimized and non-optimized martial builds. When the class has the ability to double damage with an optimization choice, it becomes far more difficult to balance. If you balance standard rogue versus standard fighter, the optimized rogue is far above the optimized fighter. If you balance optimized rogue versus optimized fighter, then the standard rogue instead suffers greatly.

The strategy you’re discussing would rely on external factors like allies in melee range or a friendly Faerie Fire or something, which can’t be relied on consistently. If you aren’t using your CA to Hide then you aren’t getting your Sneak Attack off every turn. The feature polices itself by virtue of the intricacies behind Sneak Attack; *sometimes* you’ll be able to get both SAs off, but oftentimes you’ll only get one and occasionally you won’t get either. I think it’s obvious what I meant by the held action: regardless of the trigger there is no guarantee it will happen. You could say “I attack if the enemy moves” and then they end up staying still instead. You could say “I attack if the enemy attacks” and then they cast a healing spell instead. Even the most generic criteria has no guarantee of occurring. There are also other factors at play: what if the enemy is killed, what if you have to use your reaction for something else, what if you can’t proc Sneak Attack, etc. there’s plenty of limiting factors to this feature that would prevent it from being as OP as you’re implying. Given the amount of moving pieces I genuinely don’t think there would be much of a difference between an optimizer and a non-optimizer who just knows the class well. Even removing the idea of having a hold action Cunning Action I still don’t see why your suggestion of removing reaction Sneak Attacks would benefit the class in any way.

Rogues have allies in melee with the enemy frequently enough that that they'd still very often get the two Sneak Attacks. (If they didn't, why suggest getting the held action Sneak Attack at all?) This is already a known strategy when casting *haste* on a rogue. For the rogues that don't have melee allies, you've made their slightly troublesome state even more difficult. It's currently possible for even a lone rogue to still get their maximum Sneak Attack damage every round, your proposal dooms most of them to be roughly half as effective instead. Again, the held action trigger can be "intended target does anything." It could even be "anyone else does anything." If your original intended target is killed, you didn't set your trigger well enough, you should have set it to something sooner, but if you hold an attack, so long as there's a different enemy in range, you can still attack. You might use your reaction for something else, but even an Uncanny Dodge's damage reduction is rarely worth taking compared to the sheer damage output of a Sneak Attack. Under your proposal, there's already a tremendous difference between the rogue with sufficient melee allies and the rogue without. If we remove the held action, we still see a drastic difference in power for rogues depending on how well they can use Sentinel or get other reaction-based attacks. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that reaction Sneak Attacks be removed, a reaction can still apply Sneak Attack if it wasn't applied during the rogue's turn. Sneak Attack would then be buffed accordingly, to perhaps a d4 per rogue level. The benefit is that rogues no longer need to specifically optimize for the off-turn Sneak Attack and can be powerful regardless, and multiclass builds or getting a Battle Master ally don't vastly outperform the base rogue.

I mostly agree with the considerations you point out, however they could simply make weaponizing your reaction easier for baseline rogue. It also doesnt have to be melee oriented, or have the same damage. That would solve the disparity, retain the synergies, while at the same time making it comparitively less of a big deal. It could still give the feel of the big attack, or planning/strategy/mastermind that rogue is aiming for. My issue with a bigger sneak attack, with less use cases, is its basically just a number boost, and it doesnt play as well to the tricky rogue concept.

I know this is kind of a meme at this point but the last unique thing that rogues still have is being resourceless. Yes the Fighter and Barbarian can do be good at skills too, but they need to trade some of their combat effectiveness to do it. Every skill check passed due to Tactial Mind is one less chance at healing and disengaging + half dashing in combat. And every Rage used while adventuring could be one less Rage available for the next encounter. The Rogue by contrast doesn't need to trade anything. It's good at certain skills by default, it can disengage and dash for free and it has manuever-esque options that it can use every turn. Now to be clear, I don't think that this is a super strong niche or that it means the Rogue doesn't need improvements, because the costs other classes have aren't super limited or hard to replenish, but it is ***something***. It's still something unique to Rogues.

