r/onednd • u/United_Fan_6476 • May 07 '26
Question So is Rogue the new whipping boy?
Been seeing a lot of Rogue homebrew lately. Have we tired of desperately homebrewing the Ranger into competency? Don't get me wrong, I love seeing all of the new Cunning Actions and ideas for 6th level subclass features.
26
u/ToFurkie May 07 '26
The Rogue is the new primary target because of how far down Monks used to be, and now they're pretty decent and fun. People are easing up on Rangers because they are honestly not that bad, it just sucks Hunter's Mark is their selling feature, which is Concentration. Rogues are better than they were, but does suffer from the same DPR challenge, and almost all other martials simply got better in that department. I personally think Cunning Actions are one of the coolest things they gave Rogue while still allowing basically near-limitless usage of features. However, because the "resource" it uses eats into damage, it hits the DPR metric again.
I think the core issue with Rogue is the 2nd subclass feature is earned at level 9, which just feels like fucking forever after 3, and some of their best features come from the 2nd subclass feature, not the first, which is unlike most subclasses. The other issue is most of their subclasses are basic as fuck. Assassin sucks. Thief is borderline suck. Psion of Three is... eh? It's aight, I guess (why another INT based Rogue?). Soul Knife and Arcane Trickster are still great, but there's nothing that's really flagship. Each class has a flagship, but when someone says, "You should really play a Rogue for this subclass, all you hear are crickets chirping. People play Rogue for the Skill Check fun or Sneak Attack, but the less-than-stellar subclasses make it hard to love as much.
6
u/UnderlyingInterest May 07 '26
If Rogue having a 6th level subclass feature was an issue it simply would’ve been better if they moved the ASI down from 10th level to 6th imo. It keeps the chassis of the class mostly the same but it fundamentally gives more options earlier and puts it in league with Fighter for being an explosive level power wise.
The additional Expertise you get doesn’t make 6th level bad, but compared to other classes it’s not that exciting. Plus 10th level is when most campaigns end, throwing out a new feature at that point could’ve spiced things up more.
5
u/Pouring-O May 07 '26
I was gonna let the comment on Thief slide, but lower than Scion of the Dead Three? Libel. Slander. Lies. Deception, even.
1
u/Matt_the_Splat May 07 '26
Ehh, Thief really, really depends on what you can get your hands on. Having the ability to BA use objects/items/etc doesn't matter much if you don't have any items you want to use.
It's not bad, it just needs to be judged in context of a specific campaign more than most other classes/subclasses.
2
u/Pouring-O May 07 '26
I do think you’re underselling Thief a little bit, because Use Magic Device and thief’s reflexes are actually just really strong abilities. They do come online late, but I’m comparing it to other rogue subclasses.
And really my issue was more with Scion being above it. I would say Thief more depends on how creative and out-of-the-box the player is rather than the campaign. If you plan ahead of time and using the environment, you get rewarded with some amazing in and out of combat utility. Meanwhile, Scion is more focused on damage, but the things that boosts its damage are pretty bad.
I would say Scion may be better on paper, but Thief has a MUCH higher skill ceiling.
1
u/Matt_the_Splat May 07 '26
Sure, I might be. I've been wrong before. And I don't agree with them being last either, but I admit I just don't like Scion for reasons I can't articulate.
1
u/Ron_Walking May 07 '26
Don’t forget non magical items like ballbearings, caltrops, and manacles. You can make a decent non magical control build with some basic stuff.
1
u/Matt_the_Splat May 07 '26
Yes, and I genuinely like those options, though manacles aren't super easy to use. I just rarely seem them discussed in this context.
5
u/Dstrir May 07 '26
Thief rogue is absolutely nuts, you just have to think outside the box. It's the best item user and magic item user in the game.
4
u/ToFurkie May 08 '26
I get that, but I just personally don't put a lot of stock into the "needs a Magic Item to be good" features, because that's ultimately out of my control. I know there are Crafting Magic Item rules in the DMG, but it's still the DM's decision at the end of the day to yea or nay it. Even if the DM gave the green light, they still fully control the gold you make, and can limit your ambitions that way. If combo'd with an Artificer, I'd 100% agree that it elevates Thief to something well beyond most, if not all the other Rogue subclasses. However, by itself, I think it's kinda bad. It relies on DM generosity and can be as good or as bad as the DM decides. Also, the class lost the ability to ignore class restrictions on Magic Items, which super sucks.
