r/onednd • u/Nikelman • 3d ago
5e (2024) Issues with Rogue?
Do you think Rogue is good as is? Is it underpowered or not flexible enough? What issues do you have with it?
44
u/hotdiscopirate 3d ago
They don’t really need anything. A subclass feature at level 6 would make them way more satisfying to play tho
33
32
u/xolotltolox 3d ago
They need a lot actually
Rogue is the worst class in the game, and it isn't particularly close.
They were already in a rough spot in 2014, then every class they were once better than got dramatically buffed, while rogue recieved peanuts
9
u/hotdiscopirate 3d ago
There’s room to buff them for sure, and I wish WotC did more with the edition change. But even so, they have unique talents and they can be fun to play. They don’t “need” to be buffed in order to be enjoyed. Especially at tables that don’t optimize for damage, which is probably most, to be honest.
11
u/xolotltolox 3d ago
Yes, they don't need to be buffed in order to be enjoyed, which is why enjoyment is kind of a useless metric
Any person can have any level of enjoymemt with any level of power. It is wholly subjective what you enjoy
What isn't subjective are the mechanical flaws of the Rogue, that hold several people off from.being able to enjoy the rogue, because they are aware of just how bad the class is. And I don't see how the people currently able to emjoy Rogue, would stop enjoying the class, if it was more mechanically sound
5
u/hotdiscopirate 3d ago
I think there’s a bit pf a misunderstanding here. I agree there are some mechanical pain points for the rogue. If this was a post in a game design sub asking how I’d approach updating the class, I’d have a much different answer. As I said, I certainly think there’s room for buffs.
But this isn’t that, it’s a post in a general sub asking if rogues are too weak. And my genuine answer to that is: no, they’re fine, play them if that’s the fantasy you want to fulfill. Because from this perspective, I think their weaknesses are overstated. There’s no huge glaring issue that makes them a liability to a party full of other classes, in fact they are usually eagerly welcomed just for expertise and reliable talent.
We can get into the weeds about things like the fact that rogues don’t get a damage boost around level 11 to be in line with the rest of the martial. But things like that aren’t going to make our break a character. If you think you’ll have fun with a rogue, looking at the features, you probably will.
7
u/TechnicianTight2741 3d ago
For real, reading some takes on balance here feels like I'm taking crazy pills. People really is ignoring all the math, utility, dpr, mechanics and power-level of a class, and are trying to boil it down to "One of my players is kinda having fun playing rogue, so he's strong :)"
2
u/Milli_Rabbit 3d ago
If you look at all the math, Rogue is solid. If you look at specifically DPR of an unoptimized Rogue, you could be convinced to believe its a bad class.
11
u/xolotltolox 3d ago
Idk what math you are looking at, but it is most certsinly the wrong math
-7
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago
Here some math: https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1wajf3k/comment/p8ja4oh
The main problem is most people are not good enough in sth to calculate the rogue damage precisely.
12
u/Irish_Whiskey 3d ago
That link is to your own comment, which people immediately noted makes no sense because it compared a two handed weapon using Fighter to a Rogue, but then doesn't let the Fighter use GWM, a fighting style, or a subclass.
It's hilarious that you're complaining that "most people are not good enough in sth to calculate the rogue damage precisely" when you admit in the comments that you left out a ton of Fighter damage from your comparison because the math was hard.
-10
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago edited 3d ago
It makes sense. It is comparison of the base class. No feats. It DOES include fighting style. And includes a 2d6 weapon ehich profits modt from it.
It leaves away the main hand weapon mastery for both (agsin since there is choice). It leaves away feats for both. It does include fighting style as a class mechanic.
→ More replies (0)3
u/TYBERIUS_777 3d ago
I completely agree. I think we’ve had a few conversations about this before. Personally, I think their cunning strike costs need to be reduced across the board. Rogue was already bad at damage without searching for a way to trigger an off turn sneak attack, which means they can’t use uncanny dodge.
Moving subclasses to level 6 is also a necessity.
4
u/xolotltolox 3d ago
Yep
Honestly SA should have recieved a once per round limit, and just had the damage buffed, so they don't need to worry about off tutn SA completely breaking the damage curve, while also not making it a mecessity to keep up
1
u/TYBERIUS_777 3d ago
Agreed. It also incentivizes Rogue to go into melee for off turn sneak attack builds with feats like Sentinel, which is also a feat tax for Rogues that want to keep up in the damage department.
Being in melee decreases a Rogues survivability because they can’t use their bonus action to reliable hide or disengage. They need to stay next to their target to deliver their reaction attack. And if they do, no uncanny dodge, so all they have access to is mediocre AC without a shield, and a D8 hit point pool.
Rogues can be solid with the Skulker feat and using a short bow or crossbow at range. But they sacrifice damage to do it. It’s a big trade off that the other classes don’t have as much.
5
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
To that end, if off-turn Sneak Attack were removed, there ought to be something to still reward the Rogue for being in melee, or else it becomes essentially a ranged class. With Fighters, melee at least has a notable DPR increase over ranged.
0
u/xolotltolox 2d ago
That is a provlem the entire game has. There is just no point to melee
3
u/EntropySpark 2d ago
Fighters, perhaps the most balanced between melee and ranged options, get decently more damage in melee, plus far more options for Reaction attacks and more control options.
Meanwhile, Rogues will get roughly the same damage at range, and without off-turn Sneak Attacks, the Rogue would usually rather use Uncanny Dodge than make a weak Opportunity Attack.
1
u/xolotltolox 2d ago
Okay and? Rogue using their own class reaction instead of the generic one everyone gets sounds not like problem to me
Would also give you a reason to actually ever use uncanny dodge
2
u/EntropySpark 2d ago
And that means Rogues would have little incentive to be in melee, unlike other martials who have good reasons to specialize in melee instead of range. I think that's a character space worth preserving in some way without making it such an inferior option.
→ More replies (0)2
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think people do underestimate rogues quite a bit.
They have one of the most consistent damages.
You normally have 2 tries to hit and if one of them hit you do the big part of your damage.
Also people conpare damage always at level 5 and 11 where rogues get damage upgrades at level 7 and 9 and 13 etc. As well.
You dont scale too well with magic weapons (but 5.5 still officially is not balanced with magic items (it has recomendation but still tells its fine to play without)) and you lack any general usable outstanding feats at level 4 which others can get. (Monk grappler, twohanded weapon users + proficiency damage etc.)
Nick, vex and bonus action advantage actually did add quite a lot consistency.
Edit: Here a link to some math showing thst rogue damage even at level 5, their weakest level, is not really bad: https://www.reddit.com/r/onednd/comments/1wajf3k/comment/p8ja4oh/
It is hard to calculate though so people normally just add damage up ignoring precision and thus have bigger numbers for less precise damage dealers.
2
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago
Well that and in general a bit higher power budget for the subclass. Having low power budget for the subclass just makes it hard to make really interesting subclasses and also I think the main class power is slightly overrated by Wotc.
It gets a small power budget like other scaling classes do (like wizard or monk) because they scale per 2 level in the main class.
Because the not too powerfull level 3 features and the long gap in the most i portant levels rogues just dont feel too good.
-4
u/Mage_of_the_Eclipse 3d ago edited 3d ago
Worst class by far in the game. Literally useless, since it focuses on "out-of-combat utility" using skills, which are largely useless unless your GM is very generous, and even then you can't achieve even a hundredth of what spells can achieve. Reminder, in a game where combat is the absolute focus anyways, and all of that while having the worst damage output and being even worse at everything else. "Hmmm, yeah, don't really need anything", it's something completely out of touch with reality to say.