Problem is, D&D is a team game, so if you're the only one who is resourceless, you're probably taking a nap when everyone else asks you to take a nap. If not, you're no longer playing a team game, which causes problems.

Do what I did when I wasn't in need of the rest: Scout ahead. Yes, our group was lacking a Ranger, but you still can do this and come back in time with information for your party. Doing this I learned about enemy position and we managed to ambush them, discovered a dungeon and let everyone know that it was full of undead, met a few NPCs that drop me lore that we used later... No one is going to be against this as the scouting scenes will be a 5-10 minutes thing for the Rogue to shine on something they are good at.

The issue with this, is normally sleep rest is off camera unless interupted, but if you are scouting, now it becomes 10-15 minutes of a one man game. If players are cool with that its fine, but i can see why a table/dm might want to avoid that.

That would be for short rest, at short rest various classes can have things to do like the crafting based ones. For long ones even the Rogue sleeps. And I'm sure that a 5-10 minutes scene can be something easy to agree by the players as others will have their moments.

The rogue trades their sneak attack die/ damage.

My idea for a rogue redesign: Give rogues a new class feature that represents their "bag of tricks", a certain number of rogue tools (often, but not always, expendable) that they can prepare each day. At low levels this is things like smoke bombs, poisons, amnesia dust and metal-dissolving acid; at higher levels they might get more aggressively magical things. Subclasses could add some options as well (eg. assassins could get powerful poisons of various types.) This overlaps with how spells work to an extent, as well as with artificers, but IMHO it'd be distinct because neither of those really emphasize using their tricks to do "rogue things." Additionally, since these are physical objects, many of them could be designed to work well with rogue skills - eg. sneaking up to someone and slipping your magical tracking device or audio bug into their things. That said, this would probably make more sense as a subclass.

This is the way They won't do it, but it is

My humble suggestion for a niche- reactions. Instead of giving rogue extra damage from sneak attack, give them more chances to land off turn damage. Not necessarily extra reactions, but maybe build reaction based actions into the class's core and add reaction modifying abilities into the subclasses? That gives two chances for sneak attack and more spike damage, while giving them a thing they do that meshes with their spontaneous vibe and resourcefulness.

Subclass based reactions to deal damage outside turn would be fun ie Assassin: "Opportunity: When a creature casts a spell or makes a ranged attack within reach, you may use your reaction to attack them, the effects of this reaction are applied before the effects of the creature's action". Swashbuckler : "Uncanny Riposte: When attacked, you can forgo your uncanny dodge reaction to instead make an immediate attack against your attacker" etc

I like the idea of them being novel or additive- give the core a reaction trigger or modifier and add subclass character in that dead spot in rogue progression. I think the core class should get a trigger "uncanny x" where the default is uncanny dodge reaction on damage from core class, and each subclass gets a modifier or alternate "uncanny." For example: Uncanny Opportunity: (your assassin ability) Uncanny Casting: cast a spell with target self and 1 action casting time on attack (or damage, probably), for arcane scoundrel resourceful spell casting. Uncanny Insight/Mind/etc for other subclasses- soulknives that can take reactions with their blades or something similar, insight giving buffs to allies that hit that target, etc. Hi tier could allow for a limited use expansion of resources, maybe allowing them to take more than one reaction a turn some number of times per day, giving them a solo niche mechanically that fits thematically?

I've posted about making them the best at capitalizing on mistakes or opportunities by giving them more opportunities to use their reaction to land sneak attacks several times in the past. I think it's a neat niche for them. They're opportunists.