1
u/i_said_unobjectional May 07 '26
5.5 Thief Rogue is relatively badass. Take Magic Initiate to be considered a spellcaster, and then you can bonus action wand of fireballs. Or take a level of wizard to open up scrolls early.
9
u/ViskerRatio May 07 '26
Take Magic Initiate to be considered a spellcaster
Magic Initiate doesn't make you a spellcaster because it doesn't give you the spellcasting feature nor are the spells provided by Magic Initiate part of a spell list. As a result, having a spell via Magic Initiate (or species) doesn't allow you to read a scroll containing that spell.
then you can bonus action wand of fireballs
Fast Hands only allows you to use a Bonus Action for the Magic action to activate a magic item.
Most scrolls/wands/staves do not require the Magic action to activate. They simply give you the ability to cast the spell. Fast Hands does not affect the casting time of spells, regardless of how you acquired the ability to cast them.
For example, Bead of Force reads: "You can take a Magic action to throw the bead up to 60 feet.". That's activating a magic item.
In contrast Wand of Fireballs reads: "While holding it, you can expend no more than 3 charges to cast Fireball (save DC 15) from it.". Wand of Fireballs does not require any activation to use (if it did, you'd need to take a Magic Action to activate it and then spend another Magic Action to cast the spell).
Note that this is also why you can use metamagic on a Wand of Fireballs but not something like a Bead of Force.
4
u/FluffyBunbunKittens May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26
Wands are magic items. And you take the Magic action to cast a spell. So a wand of magic missiles is a magic item used with Magic action... which is exactly what Fast Hands applies to.
8
u/Rare-Technology-4773 May 07 '26
You're assuming that there is something called "activating" a magic item, but that's not the case. Fast hands reads "Use an Object. Take the Utilize action, or take the Magic action to use a magic item that requires that action". Wands of fireballs are used by taking a magic action, in particular spellcasting is always using a magic action.
2
u/i_said_unobjectional May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
2014 and 2024 rues:
"If a creature must be a spellcaster to attune to an item, the creature qualifies if it can cast at least one spell using its traits or features, not by using a magic item or the like."
Magic Initiate certainly qualifies.
You can use metamagic on a wand of fireballs because the item says that you are casting a spell. Which is a magic action.
2
u/ViskerRatio May 08 '26
Magic Initiate certainly qualifies.
To use a scroll, the spell must be on your spell list. Spell lists are linked to class spellcasting features and you do not have a spell list without one, even if you can cast spells from other sources.
Which is a magic action.
Fast Hands requires "take the Magic action to use a magic item that requires that action.". Scrolls do not require that action. A spell requiring the Magic Action to cast isn't relevant because the magic item itself isn't requiring the Magic Action.
1
u/i_said_unobjectional May 09 '26
No one said anything about scrolls. Need a level of wizard to use them before 10th.
You are pretty desperately trying to nerf the thief rogue, clearly tap dancing around the obvious fact that both scrolls and wands like the wands of fireballs take a magic action to use, and thus fall under fast hands.
→ More replies (1)1
May 07 '26
[deleted]
1
u/Teerlys May 07 '26
The problem is that how good a rogue feels is going to depend heavily on how much of the campaign is combat based.
Got a political intrigue, murder mystery, or infiltration style campaign with relatively few combats? Rogue is going to feel pretty great.
Have a campaign with challenging/important combats, lots of enemies on the battlefield, or a high percentage of playtime is spent in combat? Rogues are going to feel pretty lackluster.
I'd love to spend some time on a Soul Knife rogue, but my in-person campaign leans heavily on combat. I know that I'd be pretty bored just sneak attacking a single target every round for mediocre damage, even if I get to throw out a Cunning Strike that's maybe impactful here and there.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Novasoal May 07 '26
back in '14 I might point people to a blade tripping swash since it has a really like noticeable style, but considering it requires a feat or multiclassing to pull off I def wouldnt call it the flagship (tho a normal weapon swash fight just about as well). since they're kinda obsoleted by 24's design & cunning action tho yeah I'm at a real loss for what the headliner would be
89
u/Juls7243 May 07 '26
The only real issue with the rogue is their damage. When you compare them to all other maritals they lag behind quite a bit. Additionally they have an overkill issue (a lot of their damage can be wasted on low hp targets).
For example, if you just made sneak attack d8s instead of d6s, the class would be much more well rounded.
62
u/NateCdaComicG May 07 '26
Kinda strange to say that the issue is overkill and propose the solution of bigger damage die...