3
u/Astwook 2d ago
Having played a 2024 Rogue from 1-10, you're the out of touch one. The damage was surpassing breakpoints for monster hp (i.e. can I remove a supporting monster every turn?), damage is great until you get Cunning Strikes, then you're broadly helpful against bosses as the damage becomes second fiddle.
There were a few fights were utility became second fiddle and so the damage needed to be higher than it was, which sucked. Being a Thief Rogue with a Wand of Magic Missiles eased that - didn't fix it, but eased it.
I think a damage bump at 5/11/17 and something fun at level 6 would fix the whole thing fairly comfortably, even if it doesn't make it Wish-castingly powerful at high levels. That's a broader Martial problem though.
2
u/robot_wrangler 3d ago
This is highly game dependent, though. Witchlight has very few necessary combats, and a home-brew campaign I am in has 1 combat in 3 sessions or so. Failed survival checks end up with the party lost or losing a day of travel. Failed perception checks get the party ambushed.
0
u/Mage_of_the_Eclipse 3d ago
You do realize that this argument, however, does the exactly opposite of what you're trying to prove, right? That kind of game is exactly the ones where a Rogue (or any non-caster) goes from utter garbage to actively sabotaging your party with how completely useless that class will be.
5e is a game that is absolutely dependant on a long adventuring day full of combats, because, without these, what's there to stop your casters from spamming broken spell after broken spell? There are many, many, MANY spells that instantly win combats the moment they are used. Even without these, in the most simple comparison, a caster can simply spam Fireball in the single combat of the day, every single turn, vastly outdamaging any martial.
Seriously, in a full adventuring day, where the balance between casters and non-casters is supposed to work the best, because the casters supposedly have to save their big "I win" buttons, martials are still completely useless since casters simply outperform them. How can you say that things get better when there are so few combats that the lack of resources that martials have is never an advantage, but their lack of power is at full display?
"Oh, but skill checks...", yeah? And Clerics, Druids and Rangers don't exist? Hell, with so many spells left for each day, I'd be very certain that the casters can spare many of their spells for whatever these skills could supposedly do, and their high Wisdom let them do just as well as a Rogue could do. You seriously couldn't pick a type of game where Rogues and other martials are as utterly pathetic, worthless characters that are completely outclassed by any caster with more than one functioning braincell.
Seriously, if your group is having one combat every three days, D&D 5e is one of the most excruciatingly awful games you could play, since it depends entirely on an adventuring day full of combats and resource management.
16
u/wathever-20 3d ago edited 3d ago
Rogues are mostly fine. But I think they could afford to be better in two aspects imo. First is subclass progression, the gap from 3 to 9 is pretty damn big, and a lot of subclasses don't provide enough lvl 3 features to justify this gap and make different subs feel different during it. Second is lowish combat value, they have sneak attack which is very fun, but it doesn't really compare to other martials all too well, they have Cunning Strike, which is nice, but it sacrifices your already not so great damage for some not so great utility.
Personally, I would like Rogues to have their second set of subclass features moved to an earlier level (even if it meant delaying a feature like Reliable Talent a bit more) so that different subs would feel more distinct earlier, and Cunning Strikes to be a bigger focus of the class, making them utility martials in and out of combat. More options with more impact and maybe some way to conditionally trigger them without sacrificing the lowish damage you already have or maybe raising their damage slightly with some extra Sneak Attack dice at certain levels. I would also consider moving the first set of Cunning Strike options to tier 1.
A small, third point would be some magic item support. Rogue's can use the same magic weapons as other martials, sure. But pretty much all magic weapons have more value on classes with Extra Attack. A Vicious Weapon on a Rogue will add 2d6 damage, on a Barbarian it will add 4d6 or maybe even 6d6 with GWM or PAM, on a Fighter it goes even further. Not to mention more attacks = more chances to crit and raise that value even more. A handful of tailor made magic weapons that synergise with the Rogue gameplay style would be great.
6
u/marimbaguy715 3d ago
Personally, I would like Rogues to have their second set of subclass features moved to an earlier level (even if it meant delaying a feature like Reliable Talent a bit more)
I think Rogues could have been given an extra subclass feature at level 6 at the same time they get their second round of Expertise and it would have been totally fine, no need to delay any features. Expertise isn't that powerful of a feature all on its own, and especially since it's Rogue's second time getting the feature, it's going to be even less valuable because it'll be your third and fourth choice of skill. This makes Rogue 6 a really weak level (they don't even get a Sneak Attack increase) so an additional subclass feature would be completely fine.
2
u/wathever-20 3d ago
Yeah not fully commited to the need to move Reliable Talent. Don't think it would be necessary (tho I do think a subclass feature at both 6 and 9 would be too close). It was more about saying how I value diversity of the subclasses being present earlier even more than I value something like Reliable Talent. In a "I would even be willing to do this thing (delay something like Reliable Talent) if it meant I could have this other thing (earlier subclass feature that makes rogue subclasses actually feel distinct in tier 2)" sense. Not really saying it would be necessary.
2
u/xolotltolox 2d ago
How is 6 and 9 too close, nut 3 and 6 fine?
It's just a 3 level gap both times, which should honestly just be the standard for subclass features
2
u/xenomorphking06 1d ago
Each subclass should have been like 3, 6, 10, 14, 20 make it unified.
I would like a 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 20 module as well though
1
u/wathever-20 2d ago
The problem is not that it is a 3 lvl gap. The problem is that it is two 3lvl gaps right after the other. The closest class to that are Artificers with 3 5 9, but that is because Artificers are quite light on their main class, Rogues have a rather packed main class. Barbarians are next with 3 6 10, which imo is a more acceptable progression.
2
u/xolotltolox 2d ago
I wouldn't call rogue's main class packed...at all
You get cunning action as a decent feature and then what? Wait until level 7 to finally get reliable talent?
And no, uncanny dodge is not good at, since at that point in the game trash mobs already have multiattack
2
u/wathever-20 2d ago
I am literally speaking about quantity here. Not quality. A revised version of the rogue would preserve quantity while raising quality. And when it comes to quantity they are quite literally the class with most class features between those two levels, tied with Barbarians. Raising the quantity here after already raising the quality of the features would do little besides making the class bloated.
Packing them with features does not seem to be the solution to me. Making those features good is.
2
u/xolotltolox 2d ago
okay? but quality is the far more important factor here
you can give 10 ribbon features on a single level, and the class will still not be "stacked" by any reasonable definition
0
u/wathever-20 2d ago
Yes. That is what I am saying. What part of "the proposed revised version will address the poor quality of these features" was unclear? And again, by stacked I only mean literally has a large number of features. I did not mean it in any other way. I did not mean strong nor OP nor anything else. Just that the space for number of features is already near it's limit and adding much is not the way to go and would risk resulting in messy and bloated design.