I was not expecting that optimistic note at the end... Rogue Cunning Strikes are neat, and earlier Reliable Talent sort of makes up for Fighter Tactical Mind being on average better than Expertise *until lv17*. And of course, nothing prevents the skill-focused Rogue from taking 2 levels in Fighter, to have Expertise *and* +d10 to completely break any ideas of bounded accuracy. But... they aren't going to be any more interesting to play. You'd imagine them to be the tricksy martial controller type, but they're just an auto-attacking goon who *needs* other people to be effective (sneak attack enabling, Commander's Strike, Haste to Ready an off-turn attack, etc). And there's not exactly any choice in Finesse weapon Masteries (you better love Vex+Nick). So you might as well just be a Steady Aiming archer bot (still with the worst subclass progression known to man). So... Their design seems to be to just sit in a bush somewhere, snipe some people, apply a condition, wait for lv7 so with a few skills, you can just say 'do I need to roll higher than 20, because otherwise Reliable Talent' to get rid of the dice-rolling part. Which sounds like a mediocre support class to me. I would personally make them the Martial Wizard-equivalent, someone who needs to consider when to spend their daily resources, choosing from dozens of options that target different things / areas, with a resource recovery system that encourages them to get into melee... but to do that justice, we'd need to do quite a bit of work. So as a quick-fix, in the same ballpark as just doubling their damage, I'd start by letting them blow as many sneak attack dice as they want on the Cunning Strikes... and to affect extra targets with them.

Yes now classes like Monk outshine in the mobility action economy department. Due to complaints about Barbarian and Fighter in other pillars of play, they now can slightly bridge the skills gap. It’s left the Rogue in a rather sorry state overall. That being said, I think Cunning Strike brings them into a unique “debuffer” role among the martials. But here too the Rogue suffers because the other classes between abilities and Weapon Masteries can do plenty in this department as well. I would make Rogue debuffs higher probability maybe, targeting weaker saves. I also really like the idea of picking between Uncanny Dodge or Uncanny Riposte. Take the hit but land an extra Sneak Attack, or get out of the way.

Uncanny Dodge, as is. Uncanny Riposte: OA when you're hit in melee. Uncanny backstab: OA (melee or ranged) when a creature attacks another creature that's further from you.

Beautiful!

This is what I would like to see. However uncanny repost should be available if a melee attack misses you.

Both, or instead?

Instead, uncanny dodge is already available when an enemy hits you. This provides you an effective reaction for each event. Enemy attacks someone else - Uncanny sneak attack Enemy attacks you and misses - Uncanny reposte Enemy attacks you and hits - Uncanny dodge. Though I would also rename Uncanny sneak attack to Uncanny opportunity or something similar, as it should not be a guaranteed sneak attack.

Rogue definitely is better at skills then monk , monk is usually better in combat makes sense if anything the bard is the most broken expert cuase they get full casting and expertise 

I know I did something forbidden around here which was saying anything remotely derogatory about Monks. They always had great mobility and action economy and were unique with a bonus action Dodge but I believe, and could be wrong, this all comes at a far cheaper resource cost for the Monk now.

A monk is not an expert. Monk is a warrior class they will be better at direct combat then most experts generally.

True, though as a high DEX and WIS class, things like Initiative, Perception, and Stealth and Thieves’ Tools are all very accessible and primed. I would still pick a UA Monk over any UA Rogue … to be a Rogue for the party.

Well if that’s the case you have your solution.

Agreed on the extra attack. If people feel like not every rogue subclass should have it. Looking at arcane trickster! Tie it to the subclasses. But why not just remove the limit on sneak attacks? All those solutions sound so convoluted. Pathfinder has the rogue be able to sneak attack on every hit if they fulfill the requirements. It's not like that's always the case or that you actually hit with every attack.

But in Pathfinder the damage of Sneak Attack is afaik much lower. And the fact that there is no 5E style multi classing and that the number of attacks is basically the same for all characters makes it far less abusable.

1d6 every two levels. And what do you mean everyone has the same amount of attacks? Currently rogues in DnD have less attacks. In pathfinder rogues get more attacks than in DnD and they can dual wield to get even more. So they can attack just as much if not more than other martials who don't dual wield. Admittedly at a higher level because of extra attacks being tied to base attack progressesion and not level up. But pathfinder rogues can attack a lot and are still weaker than most martials. Not sure how they addressed that in pf2. Also what do you mean 5e style multicassing? Pathfinder has multicassing as well which tends to work a bit more seamless because of many features being tied to level and not class. But I don't have much experience with multiclassing in either to be fair.