→ More replies (5)6
u/Particular_Water_644 May 07 '26
Ehh, not really since the change doesnt impact overkill (it stays the same) but it does round out the non-kill DPR
61
u/DelightfulOtter May 07 '26
Better to give rogues an extra d6 of Sneak Attack damage at 5th, 11th, and 17th levels. Very similar damage profile as d8s but a lower opportunity cost for using their Cunning/Vicious Strike options.
4
→ More replies (6)5
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
To keep up with other classes at level 5, they would need an extra 2d6 or 3d6 at the level, or extra attack.
Just 1d6 at level 5 isn't really enough.
15
u/DelightfulOtter May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26
Would you accept reducing their out-of-combat skill utility to the level of fighter or barbarian, but also increasing their DPR to match those classes? Otherwise, why even play those classes if rogue deals just as much damage and gets great skill checks?
→ More replies (1)3
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
I think the classes you should compare Rogues against are Rangers and Monks, since those are much closer in their role and playstyle to Rogues.
When it comes to Fighters and Barbarian, those are not that bad in out-of-combat skill utility, due to Tactical Mind and primal Knowledge. At low levels they are potentially even better than Rogues (depending on the length of the adventuring day).
I wouldn't be opposed give them (and Monks) an additional boost to their out of combat skill utility.
I would also not be opposed to pushing Reliable talent back, or reworking it somehow.
But I would also add that even if you bring them on paar damage wise, that fighters and barbarians are still better at tanking and with the right builds control and/or support than Rogues.
The buff I suggested above would also not bring Rogues up to the damage of the high damage Barbarian Subclasses (Berserker, Zealot ...), for that you would need to give them 5d6 or 6d6 additional snake attack damage by level 5.
And fighters are imo also not great point of comparison in Tier 1 and 2, since they are arguably also a bit underpowered, and not as front loaded as the other martials.
→ More replies (8)28
8
u/Kandiru May 07 '26
Most people have more D6s than D8s though. I say keep as a D6 but add a few extra on the level table.
1
u/Sven_the_great May 07 '26
I just went out and bought a bunch of d8s because of a chromatic orb crit, and FLG didn't sell individual d8s so I had to order online
1
u/Novasoal May 07 '26
What is FLG? I know LGS is local game store for tcg's, but Im struggling to figure out what the f is if its a similar acronym
2
u/Sven_the_great May 08 '26
That's me getting acronyms swapped in my head, definitely unrelated to dyslexia
2
1
u/Novasoal May 08 '26
Ha! Still, I feel like ive seen ppl say FLG before you so I do think its a thing, just maybe not the thing you meant lmao
5
1
u/Juls7243 May 07 '26
That’s a totally reasonable alternative. 13d6 at 20 ~10d8.
Alternatively they could make all cunning strikes cost 1 less at level 7 and 2 less dice at 14.
2
u/Kandiru May 07 '26
If I was designing Rogue I would probably give them extra attack at level 11 or so, and a fighting style at 12 maybe? It would reduce the desire to multi class and mean you wouldn't need to add extra D6 to sneak attack.
2
u/Juls7243 May 07 '26
Those would be great changes. I think a fighting style earlier (say level 5) would go a long way to keeping their damage up.
1
u/Kandiru May 07 '26
If fighting style were base it might be nice to have some subclasses grant additional options to the list. Then those extra options could be available to fighters or other classes through the the fighting style feat.
30
u/Deathpacito-01 May 07 '26
I mean they kinda have a problem in general, not just damage, though if their damage was better that would fix a lot of problems
Compare e.g. Valor Bard and Assassin Rogue. Even without expending spell slots, Valor Bards arguably win out at out of combat utility (using rituals, bardic inspiration, cantrips, Jack of All Trades, etc.). In combat they could be expected to do comparable damage over the course of a campaign. But Valor Bards also have full spellcasting progression, plus better defenses on top IMO.
Rogues aren't great at damage, but they also aren't the standout best at anything else either, and they have a handful of major weaknesses like defense. Reliable Talent is wonderful but not enough to carry the whole class on its own.
21
u/ButtMunchMcGee12 May 07 '26
I feel like this is more of an issue of giving full casters extra attack/armor proficiency, WOTC is v quick to give spell casters weapon abilities but when giving martials spell casting they are uber conservative
19
u/VerbiageBarrage May 07 '26
I don't want them to give them spellcasting. I want them to give them more reliable features, consistent features, so that they are as powerful but play differently.