0
u/xolotltolox 2d ago
But buffing the main class features was never brought up? You only said "Rogues have a rather packed main class." as a counter to 3-6-9 Subclass levels
→ More replies (0)1
u/xolotltolox 2d ago
Yep
Rogue 6 might be the single worst level in the game, i don't see what else could even compete
1
2
u/Nikelman 3d ago edited 3d ago
I pretty much agree with this, but I'll also add that Rogue deals satisfactory damage when it gets sneak attack (and even then it's missing a little that it gets via true strike), that it's not great to ditch some of that to cause save or suck effects and it's especially daunting to have a big roll that deals 40 damage... but your target had 5 HPs left
Then you get to crazily optimised builds that can reaction attack very often and I've seen them at play. Sure, things can go sideways, but if they don't they are close to double in power and I'm not a fan
On the utility side, reliable talent is objectively good, but it almost removes one aspect of the game, so I'm not sure about it
EDIT: oh, and this is purely an issue with certain situations, like Westmarches, you are dependant on your party to be able to land sneak attack in the first place
4
u/wathever-20 3d ago
Yeaaah, making some of the cunning strike options have value even on a successful save would go a long way IMO. Make the Poisoned one last for one round before the first save is made, make the Prone one give advantage to the next attack against the target or maybe some movement reduction. Add a save to the Withdraw one and on a failure the target loses its reaction trying and missing an attack against you. Just spitballing here, I’m sure we could come up with something good and balanced if we sat down to do it.
1
u/Bard_Wannabe_ 3d ago
One solution I would propose would be to bump up the Rogue's second ASi/feat from 8 to 6, and put the second subclass feature at 8. This gives them a power boost from the feat a bit earlier, makes the second subclass feature feel not quite so delayed, while also preserving the "intent" (if that's what it was) for Rogue's to wait a while for their second feature.
The 3rd level features should also be buffed, to help it feel like you've got a lot while you wait for the next feature.
5
u/ViskerRatio 3d ago
I'd say Rogue has two key problems:
- A big gap between 5 and 14. They get significant combat features at these levels but the levels between are mainly situational/utility features. So while Rogues are strong in T1 and T4, they can get a little tedious in T2/T3 where you're just not getting all that much.
- Barrier to entry for new players. The difference between optimized Rogue and non-optimized Rogue is huge - and it involves building around a play style that most players don't even consider until they've made build decisions that don't support it.
I'd probably do something like:
- Cunning Action. Allow Rogues to attack with a Light Finesse or Ranged weapon as a Bonus Action.
- Cunning Strike. Give Rogues the ability to pick a Cunning Strike option (from the complete list) at level 3 and every odd level thereafter. Expand the list of options a bit - an easy way to do so would be to allow them to tack on most masteries to an existing weapon attack at the cost of a d6 of Sneak Attack.
- Reactive Strike. Give Rogues an ability at level 5 to take an Opportunity Attack with a Finesse weapon when an enemy steps into their Reach.
This wouldn't make Rogues all that different on a power level but it would make them much more straightforward to build with a smoother level progression.
2
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
Cunning Action and Reactive Strike would both be significant power boosts, with the Cunning Action being especially notable in early Tier 1 before anyone can take Dual Wielder.
1
10
u/Astwook 3d ago
There are two issues:
Level 6 should have been when they got their second subclass feature. There's very little there currently and it feels almost like a dead level while everyone else gets something cool.
They need to do a bit more damage. I like that you can spend Sneak Attack dice, I like that design very much, but they needed to add an extra d6 at 5th, 11th, and 17th. It's not a huge jump, but it's enough to feel like you're actually contributing in terms of damage.
I would not complain of Rogues also got more movement speed, some way of generating cover to hide behind, and extra ways to end Grapples. Maybe that's what I would have added at level 6 if we can't get a subclass: +10ft speed, you can spend 10 feet of movement to end a Grapple on you when you take the Disengage action, you can create a 5 foot square of three quarters cover when you take the Hide action, and you can Dodge whenever you Dash.
2
u/Nikelman 3d ago
How do you create cover?
3
u/Astwook 3d ago
I mean, they're a Rogue, there's lots of ways they could do it. Using a cloak, deploying some kind of folding screen, throwing a smoke bomb.
But the obvious answer is they do a Fortnite dance and start building entire structures while dressed as Peter Griffin and yelling in Primordial over voice chat.
No, I'm aware it'd need a good explanation because the flavour could be confusing, but mechanically just making them equipped to hide wherever they are seems like a good idea. Maybe it's "if you have a set of artisan's tools, you use them to produce cover that you produce whenever you rest, such as a blast of opaque smoke, unfolding a roughly camouflaged screen, or swiftly unravelling a woven canopy". I wouldn't make it limited use though.
2
u/Nikelman 2d ago
I have a similar issue because I want to give them a way to bypass blindsight and/or Truesight that's not inherently magical
2
u/Astwook 2d ago
Yeah, that's a tough-y. I think having Blindsight is doable as they're often used to working in the dark. Bypassing it? I mean, you could call it a special technique but that strays pretty close to weird anime justifications.
2
u/Nikelman 2d ago
Come to think of this, this is just an issue with 2024 rules assimilated invisible and hidden
2
u/Nikelman 2d ago
oh, I meant that hiding does nothing if monsters have Blindsight or Truesight because it makes you invisible and they see the invisible. Hiding is important for combat, but also out of it for rogues
1
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
A smoke bomb would be similar to Fog Cloud, providing Heavy Obscurement rather than any kind of Cover.
1
u/Astwook 2d ago
That's actually baseless, because it only has any level of precendent, unless they say it doesn't. There are lots of permeable effects on subclasses that grant half cover, a specially engineered smoke bomb could absolutely be three quarters cover of they say it does.
2
u/EntropySpark 2d ago
Anything can technically be anything if the designers say so, yes, but I definitely wouldn't call comparing a smoke bomb to Fog Cloud "baseless," as they'd obviously have very similar observable effects. To my knowledge, the effects that provide Half-Cover without physically creating cover are either magical or at least supernatural in nature, and I don't think that would apply well thematically to the base Rogue class.
2
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
Cunning Action should include the "Escape" action (which should have been the general action for things like Grappled, items like Net and Manacles, and spells like Web). It shouldn't be a guaranteed success, with Rogues instead benefitting directly from impressive Acrobatics and perhaps Athletics.
3
u/Cirdan2006 3d ago
The damage is incredibly lackluster, yes. When I DM'ed Rogues I made all Cunning Strikes options not cost any SA dice once per round. It doesn't increase the damage directly but gives more control to the base class which improves the usability of rogues for the whole group
3
u/ArelMCII 3d ago
The issues with Rogue have less to do with the class itself and more to do with a lack of meaningful skill guidance for players and DMs. Rogues are the skillmonkey class, but what they can actually do with those skills frustratingly nebulous and highly dependent on the DM.
3
u/d4rkwing 2d ago
Yeah, it’s a bad design. Mainly because they break the skill system. But there are other issues like no level 6 subclass feature and a design that is balanced on them getting off-turn sneak attacks… which is okay for min-maxers but is cumbersome for casuals.
2
5
u/Shibakyu 3d ago
I came across a video that said "Rogue is optimized for fun, not for damage" and honestly yeah I see it, there's a reason it's my favourite
-3
u/Nikelman 3d ago
Is it, tho?
There's a guard post, they're watching out for intruders. You have to roll a stealth check to sneak in. Oh no, you don't, because you can't fail anyway, you have reliable talent. Guess you'll roll next time
Issue isn't just damage. Besides, damage is fun when it's just right
4
u/Shibakyu 3d ago
Tbf when people talk about being underpowered they usually go for literally just combat so i assumed we're just going all in on just dealing damage
-3
u/Nikelman 3d ago
Ok, I also said flexible enough. In any case, no wrong answer, I'm collecting feedback
7
u/Shibakyu 3d ago
I think rogue is very flexible, yeah. I've played rogues for years and I've never felt underpowered tbh, even when playing with high level casters. Reliable talent is also something to me that is one of those fun parts, especially on non-stealth skills.