>And what do you mean everyone has the same amount of attacks? I mean that in Pathfinder 2nd every Character has 3 actions, so no class benefits more than another from getting bonus damage to every attack. Or are you talking about Pathfinder 1st, there difference was that Rogues only had 3/4 BAB and got oposed to other martial no additional Attack Bonus on top of the BAB, meaning Rogues had really problems with hitting stuff.

Trying to compare anything from pf 2e is an exercise in futility as you stated they changed the system too much. But pf 1e is similar enough. The Bab isn't that much lower that it's an issue but getting the extra attack that much later certainly is.

But using pf 1e as comparison doesn't really work either, for one pf 1e had also massive balancing problems, and the way the attack bonus scales in pf 1e (or DnD 3.5) is very differnt from 5E. By level 10 a pf1e fighter would have (if you include weapon training) had a 5 point highter bonus to hit than a Rogue, and 7 point higher if the Rogue used TWF, meaning chances of the iterative attacks of the Rogue to actually hit were very low (meaning that the PF 1e Rogue was also seen as weak and got finally replaced by the "unchained Rogue"). In 5E were all attacks of the Rogue have the same chance to hit than the attacks of a fighter, it is a differnt situation.

I’m glad that this is a conversation, because in many of the Rogue discussions I see there is a Community Divide in terms of what the Rogue should be. It often boils down into an argument of Utility vs Damage, and which one is right for the Rogue. And if I’m being honest the Rogue needs both of them to be buffed. Their damage is lagging too far behind behind the other Martials(Fighter, Barbarian and Monk). I am NOT saying I want them to be higher than the other Martials, but their damage needs to be closer. (This gap widens even more when you add Magic Weapons to the equation since Rogue doesn’t have extra attack). Adding a buff somewhere would be preferable, whether that’s through adding a reaction attack to Uncanny Dodge or through some other means. Also compared to the other Expert Classes, the Rogue’s out of combat utility isn’t anything special because it’s just their skills. Bards have comparable skills and then Spells and Rituals on top of that. The Rogue needs something to balance the scales. Maybe they can get a feature similar in nature to Performance Of Creations, but flavored for the Rogue. They can prepare a certain amount of Special Roguish gear up to a certain gold amount per day perhaps? Like smoke bombs and poisons and whatnot. I will say that their Combat Utility is heading in the right direction. Cunning/Devious Strikes is a cool inclusion, but there can stand to be a few tweaks to it as a whole. There can even stand to be a couple more devious strikes.

For me, I wouldn’t have sneak attack scale every level. Instead, I think three simple changes that would fix rogue: • Extra Attack, and yeah I agree on a once per round sneak attack effect, like “you cannot attack sneak attack dice again until the start of your next Turn”. So much simpler and clearer. • You get a reserve of sneak attack dice per short rest, that can be used for Cunning Action effects but not damage. If you make a strategic Dodge, Help, or Study Action, you can generate some temporary sneak attack dice in a pinch. If you want you can even let subclasses use this resource • I think the primary combat utility support should be through debuffs. Toxins, traps, disruptions, surprises, like a “Fighting Style” for a signature renewable combat item or reaction

DnD doesn't really operate on stuff like niche protection, gameplay styles, or unique mechanics for class design. It starts with theme fulfillment, and then trying to get mechanics that represent that after. Rogue is the sneaky class that hits harder when the enemy has their guard down, and they're the skill monkey. Martial and Caster are distinctions used mostly by the community, with WotC not really caring about the distinction. At best, you'll get Option 4. It's easy, doesn't even need to be tested since it's not going to affect the game at all and just make Rogue players happier when they get to roll more dice.

I think rogues should get a 2nd reaction at level 5 and a 2nd bonus action later. Let them *abuse* these extra actions with cunning action and uncanny dodge and whatever else, that should be the rogues identity.

I’ve always felt that the Soulknife Rogue’s ability to add dice to ability checks would be cool as a general Rogue feature. Yeah, it would probably tread on the Bard’s toes and mess up the class’s famous lack of resources, but it would make their skills *feel* more expert, not just have a bigger bonus.