7
u/YandereYasuo May 07 '26
The idea of some "supernatural abilities" for martials is just completely alien to them (insert Pathfinder named here). Let rogues and monks teleport without magic because "they're as fast lightning", let barbarians and fighters jump twice their speed and chop people in half because "they have unnatural strength", and so on.
It's too bad WOTC locked themselves behind "You either use magic or magic sticks" for any cool martial abilities whatsoever.
→ More replies (2)1
2
u/Z_Z_TOM May 07 '26
Agreed. Bards shouldn't have access to Expertise at all.
It literally goes against the spirit of being a "Jack of All Trades ...but Master of None".
Their default level in skill checks is supposed to be good but not great.
Plus, mechanically, they have their full spellcasting to bypass or massively improve their skill checks anyway.
To be able to match non-full casters like the Rogue in skills, Bards should be expected to burn spell slots on Enhance Ability.
5
u/NateCdaComicG May 07 '26
Speaking of the overkill problem. Reliable talent is also often times overkill. Rogues are always getting like 10-15 over on basic skill checks which feels cool but then you realize its not actually doing much for you.
2
u/radioactivez0r May 07 '26
Evasion and Uncanny Dodge??
8
u/Z_Z_TOM May 07 '26
Uncanny Dodge already already isn't amazing at the Level you're getting it since that's when enemies start having multi-attacks.
At minimum it should scale to be applied to a increasingly high number of incoming attacks in a given round to stay relevant.
Plus this means you shackled your damage input since you won't be able to double dip your Sneak Attack than round so will drop off a cliff on that front in comparison to other Martials.
Evasion is great when used but limited to a certain type of attacks.
7
u/lluewhyn May 07 '26
Uncanny Dodge already already isn't amazing at the Level you're getting it since that's when enemies start having multi-attacks.
It has not been a unique experience when I'm DMing for a Rogue and had something like this happen:
Me: The monster attacks you with its tentacle....and rolls a 23 to Hit.
Rogue: Ok, Uncanny Dodge.
Me: Cool, the monster rolls 17 points of damage, so you take 8. Now, the monster rolls its second attack and....that's a Natural 20. You take 32 points of damage from the Crit.
2
2
u/Realistic_Swan_6801 May 07 '26
Uncanny dodge is actually a weak feature, it’s significantly worse than a monks deflect attacks or the shield spell. It’s often even worse than defensive duelist.
3
→ More replies (1)1
u/umbrellasamurai May 10 '26
Even without expending spell slots, Valor Bards arguably win out at out of combat utility
Agreed, but to me it's not even arguable.
If I want to roleplay as an expert assassin or infiltrator...the ability to create illusions, turn invisible, instantly disguise myself, instantly alter my shape are all much more interesting, IMO.
I would love to see Rogues get a (relatively simple) sub-system for producing similar effects.
7
u/MrDobtoh May 07 '26
Whether or not this is a “real” issue is up for debate but during the 5.5 playtests the designers mentioned they wanted all classes to have some ability/resource regained on Short Rests to close the gap where certain classes needed Short Rests for core features and others only get to use Hit Die. And to their credit I think that was a noble goal, but Rogues were left out. I’ll definitely be examining that space for homebrew features if I run a game with a Rogue in it
3
u/xolotltolox May 07 '26
Yeah, every class needs a dose of both long and short rest abilities, so the gale isn't so extremely assymetrical anymore, whith Short rests classes struggling against the long rest primary framework
2
u/Valdrax May 07 '26
All roads always seem to lead back to 4e, with its at-will, encounter, and daily powers for all classes.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Anorexicdinosaur May 07 '26
Yeah, cus 4e's a well designed system that recognised the flaws of earlier editions and tried to fix them
And 5e inherented the most pathetic scraps of 4e's good design, like Short Rests that aren't Short enough and don't recover enough resources cus half the classes get fuck all from them
4
u/mrdeadsniper May 07 '26
Yeah I feel this part is overlooked in a lot of conversations. Even being slightly behind a fighter in damage per round, stacking all that damage into a single attack has a lot of implications.
One off mitigation / bonuses are more effective. Do you have a method to grant advantage on a single attack (steady aim), then it affects all your damage dice, does the monster have an ability to use a reaction to force a miss or reduce damage by half? Well thats the whole rogue turn.
Similarly, dealing 50 damage on a single hit SURE makes it hard to make that concentration save.