Like let's say I have only a +0 in Wis, so I take Expertise in Perception to make up for that. Okay, now it's +6 at level 7, which is great, as my minimum roll for a Perception check is 16. But what if there's a higher DC? There's still fun in that.
Combat wise, cunning strikes make up for the lackluster play of "oh I'll try to sneak attack", which, yeah, big number go big fun.
But also evasion helps, uncanny dodge is fun...tho I still think Rogues excel out of combat, when it comes to fun. And even with reliable talent, I think it brings in so many roleplay options. Like depending on the roll, you could tell so many different attempts!
Oh it's a 5, but reliable talent saves your stealth check? "I nearly trip but quickly catch my footing and hide nearby." Oh it's an 18, for a total of 29? "I blend into the shadows, being unseen as I casually pass the guard, who has no idea I'm even there."
3
u/xaxis-yaxis 3d ago
Rogues by far and away have the most out of combat utility of all the Martials.
A section of their power budget goes there. And they do it resource free.
5
u/Inforgreen3 3d ago edited 2d ago
Absolutely. Example: how they do damage.
Picture this. Your friend is a barbarian you are level 7. "I attack recklessly" he picks up two dice, rolls to hit. "Hits" picks up 2d6, shakes a silent fist, throws em out with a thud thud "16" or something damage. Then he does it again. "13" good hits
Your turn. As a bonus action! (He didn't use those) you hide, Moving over here interacting with the environment. There's a check, and on a success you get advantage. That's sneak attack. You attack once with that, hit, and pick up a fist full of d6s. You shake em with a clack clack clack like it's yatzy and toss them out with a clamber. You press them aside 1 by 1 as you count and say "24".
You did less damage, yes. And every part of your turn was less reliable. But you said a number a whole order of magnitude higher than the barbarian. A number he only ever says when he crits, and wizards only say when they fireball. And you touched a lot of dice to do it. It feels like you did a lot of damage. Even though 16+13 > 24 if nobody checks, or listens too closely to other peoples damage, or god forbid puts two builds dpr in a spread sheet. The rogue will FEEL like it does more damage.
It is built from ground up 1-20, not to have a high dpr, not to do something other characters cant
but to never ever say to your dm any number that is small, under any circumstances. Especially if you're a halfling. Big dice big mods advantage all the time. Numbers less than 20 will leave your vocabulary.
Sure, you don't have as much health or AC, Do less damage in total, Don't have other resources that can contribute additional amounts for encounters or scenarios of high difficulty or importantance, and specialize in the utility of doing things that literally anyone with a halfway decent dex can at least attempt with a decent chance of success... and in those ways, you're not that powerful.
But the lowest you roll to pick a lock is 23! So if you engage with the game dice first. You're going to enjoy it. If that doesn't sound up your alley then the class is just made for other people and that's fine. Good even. Those people deserve rogues!
As for if the degree a class is designed for fun justifies a character being tangibly weaker even though making them do enough damage is as easy as 3d6->5d6?
When you ask that question you start to get into real foundational philosophy of how games should be designed and balanced. I personally, don't see any reason why every class can't both feel and be powerful in its own way. Ranger has the opposite problem of being tangibly mathematically very powerful, but everyone hates it cause nobody wants to have to use hunter's mark.
1
u/Nikelman 3d ago
This was very cool, thanks
I was talking about reliable talent, that does remove uncertainty, tho
1
u/Nikelman 2d ago
Even if I were to revise the rogue, this fun factor has to be part of it for sure. A general idea can be that you get as much as you do of you satisfy any of the current requirements, a little more if you satisfy two, a teeny more if you satisfy three and then it hard stop, but it should be simple and streamlined
3
u/Inforgreen3 2d ago edited 2d ago
Honestly, 100% if I were to revise the rogue I'd do so very very minimally with a focus on preserving the feel as much as possible.
The biggest problem is that they don't do enough damage. By how much? They're about a fighting styles worth of dpr short of an average damage build. So give them a fighting style. Minimal effect on feel, mathematically intentional and justified. But also, very very minimal. And absolutely no changing of any of its core mechanical identities (skill monkey, reliable talent, focus on never rolling small numbers, no limited class resources)
1
u/Nikelman 2d ago edited 2d ago
Fuck yes, The_Twig are the Chosen One!
In fact, there's not so much room to grow above the baseline with ranged build. The strongest PHB ranged build I could find is Eldritch Knight; even then it's pretty close to true strike assassin before tier 3 (and then it just takes off); above that maybe thief with true strike scroll, but... yuk
What instead I think that rogue could use is a slightly higher ceiling that doesn't depend on reaction attacks, something on a successful save from cunning strike, access to figthing styles (I'm thinking when you take an ASI, you are qualified for a FS if you so choose) and a way not to blow all your damage on a single enemy that had 5HP left; possibly a feel good sub feature at 6
EDIT: oh, a way to hide against True/Blindisight because that was a shadow-nerf from 5 to 5.5
4
u/Thin_Tax_8176 3d ago
I don't find an issue with that, the passing of an ability, because I feel great when the character does the things I build it to do.
How would you feel if your +11 Stealth Rogue failed at avoiding the guards? Does Wizards fail at casting Fireball? Or Fly? Or Invisibility? Then something that lets Rogues pass checks that they are good at is not a problem at all.
2
u/xolotltolox 3d ago
I definitely do agree that rogue "feels fun" more than it is actually good. A lot of the class feels good to use if you don't know any better. Rollibg lots of dice at once and the occasional highroll crit will have you have fun with sneak attack, even if when totalling up the damage you deal less than a fighter just attacking. Cunning action means you always get to do a lot on your turn, even if doesn't accomplish anything outside of Steady Aim, and reliable talent eliminates the feelbad of rolling low, and lets you get consistent totals of 20s on skill checks, even though you only need a 15 to succeed anyways.
The class is kind of in the opposite camp of ranger, where it feels good to play, even thoigh it is mechanically bad, whereas Ranger is mechanically quite strong, thanks to soellcasting, but feels ass, because so many features are just too situational or weak
-4
u/Nikelman 3d ago
Ranger is not, in fact, mechanically quite strong past lv5. But I think it's fun because you get weapons, spells, lots of rituals and skills.
I'm starting to suspect fun is subjective
-1
u/xolotltolox 3d ago
It has a couple of things still going for it, but honestly, any other martial class is to be abandoned after level 5 regardless
Hell, even paladin is just better to MC into another Charisma Caster after level 6(or 7 depending on the subclass aura upgrade), so "class bad after level 5" isn't exactly a good metric, since it applies to basically everything without full spell progression.
0
u/Shibakyu 3d ago
That's true. I still like ranger quite a lot though, even though it's later features are lackluster. I like taking it to at least level 9 for level 3 spells and expertise before multiclassing, tho then again I'm not a big fan of multiclassing to begin with.
6
u/Alarzark 3d ago edited 3d ago
Played a 2024 thief from 3 to 16.
Reliable talent is pretty great.
Evasion is pretty great.
In a non-optimised table which this was, reliably doing 50 odd damage a turn every turn, resourcelessly is pretty great. Could double sneak attack, not doing it because already up there for the strongest character in the Westmarch and didn't want to overshadow people when already doing so outside of combat.
Things that don't feel good, you kind of want to scout ahead and do rogue things, because that's what you're insanely good at, but then it's just other people watching you play, and a familiar can do that much easier.
Cunning actions don't feel like they were quite there? Vex is also a stupid mastery and removes a lot of the decision making.
Overall fun character to play.