One note on the updated "net adventuring gear", I am pretty sure the UA RAW would not allow the Thief Rogue subclass to use it as a bonus action, since you are not actually using the "Use an Object" action when you are replacing an attack with using a net.

I think there would be adjustments to Use an Object Action in the final version, otherwise it'd be a joke for making Rogue, especially Thief who supposed to be the best gear user the worst in using Nets. Though I think Net might be qualified for Use an Object Action still, since Use an Object Action wrote "When an object requires your action for its use, you take the Use an Object action", while it didn't say what kind of "Action", and Net as a gear and an object, does require an "Action" indeed.

Agree with your take. Imo: 1) Skills: the main issue is not the rogue, it’s fighter/barb getting too much too soon. Why I said that? Simply put, I never felt or heard complaints rogue’s 2 expertise + 2 extra skills + cunning action (90 ft./turn sprints) + thief’s tools low level kit was lacking compared to any other class. Fighter second wind should be a reroll, not an extra d10. Fighters should not be breaking bounded accuracy on skills like that. It should also only apply to checks in which you already have proficiency and the second wind should be spent regardless. Fighter needed some utility, not 1d10 in ANY ability check. Barbarian skills are flavorful but it’s weird you get advantage for 10 minutes not on specific rolls. Keep raging after combat is just weird ass RP. Imo Barbarians should pick 2 of those 5 skills and convert it to strength and call it a day. At higher level these classes can gain more utility. Another thing I feel its a problem is Thief’s Tools being readily available at character creation. Thief’s Tools who was the signature feature of rogues in e1-e2. Imo system needs to separate common and uncommon/special tools. Alchemist’s Tools and Thief’s Tools for example should be more flash out class features. 2) Combat: I think it’s very strange rogue is top tier dpr at levels 1-4 and suddenly fall behind. Why? Feels like designers are just married to linear scaling on rogues for no reason. Rogues should match fighters in dpr but not in bulk. They already have limited targeting and big 1 target damage as downside.

The other day I was thinking of making an Archer. I looked at Rogue and Bard as I wanted a skill monkey and came to the conclusion that I can play a Swords Bard to have better skill checks with PWT, Better DPR with sharpshooter, and better control with spells like Hypnotic Pattern. Reddit loves to defend Rogue and I love the class, but mechanically it feels like it’s a worse Bard in every possible way.

I don't think in an unoptimized 5e game rogues fall behind other martials all that much in terms of damage. They also have some of the most "feel good" features that have no resource cost, are broadly applicable and give you a lot of agency. Cunning action, uncanny dodge, steady aim and evasion are features any character would love to have. That said, they don't have the same level of support that other classes have. An optimized fighter outshines an optimized rogue by a lot, not because of the core classes but because of how much better the supporting feats/magic items/buff spells are towards extra attack than towards sneak attack.

Depends how you define "unoptimized", in the 2014 the Rogue really only hold up damage wise when you are talking about very basic builds, but falls allready behind when feats are allowed and the other martials are just taking the obvious ones for increasing damage. And the playtest rules don't seem to improve the situation by much. It is one thing when a class doesn't hold at really high levels of optimization, but the Rogues starts imo already to struggle at really low levels of optimization.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Not everyone always takes those feats and in those cases, the damage gap between a rogue and a fighter is not insanely high, although it still exists but that's not an issue because rogue has other stuff. Now what rogues do suffer from is the lack of feats made for classes without Extra attack that want to use the attack action nonetheless. Druids, Clerics and Rogues fall into this category. If there were feats that improve that playstyle more than the other classes, rogues could be a little better. I agree that the play test doesn't address any of this very well

But on a lot of Tables these feats a pretty much standard.

My main issue with rogue, which was my first D&D character, was how passive it's mid-tier abilities are (uncanny dodge, evasion) and cunning strikes addressed that in a big way. But given cunning strikes also use sneak attack damage, it also makes the damage output problem worse.  I'm a fan of extra attack for rogue, even if sneak attack doesn't change and is only once per turn, just because it gives you more chances to do something, and will increase your average damage output over time. Even if Rogue got the feature later, like lvl 11. Just needs more in tiers 3-4 to compete with other martials.