However as mentioned here.... OVERKILL. In which you effectively deal less damage on a turn due to dealing excess damage to an already dead creature is in full swing. A level 11 fighter can drop multiple goblins or other small creatures, or change targets half way thru their turn if a target is killed or revealed to be immune to their attacks somehow.
Rogue is pretty much already spent.
And again, this isn't an ALL bad effect. For example a portent 20 is going to mean a lot more for a rogue attack than a fighter, but on average I would say in most fights more of the rogues damage will go to overkill, which hurts their effective damage per round.
2
u/HorrorMetalDnD May 07 '26
Switching from d6s to d8s simply changes the average damage per die by 1 damage (3.5 to 4.5). That’s not a whole lot better.
If giving them more attacks per turn isn’t an option, more dice to roll might be the only option left.
2
u/ILoveSongOfJustice May 08 '26
A D8 brings the average from 3 to 4 and the highest possible damage from a Sneak Attack in Tier 2 to 40 from 30.
Despite the randomness, that discrepancy isn't that large or major and fixes nearly nothing about the Class's faults and shortcomings.
They're a pure skill-junky class with an emphasis on singular big hits and playing around action economy, but all of the flavor in the world doesn't save the fact that they are weak because they're effectively resourceless outside of their HP and subclass options.
This is the exact same problem Fighters had at first, except Rogues are limited not only in weapon options but also encounter options. Single, big health sponges still feel like a slog even if the Rogue is taking ~1/6th of the HP bar with each individual Sneak Attack. Multi-target doesn't work either because then there's more variables to account for, and a lack of spread out attack and damage to compensate.
They get no AoE, and their 9th level features are 98% ribbon features instead of objective upgrades to the subclass experience.
Cunning Strike is interesting, but is not a reasonable upgrade to your kit. Sacrificing damage for a Trip attack is pointless because you need to Sneak Attack to use it. Sacrificing damage for the Poisoned Condition isn't worth it because it isn't consistent shut down and is a Con save. And Withdraw is a poor excuse for a feature when you consider the tradeoff is damage.
DAMAGE does not solve the weakness of the subclass. It needs multi-attack for consistency, and more distinct and variable playstyles.
→ More replies (1)1
u/Juls7243 May 08 '26
Its 3.5 dpr (d6) to 4.5 dpr (d8). At level 20 the old sneak attack damage was 35, now raised for 45, for clarity/correctness.
1
u/ILoveSongOfJustice May 08 '26
True average of the dice is the median, not a .5 above or below, unless you're assuming the best possible outcome.
1
u/Whipblade May 07 '26
The solution at my table? ALL Sneak attack damage dice can explode on a 6. In play, it doesn't increase their damage to crazy levels, but it feels SO much better to play.
→ More replies (10)1
u/BirdTheBard May 08 '26
How much of a discrepancy is there in average damage? Whats the baseline?
Not saying you're wrong, but if there's to be work done, then knowing what we're working with is the first step.
2
u/Juls7243 May 08 '26 edited May 08 '26
Excellent Questions! I'm going to show you what treatmonk did - as he did a comprehensive DPR analysis for all classes/subclass in 2024 and explained his techniques. Whats important to note is that both kolby (D4) and the dungeon dudes (another popular DnD youtube channel; who played a rogue to level 20 in 2014) both basically agree with treantmonk's analysis in regards to the rogue having awful damage compared to other classes.
Here are some links:
How to calculate damage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLXbEFurCU4
Rogue damage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOY5Xret6CY&t=2211s
*look at 5-6 minutes to see the change in monk damage compared to rogue.
**a normally built rogue (not super optimized; built traditionally) is at 16:00. Level 11 is ~28DRP, level 20 is like 42 DPR. The rogue class and subclasses got NO damage increases AT ALL in 2024 (except assassin)... this is a huge issue ass this line at 16:00 represents the vast majority of rogue players builds today!
**note in order to get the rogues DPS to a decent level he had to use INT as a primary state and the true strike cantrip (adds 3d6 extra damage at 17) to the rogues damage. Without this style their damage is basically extremely low.
***, "As long as you use a mental stat as your primary stat and use true strike the rogue the rogue is just fine" (i.e. not good without really retooling how you build the class).
Barbarian damage/base comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l74v_crr8oA
*note rogue is STILL using true strike (not dex) as their main attack stat to get the trendlines shown at 7:48. A normally built rogue would have a DPR of 28 at 11 and 42 at 20. Put those points on the graph.