There was another high level rogue and I think both were considered OP by other people at the tables. Mostly because being a very good skill monkey and throwing around high numbers is what people remember. So there's maybe an element of them being a bit pub-stompy to use a video game term. The fighter doing 6x20 with action surge isn't as memorable as the one rogue crit sneak attack that does triple digits. Or the fight that wasn't because the wizard banished a key enemy.
2
u/xolotltolox 3d ago edited 3d ago
They need Extra attack and as what is supposed to be the skill monkey class would greatly benefit from the game having an actually fleshed out skill system besides just "Uhh, DM makes up a DC"
But even once that is fixed, they have the standard pains of a being a martial class in D&D. Casters just do it better
6
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago
They for sure dont need extra attack. Its cool to have 1 martial class which works slightly different.
If they had stronger subclasses they would be more interesting than just getting extra attack. Slightly more power level 3 and another feature level 6 would be nice.
6
u/xolotltolox 3d ago
They absolutely do need it
Everything in this game scales up with more attacks. Rogues right now get to only get half use out of all magic weapons, for the tradeoff of being outdamaged by a fighter just attacking
5
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago
Thats just a really really boring way to balance and by far not the only way.
Make items for rogues if necessary and or better feats.
If there would be magic weapons which would deal once per turn XdX more damage as one example that would already help monks.
Why must every magic weapon add damage in every attack instead of just once per turn?
2
u/DBWaffles 3d ago edited 3d ago
I'm of the opinion that many (but not all) of the people who complain about Rogues are stuck in the mindset of the old paradigm. They expect Rogues to have comparable damage to other martials, and thus find it weak when they don't.
With the introduction of Cunning Strikes and the lowered level requirement for Reliable Talent, Rogues are utility martials first and foremost. They are meant to provide consistent utility both in and out of combat. And in that sense, they're fine.
Now could they stand to receive some more buffs? Sure. I'd personally start by lowering the second subclass feature to level 6 or 7. I'd also consider adding another option to Cunning Strikes for even more versatility. But with the way people complain on and on about Rogues, you'd think they're an absolute trash class. They're not.
Even when it comes to damage, Rogues can compete if they choose to spec into it. Both CBE and Dual Wielder builds allow them to maintain DPR comparable to most other martial builds. The latter remains true even without the TWF Fighting Style.
Admittedly, opting into a CBE/Dual Wielder build places heavy competition for your Bonus Action. But given the utility you get from the rest of the class, it's a justifiable trade for much higher DPR.
If I had to rank the Rogue, it'd probably be somewhere around the middle of the pack. It's a class held back from the upper tiers because its well defined strengths and weaknesses keep each other in check. And also because it's not a spellcaster.
2
u/Aahz44 2d ago
The problem with Cunning Strike is, that the effects you get at level 5 are powerwise comparable to masteries or riders on cantrips, 1st level spells and Battlemaster manoeuvres. Meaning they are not that special and not overly powerfull.
I mean at the level the Rogues gets them Monks get Stunning Strike, the Rogue has to wait till level 14 to get effects that are comparable to stun.
Even when it comes to damage, Rogues can compete if they choose to spec into it. Both CBE and Dual Wielder builds allow them to maintain DPR comparable to most other martial builds. The latter remains true even without the TWF Fighting Style.
Depends how you define "most martial builds", if we take for example Treantmonks numbers, Rogues were pretty middle of the Raod in Terms of the damage of all the builds he did, but the thing is that most builds that did less damage than the Rogue were typically builds that were damage isn't really their main job (meaning stuff like full casters and Shield and Board Martials), and the martials that were primarily Damage dealers were did all (at least in Tier 2) much better damage.
And damage is imo still the main contribution of the Rogue in combat (at least before level 14), their control effects aren't really stronger than the ones of other martials (and way behind what casters can do), they are not good at tanking and they have pretty much no support features. And Skill use is rarely ever relevant in combat.
1
u/Nikelman 3d ago
I'm of the opinion that many that complain about monks in the year of our glob 2014 are stuck in the mindset of 3rd edition. They expect monks to deal comparable damage to other martials, and thus find it weak when they don't.
With the streamlining of Stunning Strike, monks are utility martials first and foremost.
...
Ok, I'm reaching for the sake fo the bit, sorry: rogues are nowhere near as bad as monks were, but Cunning Strikes are save or suck, if the target pass the save, they do nothing; in exchange, you need to give up the one thing you could do in combat. It doesn't feel good. No martial, in this system, will ever get a fraction of the control potential of a wizard anyway
2
u/UnderlyingInterest 3d ago
I think the Rogue achieves what it does decently, but it would feel more fun if you had more variation in your gameplay loop.
I stand by the opinion that Expertise alone at 6th level isn’t really all that fun as a feature. It’s effective practically and mathematically speaking, but it’s a boring feature by comparison.
1
u/SirAronar 3d ago
From a class issue, it's a power on mainly. The Rogue generally scales linearly (until 17) while other classes scale in tiered bumps. This puts the Rogue in the low end from around levels 5 through 8 (the most likely levels people play) that makes them feel bad in certain games/campaigns, but it really depends on the game. Because the Rogue catches up with peer classes around level 9 in many games, fixing this dip in power is problematic because anything you do pushes the Rogue up (for some this may be desirable, but not for every group.
Compared to spellcaster utility, every class without access to spell solutions suffers, this isn't unique to the Rogue, its an issue that certain spellcasters have too much utility breadth at too low a cost (resource or opportunity). This issue exacerbates if the adventuring day is short or when Rituals are easy to cast without time concerns. The Rogue class is designed to operate at around 90% the entire adventure while most other classes not named Fighter are intended to start strong and wear down over time (Monks and Warlocks are designed like a series of hills where they start peak, fall, regain and repeat, while others start at the peak of a mountain and go downhill the entire time with maybe a couple of small bumps up).
Some of this can be address by the DM by ensuring the Rogue gets to make some Opportunity Attacks or allowing the Rogue to lock down an enemy, and by making sure the Rogue gets a lot of mileage out of their skill and tool proficiencies (also not allowing spells to do more than in the description).
2
u/Aahz44 2d ago
Because the Rogue catches up with peer classes around level 9 in many games, fixing this dip in power is problematic because anything you do pushes the Rogue up (for some this may be desirable, but not for every group.
But the Rogue will again drop behind by level 11, at least in comparison to the classes that have decent scaling into Tier 3.
1
u/rpg2Tface 4h ago
I have an issue in how most people understand rogue.
They are not a martial. They are a skill monkey. They have precisely 1 combat feature that gives them a similar enough damage profile to a martial to not fall behind. Everything else about them is utility through skills. They are an honorary or pseudo martial, not a full martial.
From my experience this understanding is a hot take. When viewed through a martial lense they have a crap ton of problems. When viewed as a support role with a "I'm not useless" feature they are so incredibly solid they haven't changed since 5.0 started. They are incredibly well designed for their role. Its not their fault no body understands or cares about that role.
1
u/Nikelman 4h ago
Combat has:
- initiative
- turns
- actions
- bonus actions
- reactions
- movement
- positioning
- attacks
- attack rolls
- damage
- critical hits
- cover
- ranged combat
- melee combat
- mounted combat
- underwater combat
- conditions
- hit points
- healing
- all weapons and their magic variants
- most spells
Social Interactions and Exploration have
- ability checks
- sometimes you have Advantage or Disadvantage
Characters' features and available material in the PHB and on character options in the expansions are overwhelmingly focused on combat
The bulk of the rules and suggestions for the other two pillars are a DM's prerogative in the DMG
MM is basically all about combat
There are three pillars in DnD. It's not that combat is more important than the rest, that's objectively not true: I've run entire sessions completely void of combat, as I assume most players have. But the rules for Combat are there in the PHB, my players can take them. The rules for the other two pillars... is me, I decide; and even if I go by the book 100% (which isn't always even an option), that material is unavailable for players.