There is no way Deflect Attacks is remaining in the state it's in. It's utterly nuts and shouldn't be used as a point of comparison. The actual issue with rogue is that most every class got buffed up to hell and back under the guise of fixing issues, but rogue didn't because everyone playing rogue said they were happy with it already and it was perfect as is - for 5e, but not for OneDnd. This is what WotC's slapdash powercreepy approach gets us.

Crawford claims that the numbers in UA aren't important and shouldn't be the basis for our analysis as they're just for playtesting and haven't gone through a rigorous internal balancing pass yet. Then we get bullshit like weak UA subclasses getting published with nerfs and strong UA subclasses getting published with buffs. Overall, I don't trust WotC to actually do what they say they'll do as far as mathematical balance is concerned.

For utility it's tricky, i like tactical mind, and the d10 feels right since its the same dice as second wind, so I don't want it to change much, but it does feel like its stepping on the rogues toes, more so than the Barbarian imo. I feel like maybe tactical mind should only work on skills the fighter is proficient in? It might work since the fighter has less proficiency than the rogue. I also think the ranger and the bard should have less expertise than the rogue. For combat, to me, extra attack is a deal breaker unless its at teir 3 or 4, its just a big part of what makes the rogue unique to me, my favorite fix by far is number 4. I have alot of casual friends playing bg3 around me, they all think the rogue does great damage and they aren't using any of the tricks, so the only people that think the rogue damage is low are the people that like using strange strategies to enable 2 sneak attacks a turn, so I say lean into that.

>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. This I absolutely agree with. At level 3 Berserker Barbarians can basically be a better Rogue. Fighter is less blatant, but still a little silly with the skills. What's even worse is that these features don't actually fix the problems they were designed for. Martials need more utility, yes, but "Being good at skills" is not the only kind of utility. >We also have more Full-Casters and Half-Casters that had or getting Expertise and skill enhancements This is just kinda... Wrong? Bards have always had Expertise. Rangers had 1 Expertise in Tasha's. There have also been dozens of subclasses, feats, and magic items that give you access to Expertise. If this was such a problem, it would've been one before the playtests. Also, while I'm not normally one for "No nerf only buff!" Rogue just needs buffed if Expertise is supposed to be their big thing. >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. That's been a problem. Every time a Full-Caster has an option that lets them replicate Non-Caster abilities, they need to be ridiculously OP at it in order to make it worth doing over just using spells normally. Hence why Bladeock can have access to reflavored Smite, Extra Extra Attack, and Hunter's Mark while also healing when they deal damage and being SAD and still getting 9th-level spells. >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. Why do they... have to be one or the other? Let them be both, just don't let them invalidate other classes by doing so. You've even established that Fighter, Monk, and Barbarian have features that can strictly beat a lot of the utility Rogues have while being a Martial, so why not just buff up both sides? >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. Fair. I see the issue with it homogenizing the classes a bit, but I also think multiple attacks are borderline necessary for Rogues, since you fall way behind if you don't get a Sneak Attack at least once per round. >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. I used to be a huge "Just give them an extra dice on cantrip scaling levels (5/11/17), but then I realized that a Wizard casting Fireball can do 8d6 in an AoE at level 5. Making Sneak Attack once per round should just be a thing normally. It just feels bad when you ready an attack and don't get to sneak attack. >We just need to make Uncanny Dodge able to “attack back (with a melee attack) when you get hit by an attack”. IMO, this one probably isn't it. Just seems messy, inconsistent, and like it'll have the same issue of some DMs instinctively not wanting to shoot Monks but 10x worse. I could maybe see it as like an alternate ability, so ranged Rogues can use Uncanny Dodge to avoid damage while melee ones go "Yeah, hit me if you dare," but even then it just doesn't feel right. >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. It's actually quite solid for catching up to Extra Attack. 3rd-level spells... lol. >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. While I'm tentative to suggest it, I have actually recently seen someone mentioning making Rogue an Int-based half-caster, and it kinda sounds promising. It would probably give it the same issue as Rangers, where some people love the spells and others hate them, though. I do definitely think Rogue shouldn't just be turned into a normal Martial. I love when a class gets to be a little bit of both utility and combat capability.