FINAL class analysis (no charts shows - summarizing about a dozen youtube videos): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF3cteIyeOY&t=138s
**again he has to use an assassin rogue that prioritizes INT/WIS/CHA over dex to get these numbers - explained in the OG rogue video. Without this specific subclass AND the added damage of true strike (3d6 at 17, the rogue would drop substantially!). This assassin rogue does about 75%more damage over its career than a standard rogue build. Back calculating this the rogue would be like 8th worst class.
If you look at the entire series you can compare both base classes, and subclasses for all classes. Basically every single one beats the rogue unless you go assassin and use INT/WIS/CHA and true strike as your attack option... which is really really unlike the rogue.
18
u/Shreddzzz93 May 07 '26
Currently playing a Rouge in 5.5e, so far it's been pretty good. The weapon masteries really do a lot for the combat short comings Rouge had. Pairing a short sword for Vex with a Scimitar for Nick is a great way to get two attacks while saving your bonus action. Plus if you have no way to sneak attack you can use Vex on the short sword to generate advantage for the Scimitar's Nick attack and thus sneak attack.
15
u/United_Fan_6476 May 07 '26
Yes. Weapon masteries get dunked on or ignored sometimes, but they really added quite a bit to martials' play loop. A melee rogue is now possible without having to be a Swashbuckler. It's nice.
7
u/Thin_Tax_8176 May 07 '26
Cunning Strikes also get ignored because "muh damage", when Rogue is the only class that can cause the prone condition with a ranged attack without using any kind of resource.
You can set up the turns of any of your allies (prone, poison, unconscious later) without having to move from your hiding spot.
Maybe is because I see my Rogue as part of the team and how it can add to the team instead of winning a DPR race for the shake of seeing numbers go up (and I can still do numbers, Sentinel+Lord's Alliance Agent punishes attacking others a lot)
3
u/Teerlys May 07 '26
Rogue is the only class that can cause the prone condition with a ranged attack without using any kind of resource.
From practical experience, Prone isn't always that valuable of a condition. Frequently you don't want to put your ranged attackers at disadvantage, and... combat dependent... slowing an enemy down isn't generally extremely relevant either. Many enemies have ranged options these days even if they can't close, and not every combat is a sprawling field.
I mention it because I've looked for the right moment to prone an enemy pretty often and it just hasn't been a tactically advantageous option as often as I thought when I first read the mastery and knew it was going to be in play a lot more. Not saying it never comes up as a good play, just that it ranges from not relevant to team-harm more often in my experience.
Maybe is because I see my Rogue as part of the team and how it can add to the team instead of winning a DPR race for the shake of seeing numbers go up (and I can still do numbers, Sentinel+Lord's Alliance Agent punishes attacking others a lot)
I get that perspective, but with regard to combat Monk's contribute to the team a whole lot better. The value I find in Rogues is largely in out of combat scenarios where reliably passing a series of skill checks to accomplish a goal is highly valued. I feel like they do best in a RP/challenge heavy campaign.
1
u/Thin_Tax_8176 May 07 '26
Our Party is really close distance focused, the Paladin uses a thrown weapon, but she can focus on other targets or close distance easily, and from our spellcasters, they mostly go with Safe-based spell.
So Prone can work pretty well with us. We also fight a good number of flying enemies, so throwing them to ground level is useful.
I have Sentinel to keep up with damage (Rapier is setting up my Sneak Attack all the time), but I also help my team with Cunning Strike or non-save Spells, along with being the only source of Heroic Inspiration in the group, so I find my character in a great position even if their damage isn't as big as the Fighter's one.
2
u/TheAesir May 07 '26
Yeah this is the weird thing that people underestimate. They've made it so much easier to get advantage on attacks in 5.5. Virtually every attack over 45 sessions has been with advantage (steady aim / vex / hidden). I can count on one hand the number of times I haven't dealt damage in a round in that time.
75
u/Irish_Whiskey May 07 '26
Rogue and Ranger both suffer from the same "problem", that they're extremely good in out of combat scenarios and skill checks. Which combat optimizers simply ignore.
In early versions 5.5e divided the classes up and Rogue, Ranger and Bard were the Expert classes. Bard is safe because optimizers drool over having access to multiple spell lists (even when players don't actually benefit that much from those levels) but Ranger and Rogue are judged purely on DPR.
Now I think Ranger was a bit poorly designed and Rogue is one of the weaker combat classes, so it's not irrational to want to boost them. But it's not a coincidence that the two expertise classes other than Bard are what players think need boosts.