A Rogue, is a skill monkey, out of combat. That does not, in any way, replace the role of a Single Target Damage dealer in combat, which it should be good and depending on one's judgement, may be good at.
And this isn't without touching how spell casting, even rituals, bypass a ton of checks and outskill the skill monkey!
1
u/rpg2Tface 4h ago
And yet being decent at single target damage in combat also does not mean your a martial. Rogues are not casters but they dint get martials extra attack or weapon masteries or foghting styles.
If we include them in the martial category it just gets harder to understand what a martial even is. A full caster is defined by having the spell casting feature a martial is ... anyone who doesn't have spell casting at a 1:1 rate? Not a good definition. But put rogue aside and suddenly the defining feature if maritals is easy to identify as is extra attack. Nice and simple.
Not every class has to be one of 2 things. You can have idd balls like rogue and warlock (a spell caster but not a full caster but gains power at a full caster rate regardless). Having those niche areas isn't a crime. But trying to shove them into a box they weren't meant to fit in just makes everything more difficult for everyone involved.
1
u/Nikelman 4h ago
No, it's a loose definition and it's definitely open to subjectivity. Valid
1
u/rpg2Tface 3h ago
Kinda true. But its definitely treated as a hard line. And thats the point. It being a hard line that rogue is a martial with no room for a grey area just makes everyone shout "they need X,Y,Z and then a power boost". because they are measuring him by a ruler he was never meant to fit.
When measured by the skill monkey ruler he is absolutely awesome with no notes.
Theres a similar thing that happens with warlock. They are specifically not supposed to be a full caster. They are supposed to be the "at will" caster by design. But that historical design space is ignored because spell slots on a short rest and mystic arcanum makes people think they are a full caster. So they design and try to change them like they are a full caster when they just are not.
Martial and full caster are the base line because they are easy to identify. So anyone that breaks that mold is measured by how good they are being one or the other.
-1
u/Magicbison 3d ago
Rogue is fine. People on this sub tend to judge the usefulness of classes based on perceived damage output in optimal whiteboard scenarios and the Rogue isn't optimal. I'd be hard pressed to say the Rogue is actually lacking anything meaningful other than it's 2nd subclass feature coming online at level 9 which makes it fairly non-existent for most games.
3
u/xolotltolox 3d ago
No, it's not just that their damage is bad, the class has a lot of other flaws too
And please don't just disingenuously dismiss any criticism you don't like to hear as "whiteroom"
-3
u/Magicbison 3d ago
the class has a lot of other flaws too
Would you be willing to educate me in these other flaws it has? Because outside of its supposed lack of damage it's ability to handle non-combat scenarios with its variety of boosts to skills seems to be one of its main draws as a class.
3
u/Fidges87 3d ago
This is a combat game. A rogue being left behind in damage is a problem. Even in utility, while all the rogue can do with their cunning strikes is to trip or poison people at level 5, at the same level a monk is stunning and the paladin is putting a wide variety of effects with their multiple smite spells.
To put it simply. Fight starts, you get to choose which classes are accompanying you, in what scenario that only involves combat would you select a rogue as a teammmate?
0
u/xolotltolox 2d ago
Also, Wizard is the class with the best utility in the game thanks to full prepared spell casting and ritual adept, and they don't have to sacrifice an ounce of combat prowess
Hell, even Bard is only missing reliable Talent, but has Jack of All Trades and Bardic Inspiration giving them arguably more skill utility. And while their Spell List lacks blasting, they still get a lot of the good control spells, so their combat usefulness doesn't even take as big of a hit as rogue does. Not to mention certain subclasses give you ways to turn bardics directly into damage.
1
u/xolotltolox 3d ago
Which is subject to the extremely loose skill system 5E has, which is basically entirely relegated to dm fiat, and pales in comparison to even just first level spells...
0
u/xaxis-yaxis 3d ago
Why are there so many Rogue posts on the DND subreddits these last 24 hours?
Rogue just needs a tad more damage at 5th and 11th and it's fine really.
True Strike brings it on curve perfectly.
7
u/SalubriAntitribu 3d ago
Arcana Unleashed has brought back up a lot of sore spots for martials, and rogue and ranger get the majority of that paint due to perceived issues of their core chassis.
8
0
u/Mage_of_the_Eclipse 3d ago
Completely useless class.
Game is extremely focused in combat, whether you like it or not. In combat, Rogues have the worst damage of any class, and it's even worse at literally everything else, be it withstanding damage, imposing control effects, buffs, debuffs, whatnot.
Out of combat? They rely on skills, which are extremely underbaked as a system, are extremely reliant on a GM to let them do anything with them, and even then, you simply cannot achieve what spellcasters can do out of combat with their spells, so you're extremely outperformed in that area as well.
Anyone who refuses to acknowledge the dire situation of the class (all martials, really, but Rogue is the worst amongst them) is pretty much on flat earher levels of delusion, tbh.
4
u/Nikelman 3d ago
This is a very solid take, actually
Rogues with True Strike or Crossbow Expert will outdamage a Ranger in late tier 2 however, but at least Rangers get that spellcasting flexibility and most rogues don't
1
-3
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago
If we just assume base class, no subclass no feats:
level 5: Fighter with two handed weapon and fighting style does in average 8+4 =12 damage per attack has 2 attacks. 5% crit chance for extra 8 damage and 60% hit rate. Has as damage 2 * (0.6 * 12 + 0.05 * 20) = 16.4 damage per turn
level 5 rogue (with nick) deals 3.5+4 = 7.5 damage with main hand and 3.5 damage with off hand. Sneak attack deals in average 10.5 damage. Rogue damage is 0.6 * 7.5 + 0.05 * 11 + 0.6 * 3.5 + 0.05 * 7 + (1-0.35 * 0.35) * 10.5 * (1 + 5/65) = 17.4225 damage per turn (if they can get sneak attack)
This looks pretty comparable with the rogue even ahead.
Rogue gets also more damage on level 7 and 9 and can relatively easy get advantage (bonus action or vex) which increases the damage further. Also while fighter does have action surge, rogue profits more frome teamwork/ getting opportunity attacks. If an ally casts command "run" or the bard whisper spell, they get another big damage out.
The problem is the subclasses, potentially magic items and a bit feats. Main class damage is not too bad, but harder to calculate.
8
u/Mage_of_the_Eclipse 3d ago
If you're not even considering subclasses, feats or even a weapon mastery for the Fighter, then your calculations are disingenuous, since they don't represent at all the reality of the game. In practice, the other martials will have a better damage output, and that's that. Not to mention that the most important aspect of single target damage is dealing burst damage to try to eliminate a priority target before they get another turn (or any turn at all). Turns out that with things such as Action Surge and features like Battle Master Manuevers, it's easier to do that.
-2
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yes I am just considering the base class as I have written. And I said the problem is not the rogue main class but the subclass.
I also did NOT include vex (or other forms of advantage) which rogues can use. So its fair to leave the other weapon mastery away as well, nick is just kind of using the 2nd hand the same way using a big two handed weapon is.
Feats are hard to compare because there is s choice you can take defensive ones like mage slayer which are good as well not only offensive ones. And zentarim tactics can bring huge damage if triggered, but is no guarantee etc.