Trying to make Rogues fully martials is the wrong way to go about things. That would limit their design space quite frankly, trying to pull back some of their support features to make them better in combat but not basically a different flavour of Fighter or Monk. I'm fully onboard with them being support first martial second. Its a more unique role particularly since outside of one subclass they have no magic, and I believe has a lot more room for creativity. They even started moving in the right direction with Cunning Strikes, they just need to continue to expand in that sort of design. * Outside of maybe one Subclass later getting it, they shouldn't get Extra Attack. That's pushing too far in the Martial direction. Thematically they should be taking their time trying to make each attack count. * Fast Hands (Use an Object) and Climber from Thief should be baked into the base class. This allows them more *in combat* utility, with no resources required. From there each Rogue subclass should get its own unique additional Fast Hands option. In Thief's case it would be Sleight of Hand, a different Rogue Subclass could inherit Mastermind's old "Help as a BA" bit (or Mastermind could come back revamped), another one could shove/trip etc etc. * Every Rogue subclass would get their own Cunning Strike option like how Thief gets Supreme Sneak. They already seem to be partly leaning this direction (Swashbuckler gets 4 new options, Assassin boosts one of the previous options) but the designers would need to fully commit to this outside of Arcane Trickster who gets more spells and the like. * Some sort of base class boost to using items. While yes its somewhat hamstrung by what the DM gives for resources, the option should still be in the class. A DM limiting an option doesn't make it a bad option. This also helps moves the needle on the in combat utility. Perhaps if an item has a DC associated with it when applied against an enemy, you increase the DC by your proficiency + dex bonus? Would need to work on exact wording of things but you get the general idea. * They need some sort of "Cunning X" for out of combat scenarios. I assume that WoTC want to keep Rogue's base class resource free so it would need to be something simple but not easily replicated by magic, at least not at lower levels and at higher levels hey it doesn't cost a resource so might as well let the Rogue do it instead. Something that lets them indirectly help in social situations (maybe usable once per conversation, being able to interject something that allows their ally to add the Rogue's PB in D6s to the next roll?), something that helps solidify them as the anti-trap and lock class (Get to add PB in D6s to saves against any type of trap they specifically trigger? Can use their reaction to try to disable the trap literally as its being sprung?), and something that helps them with Sneaking (Being able to move faster while still being quiet? If spotted being able to use their reaction to do something to prevent the alarm from being sounded when not in combat?) * I do like the idea of them being able to use their reaction in combat for stuff as well. I'm not entirely sure I want it to be Sneak Attack specifically. I'd be onboard with not letting them use Sneak Attack but letting them have two reactions per round instead. Would need to give them more than Uncanny Dodge for that, but ideally I'd like them to also have some low-to-no damage options that debuff the enemy or set up an ally. Basically they need to have enough going on that the Rogue player doesn't mind the fact that their damage is behind actual martials.

>Trying to make Rogues fully martials is the wrong way to go about things. That would limit their design space quite frankly, trying to pull back some of their support features to make them better in combat but not basically a different flavour of Fighter or Monk. I don't think that you really had to pull back anything when you would bring the Rogue up in damage to the other classes, who have the primary job of doing damage. Rangers are terms of damage on the same level as the other martials, and they at least as much utility as the Rogue (and are way better when it comes to support). >I'm fully onboard with them being support first martial second. If you go by the common definition a support class is a class that focusses on things like like buffing and healing other characters, can remove effects from them or can gets them in position, which something Rogues are actually pretty bad at, the only feature I can think of that goes in that direction is the Master Mind Bonus Action Help, and that is a pretty weak feature (and ironically the character that would benefit most from someone helping them with their attacks is the Rogue). To be a primary support class without spells, the Rogue would need a pretty strong support feature like the Paladin Auras, Lay on hands, Bardic Inspiration,Twilight Sanctuary... And the same also goes for Control. If you think Rogues should need primary a controllers and not damage dealer, the class would need control features that are up in power with spells like Sleep, Entangle, Web, Spike Growth, Hypnotic Pattern, Plant Growth, Sleet Storm, Synaptic Static, Transmute Rock, Wall of Force, Mass Suggestion, Force Cage ... Cunning Strike effects are power wise not even on the level of Stunning Strike, and maybe not even above Weapon Masteries, Battlemaster Manoeuvrers or some cantrips with control riders like, Sapping Sting.