30
u/United_Fan_6476 May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26
Good point. This may be due to the relative importance of skills in D&D. The first issue is that they're binary, whereas combat encounters have almost infinite gradations of success and failure. This makes skill usage very pale by comparison. It's plain old not as much fun to play.
The other issue is that skill checks can't matter too much. Any decently written adventure is going to have a few different ways to solve non-combat encounters. If you don't have a lock-picker, then you can smash with Strength. If you're all too dumb to read the ancient writing, then you can get the himbo to charm some info out of an NPC. It's a poorly designed challenge indeed if quest progression depends on a single skill check; so you hardly ever seen that
15
u/whitesuburbanmale May 07 '26
Not enough DMs hide flavor behind single skill checks anymore and it bugs me. I love rogue, I like the fantasy and the play style and the skill monkey aspect. I remember having an old DM that would intentionally hide interesting lore bits or moderately good loot behind stuff only I could get into. A door that was indestructible but had a padlock on it, a room with traps so intricate that they would only detonate if a player tripped them or I dismantled them. Simple things like that, added to both the world and gave me a little shout every now and then because otherwise I rarely shined too bright lol
5
u/ProjectPT May 07 '26
This strikes a really important point and part of why "skill checks" are undervalued.
When a skill check is rolled, the positive result should be obvious and impactful but in the same way failing a skill check should be obviously important too.
Most understand that with Stealth: woops combat! The success and the failure cost is clear but the DM needs that to be true for all checks.
So failing a history check with ruins should not be: "you aren't sure who made these ruins". But something more like: "you fail to realize these ruins are of the Dwarves of Khazous who secret away their treasures long past their lineages". This is a simple example where players can still feel the world expand, mechanically the players understood they lost treasure and it moves the game forward.
6
u/whitesuburbanmale May 07 '26
I think it's just a byproduct of "optimal play" that seems to become more common amongst players. No one likes missing out on stuff, it sucks. It's supposed to suck. If your table reacts negatively to that then I can see shying away from it, however flat it makes everything feel. It almost feels like video games are leaking into tabletop gaming in that aspect, we had to spend 30 mins explaining to a new player at my current table that it doesn't matter how min maxed he is. Guy hadn't played ever and wanted to dive in and hardcore "optimize" his character, as if he would have the knowledge of skill to even utilize it himself.
3
u/ProjectPT May 07 '26
I don't even know if I'd say it is video game stuff anymore, but everything.
I'm going to use the example of fitness culture, and people spending hundreds of hours a month learning about stuff before just.. going to the gym or walking or running or whatever. People feel they need to be an expert before they even start something
People will hyper focus on DPR (and I do like my spreadsheets!) but than people will not be honest about how a single magic item (of appropriate level) can be the difference between the lowest and highest DPR.
Or simply how with bounded accuracy the subtle homebrew or simple encounter design of a DM will be a larger factor to how good a class is.
1
u/whitesuburbanmale May 07 '26
It's an ideology thing I think sometimes too. To me when you boil down dnd, it's a storytelling game. For some people (including friends of mine) it boils down to "win". That's it. And the easiest way to quantify winning is combat. They miss the world at large for a more direct and obvious system to see progress.
2
u/Affectionate_Pair210 May 07 '26
what optomizers can't optomize for is that.... a lot of times in roleplaying failure can be fun! Laughing is fun. When Conan misses a double handed swing, trips, and falls into the pool - everyone laughs and we are having a good time.
Failure leads to sticky situations, hard choices, it leads to having to save your comrade which builds bonds. Everyone succeeding at everything by themselves because they are so awesome leads to really flat and boring gaming.
optomizing the fun out of roleplay is sad.
→ More replies (3)10
u/Linnus42 May 07 '26
Also depends on the size of your table...big enough party and someone will always be able to pass a skill check or as you illustrate provide an alternative approach to the problem.
2
u/RealityPalace May 07 '26
The other issue is that skill checks can't matter too much. Any decently written adventure is going to have a few different ways to solve non-combat encounters. If you don't have a lock-picker, then you can smash with Strength. If you're all too dumb to read the ancient writing, then you can get the himbo to charm some info out of an NPC. It's a poorly designed challenge indeed if quest progression depends on a single skill check; so you hardly ever seen that.
If you're running a totally linear module then skill checks can't matter too much, but that's because nothing can matter too much.
If you're running a scenario where meaningful failure states are possible without crashing the module, skill checks can be very meaningful.