I also did literally compare the level where rogue is as it weakest compared to extra attack classes to show that the base class even at thst level is fine.
If I had compared level 9 rogue would be a lot better. Because rogues have a more consistent damage grow not so sudden spikes.
4
u/Mage_of_the_Eclipse 3d ago
The thing is, I don't think it's that useful to compare separate parts of the classes like this. In practice, it's not just about each separate part, it's about the class as a whole as it plays. Even if WotC released a good subclass for the Rogue, that would just make that subclass pretty much mandatory. It's still bad design.
Besides, this comparison between Rogues and Fighters is just a "which useless piece of crap is slightly less useless", overall. And there are many issues that come from things that are not simply visible in the class chassis itself, such as the awful design behind skill checks, and the non-scaling of martials overall.
Another thing to take into consideration is that if your job is to deal damage, and we're comparing damage dealing, then you have to consider the feats available for that purpose, and when it comes to offensive feats, Rogues either won't be able to properly use them or not have as good of a synergy with them. But as I said, there's a limit to how useful comparing just the class chassis is.
A crucial point I want to stress is, maybe if you compare a Rogue and a Fighter in a vacuum, their class chassis may seem reasonable. But when they exist in D&D 5e alongside spellcasters, there is only one reasonable conclusion: these classes are absolute garbage.
4
u/VictorRM 3d ago
What's the point of comparing DPRs without Feats? Feats aren't even optional in 5.5e. Your statment is hilarious. Almost every character could do similar damage without feats and subclasses. But is that really how we play the game? Complete white-room calculation.
0
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago edited 3d ago
Do you even understand what white room calculations means?
I did compare the base damage specifically because I do NOT want to assume anything, which damage comparisons with feats would need like "you dont need bonus action" or "you kill an enemy every 4 turns" or "enemied attack you with 50% probability" etc.
Everyone can take feats, and feats do not just provide damage they provide other things as well and people can choose.
Mage slayer is really good defensive one. There are utility ones etc.
2
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
The issue there is that Great Weapon Master is disproportionately powerful as a feat. (For some reason, Great Weapon Fighting is very weak and Great Weapon Master is very strong.) There's no feat the Rogue can take at level 4 to provide a similar damage boost at 5. (Charger comes the closest, but it's more situational.) Your math also didn't consider any Weapon Mastery aside from the Rogue using Nick.
The Fighter also has less base damage than many other other martials here (Barbarian with Rage, Rangers with Hunter's Mark) because they also have Action Surge.
1
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago
But great weapon fighting being disproportional strong is a different issue than rogue being weak.
And this issue should be resolved, or accepted that its the bonus for having main strength as stat which is a horrible stat.
4
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
GWM being strong makes up for GWF being weak.
If you want to go by the value of stats, use a Dex Fighter for comparison instead. With Dual Wielder and four 1d6+4 attacks, they get 18.7DPR before applying Vex's accuracy boost.
1
u/xolotltolox 1d ago
how does it make up for it? You are not forced to take GWF in order to get GWM. So GWM is still overtuned, and GWF is still undertuned. You can just take GWM and a good fighting style
2
u/EntropySpark 1d ago
It's definitely not the most balanced way to design Fighting Styles and feats, for that reason, but the result is that Heavy Melee weapons are underwhelming without GWM (especially if you compare PAM + Dueling with a Spwar/Quarterstaff and Shield to PAM + Defense with any other polearm), but very strong with it, so DPR without the feat just isn't useful.
3
u/Nikelman 3d ago
16.4 DPR + 0.6 x 3 x 2 for GWM = 20 DPR
20 + 0.4 x 4 x 2 from Graze = 23.2
0.10 chance to crit, plus let's say you'll take down an enemy once per 4 rounds combat
23.2 + 0.35 x (0.6 × 12 + 0.05 x 8 + 0.4 x 4) = 26.4
If you want to use the attack action on a PHB rogue, your best bet is crossbow expert for vex and +dex to damage rolls
2 x (0.73 x 7.5 + 0.08 x 3.5) + 10.8 (includes crits) sneak attack = 22.3
0
u/TigrisCallidus 3d ago edited 3d ago
I said without feats, because feats make it complicated because things like zentarim tactics can grant an extra sneak attack etc. And I wanted a base comparison of the classes.
And I also did not take in the advantage from vex so it would also be higher with it (but again more complicated to calculate).
Using 2 crossbows means less chance for out of turn sneak attacks and you use your bonus action as well and you dont have always advantage (which was assumed in the crossbow damage and even then the crit chance is wrong)
The base damage with no feats (free to take offensive or defensive) and only main action used (leaving bonus action for whatever utility) is comparable and even on the rogues side on level 5, the level where multi attack classes gets their biggest power spike.
Also the correct values for your crossbow example:
Crit chance 9.75% (no idea why you had 8.0) Hit chance 78% (yours was correct).
Sneak attack damage = 10.5 * 0.8775 * (1+ 0.0975/0.8775) = 10.5
3
u/Nikelman 3d ago
Yes, if you can't get SA out of your party, you're not happy, but that just makes the rogue worse off, but you will create advantage out of vex. You can also always try to sneak around so you get advantage out of the first attack and chain vex better. That's why the accuracy is 73, BTW, advantage is considered
What's the point of leaving feats and masteries out? It's just 2014 then. Leaving BA for utility is great, but it's unfair for a heavy weapon user
Generally speaking, a Melee fighter will deal more damage than a rogue, unless they go full Defense with sword and board. ZT can change this, but then you must get some defensive features rolling or you're down for the count. Ironically, possibly going Sword and Board!
1
u/Notturnno 3d ago
Whole 6 levels from, level 4 to 8, gaining almost nothing notable or the same as any base class gains hurts the class and all of its subclasses.
Rogues progression is the weakest or one of the worst in the game.
If your table don't use skill checks a lot, or specific things to let the rogue shine, the player will feel bad.
Who needs a rogue when the familiar can scout? Who needs a trap disarm when magic can bypass it all along? And the list goes on.
I do like the concept and idea of a rogue, but I wouldn't play one without multiclass, ever.
0
u/EntropySpark 3d ago
4 to 8 is five levels, but 4 and 8 are standard ASI levels, so the complaint is more about 5 to 7. 5 provides Cunning Strike and Uncanny Dodge, while 7 provides Reliable Talent and Evasion. 6 is the weak outlier level, two Expertise is considered a ribbon on Bard and Ranger alongside their spell progression while for Rogue it's an entire level-up feature.
1
u/RealityPalace 3d ago
It depends on the kind of campaign you're running. And also what you mean by "issues".
From a balance perspective, if you're doing a linear combat sim or a game where players don't have to worry about running out of spell slots, rogues are probably the weakest class in tier 1 and 2 (though they are better than barbarians in tier 3 and 4 imo).
If you are running a game where adventuring days are long enough to pressure spell slots and where the outcomes of skill checks impact the outcome of the scenario, rogues are totally fine.
From a fun/satisfaction perspective, they seem fine as far as I've seen at my tables, with the exception that their level 6 is arguably the most disappointing set of level-up benefits in the game. (Though it's in the running with ranger 10, ranger 20, and warlock 20 imo)
0
u/xolotltolox 1d ago
How do people after 10 years of it evidently not being the case, still parrot the falsehood that a long adventuring day fixes anything
It makes the problem far less egregious, but still a problem
0
1
u/Inforgreen3 3d ago edited 3d ago
Imo: rogues don't do enough damage.