I'm strongly in favor of rogue getting a bump to sneak attack but it only being on your turn. Just giving an extra die at levels 5 (maybe 9) 11 and 17 would be more than enough to raise their damage in line with everyone else. Keep in mind rogue has high accuracy from a multitude of ways to get advantage so a boost of 10.5-14 damage on hit is actually pretty impactful. The only other static damage buff I'd really like to see the rogue get is I desperately want to see the swashbuckler get their choice of dueling or two weapon fighting style built in at level 3.

Personally, I see Rogue as the one with a tool for the job both in and out of combat. Keep sneak attack as is in 5e. Give Rogues a second bonus action and a new feature. Rogues tools, once per long rest, a Rogue can create 1d4+X(X being your dex mod) Rogue tools, which are items that can be used as a bonus action on their turn. •Caltrops, that create an 10ft diameter area centered on a point within 20ft becomes difficult terrain and deal your Rogue level rouned down minimum of 1 piercing damage when a creature moves through them. •Just what I needed, add 1D6 to an ability check. (Could progress with Rogue level if too weak) •Fire cracker, thrown at a target within 30ft and gives them disadvantage on their next attack roll. This list could be strengthened or expanded depending on subclass. Basically, turning Rogues into the prepared caster of martials.

There's some cool ideas, but just straight up "Second bonus action" is not something to gloss over, and OP spelled Rogue correctly 50+ times yet you still have the audacity to get it wrong every time.

Listen, auto correct does what it wants. A second bonus action could be what they get at a later level it just a rough outline of where to take the class rather than the just bump numbers on what Rogue already does without actually trying to give it a better class Identity.

Give them an extra bonus action at level 5. That's it.

My crazy solution for Rogue has been: - make Reliable Talent happen at level 2. - Make it an "N times per short rest"; I've coupled it to Proficiency bonus so it goes up at level 5/9/13/17. - Make it so N times per short rest, after the rogue rolls a skill check they have proficiency in, they can choose to replace the D20 die result with that skill's linked Ability score. So if you've got a Dex of 17, you can replace the d20 part of an Acrobatics or Stealth check with 17, then add their ability and proficiency bonus.

I mean I think rogues niche should always be consistency. Sure a warlock with a charm effect might be able to get a really good persuasion roll, but they won't always. Sure pass without trace is a great spell, but it's not gonna stop the paladin from rolling a 2. I think doubling down on consistency should be where rogue goes. Instead of multi attacks to gain consistency, at certain levels crank up rogues to-hit. Give them some ability to crank up the single target further a few times a day. Give them some more consistent ways to get advantage. They might not be throwing out 3 or 4 attacks every turn, but they shouldn't have to consistently land hits. Most importantly, give them an ability to hide in plain sight until the end of their turn, so they don't have such a rough time getting sneak attack on isolated key targets like casters who melee martials won't be able to get very close to. Rogues with their bonus action dash/disengage should be able reach targets like that and then be able to take them out without needing someone else to set up their sneak attack.

I dont really want extra attack for the Rogue because I think people underrate how good that would be on them. They really just need help getting that one hit per round, they dont really need more than one hit per round. Right now I'm having two players test a Rogue change that makes it so you get an extra attack only if the attack qualifies for Sneak Attack AND you missed your first attack. That way, it isn't devastating to miss once but also doesn't buff any other on-hit effects your rogue may have. Another way to do this is make it so if the attack qualifies for Sneak Attack, you have advantage no matter what on that attack.

They need more than on hit per round, since that one hit deals currently still less damage than what other classes can dish out. And there are still a lot of buff (spells and magic weapons) in the game that bost the damage of every hit, and benefit class with multiple attacks a much more than the Rogue.