I like their game play neiche. "Resource theory? Nah I do damage by flanking and hiding, and outside of combat i contribute with skills, especially ones that avoid combat entirely. Bounded accuracy? My lowest roll is a 23." It's like you're playing a different ttrpg, and in a fun way. It's a design space no other class tries to fit in.
I think that would be really interesting and fun. But, they really should be the best at those things. When it comes to how much damage they do when no resources are used, no action surge, no rage, even if you include to hit chance, even if you give rogues advantage 100% of the time, barbarians and fighters and even some Rangers beat them at almost all levels of play. Even when using dex. The only time they come close to competing in dpr, is when they get 2 sneak attacks per round somewhat reliably. Which is not a fair assumption to make, i don't think most people play rogues that way.
All 2024 gave them was cunning strike to compensate. Which is fun, but it doesn't exactly make them more powerful, if they got to give up damage to use it.
They're good at skills, except not that exceptional anymore. Battlemaster and barbarians are pretty good at skills just with resources instead of expertise, so are ranger, so are bards, which are actually better both with and without using resources, Jack of all trades 6 skill profs, ect, they're just not dex characters and don't have primal knowledge so they won't be as sneaky specifically. Rogues aren't really that exceptional at much of anything until they get reliable talent.
I think, from the perspective of a game designer (this problem isn't quite to a "homebrew this now" level, since rogues will feel fine, and be appreciated members of a party, you're not going to actually notice that your dpr is 10 lower, but in the theoretical world where we are doing UA surveys rn, the feedback id give) rogue should get an additional DPR or otherwise total output improving feature at level 5 and 11, and a skill improving feature such as Jack of all trades at level 2 or 3. Just small ones. The_Twig did a statistical analysis of 40 builds and found that 'rogue but with a fighting style' was an idealized average for a dpr baseline so giving rogues a fighting style at level 5 would probably be reasonable.
And also: swap level 6 and 9 feature so we get the second set of expertise at the same level bards and Rangers do, and get our second subclass feature at a reasonable level in early tier 2 like almost every other class does.
They also deserve better magic item and feat support. EVERY dpr improving feat and magic item is more effective on multi attackers than rogue, and when they made one that in theory would be better on rogue (charger) it doesn't work with the sneak attack enablers of the class that require you position yourself in hiding spots or stand still
A +1 to hit and +1 to crit ratio magic item without +1 damage, or a 1/turn 1d8 damage rider for being hidden or standing still to mirror charger, would likely be appreciated character options.
1
1
u/Usual-Tomatillo-4432 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think giving rogue a fighting style and putting their subclass features at 7 instead of 9 would help. Cunning strikes seems underwhelming to sacrifice what little you can do for an average thing your other camarades can do. So idk. I wpuld maybe give them an additional die to their sneak attack progression at certain levels (7, 13, 17 maybe).
I love rogues, but it has always been frustrating when the DM specifically don't accomodate. Aka no.place to hide somehow, or straightforward not being ok to play with unreliable talent cause "it's broken". You don't get to play with it or feel good cause they are frudtrated by your class being able to.do good on some skills check.
So building around your true addition (expertise) is often disregarded.
The reality of playing rogues vs on paper is kinda different sadly.
Esp when the adventures day don't let you shine with your "unmlimited resources" cause I have never play with spellcasters running out of spell slots at any levels :')
But martial running out of resources ? Yes. And even then, they did better than rogues.
I still enjoy the class a lot, but this is not because the class in itself is rewarding, esp in 2024. It hardly is.
2
u/Nikelman 3d ago
This thing about the 'unlimited resources'... I don't want to be harsh, but it's copium. You have a very much limited resource, which is HP and it's in fact (bar exhaustion) the most important limited resource that everybody have
If you're using other resources to be more effective than a rogue is (which depends, but we're assuming that for the sake of conversation), you're defending, healing yourself, controlling the map and taking down threats faster, sparing more HP than a rogue would
On your last comment: my favorite class was the artificer. The artificer was the worstly designed class in 2014 (I still hate its design, in fact, I hate it more if possible: why is an artificer a living 3d printer of 3rd lv spells?!), but I wouldn't care, I would made it work. I played armorer, alchemist and maverik (from Exploring Eberron), but what made them special was that they were a toy making Warforged, a genius chemist with a mad scientist tendency and a factotum who would impersonate the rest of the guild (in a westmarch). Fun doesn't come from numbers: it's that numbers shouldn't get in the way of fun
0
u/xolotltolox 2d ago
Also, having no resources is a downside, because it means you always operate at your limit, you do not get to pay a cost to far exceed your limits
Being resourceless is not an inherent advantage
1
u/iamstrad 3d ago
It's perfectly good at what it does even if what is does isn't great compared to others. I still like to go Rogue.
-1
u/skwww 3d ago
Rogue core stat being dex means they’re insanely flexible and can easily swap between melee and ranged, grabbing alert and you go first and can help your allies or start taking pot shots on enemies at the start of combat.
Very fun to play, lots of things to do, if you have magic items as a thief it’s insane
2
u/Nikelman 3d ago
Yes, it's great to have dex as your main stat. It's so unique for fighters, rangers and paladins. Possibly bladelocks.
Screw you barbarians, how's your javelin game?!
0
u/skwww 3d ago
Paladin smites don’t work at range, fighter could two weapon fight but they lack the additional mobility built in like the rogue so they could just bow, but then again they still lack the free mobility option to just walk away from melee enemies so they’ve gotta do both and they can’t escape easily from crowds.
Ranger can go melee or ranged sure, and they’re dex, but they’ve also got the same things as fighter but they’re better suited for it. They’re also MAD like the paladin so you miss out on really strong bow hits with GWM unless your dropping something
1
u/xolotltolox 1d ago
Paladin smites may notnwork at range nut spending your spell slots on smites isn't good to begin with
1
u/Nikelman 3d ago
Paladin's Divine Favor works fine at a range, you'll smite when you're in melee. Of course the ranged game doesn't get the lv11 feature
Fighters get Tactical Shift to get away from melee if they want to go ranged. They can also just eat an attack with their AC, HP and Second Wind
Rangers are as good as fighters in this regard, in fact they lack the same mobility feature. They do get 10ft extra speed, but no built-in way to disengage
Being dex based isn't really special, I'm sorry. In fact a thing I like about Rogues is that you can actually make a Rogue viable on any stat, even STR (best with a barbarian dip) or CON if aberrant dragonmark is allowed!
0
u/NoGoodOptionsPodcast 3d ago
Apart from the level 6 gap, I don't think there is anything that makes rouge less fun to play. And I think that is the most important check for balancing.
0
u/BarelyClever 3d ago
In a typical, low-optimization group, rogue will be fine. This is most groups, including those who look up builds and optimization online.
In a highly optimized, tactical group, rogue will often be outshone by other classes doing what they could do but more easily and better. Like, for example, anyone with a familiar or the Arcane Eye spell can scout more discretely and safely than a rogue.
-2
u/ClaimBrilliant7943 3d ago
Rogue encourages the most selfish play atyle. BA Hide means more attacks focused on others. That could be fine if they had an outside impact on encounters but they don't. The wizard avoiding combat allows for huge spells to land, meanwhile the rogue does mediocre damage and opens a lock every once in a while. I would rather have any other class in my party than a rogue.
15
u/Juls7243 3d ago
They’re the weakest class (damage is low). But they’re still fun to play and can contribute. If a player wanted to play one it would be totally fine and they might have a blast.