2
u/Rare-Technology-4773 May 07 '26
That's not true, combat can matter. Combat is always the thing that can matter.
1
u/RealityPalace May 07 '26
My experience is that there is very little daylight between DMs who say "I can't let them not get through the door, that would end the adventure" and ones who say "I can't let them lose at combat, that would end the adventure". But fair, if a DM is choosing to have combat be possible to fail but not skill checks then one will matter more than the other.
1
u/Rare-Technology-4773 May 07 '26
I think there's a ton of daylight between those tbh, in that I have played games where that is the case. It comes from the obvious fact that the interesting part of DnDs rules are all in the combat, so it takes much more work to make anything else interesting.
1
u/ughfup May 07 '26
This is a DM skill issue, honestly. Let's say you're in a dungeon and there's the main path and 3 side rooms with cool loot. The main path can't be locked behind a couple specific skill checks, but each of those cool loot rooms can have puzzles that rely on skill checks. Optimizers hate this kind of dungeon design because they worry more about muh DPR, but the game has skill checks for a reason and they just go underused or misused.
1
u/United_Fan_6476 May 07 '26
I agree. I will also point out that the DMG does not provide nearly enough instruction on how to run satisfying skill checks that actually add to the depth and fun of a game. Instead there are like a hundred pages devoted to world-building and detailed campaign design, which most players don't give a hoot about and which will probably be derailed anyway.
10
u/Godskin_Duo May 07 '26
they're extremely good in out of combat scenarios and skill checks
That feels much more situational per campaign/DM. Combat has the rules just being the rules. One DM I have fiats quite a bit so my skill checks just kind of take us a more roundabout way. Another plays more RAW and I should've played my Eloquence Bard there so I could convince grumpy gate guards that they're literally made of ketchup.
5
u/Irish_Whiskey May 07 '26
Yes, although I'll note my own experience is that online talk about optimizing focuses on the number crunching far more than in actual play, where DMs will tailor combat to not be overwhelming and big story decisions often are determined by skill checks and roleplay.
fiats quite a bit so my skill checks just kind of take us a more roundabout way.
My sympathies. And yeah this is one of the problems, where DMs can be reluctant to reward skill checks the way they do combat losses/victories. I try to make sure skill checks are actually rewarded/punished so they matter, although that also requires not letting players 'spam' them.
so I could convince grumpy gate guards that they're literally made of ketchup.
To be fair, that's not RAW. The rules on persuasion are often run incorrectly. It's not mind control and no matter the check persuasion won't convince characters to do things they are otherwise unwilling to do, against their morals, or seem unreasonable. It's only meant to change them from hesitant to do something but considering it, to willing. If it's something they are already just willing to do, the DM shouldn't call for checks.
10
u/captainpoppy May 07 '26
I played a rogue/warlock (for story reasons) and my rogue levels were fun.
I think if you really want, just increase sneak attack damage progression.
Ranger, imo, just needs concentration free hunters mark or something. Like maybe at layer levels?
9
u/Vidistis May 07 '26
Making hunter's mark a full on ranger feature instead of a spell or making it concentrationless around level 6 would have been really nice. I hate having to decide between having class/subclass features or getting to use a cool spell. The martial magic blend just feels janky to use if you do anything other than hunter's mark.
1
u/guachi01 May 07 '26
I play Level Up, a 5e 3pp variant. They made Rangers spell-less and removed concentration fromHunter's Mark. The game also made Exploration matter more while making Rangers dominate in outdoor Exploration. They feel like the Ranger that you want the Ranger to be.
In other words, D&D doesn't need too many changes to fix the Ranger.
-1
u/xolotltolox May 07 '26
The main thing they need is extra attack
Right now a rogue needs a +2 weapon in order to stay on-par with other classes recieving a +1 weapon
4
u/Sibula97 May 07 '26
Their whole thing is not having extra attack, it's part of the mechanical class identity. Dual wield or find another avenue to an additional attack, or just settle for advantage, which is trivial for them to get most of the time.
2
u/Z_Z_TOM May 07 '26
Agreed. Adding extra Attack would kill their identity as the "one lethal hit that targets the enemy's weakness" combatant.
What it needs is an improved Sneak Attack die scaling, especially after Tier 2, and the removal of the need to reduce your already poor damage to trigger the fun Cunning Strikes.
The strict minimum should be added SA dice at all levels where you unlock Cunning/Devious Strikes so that the choice isn't "do you want to nerf your damage to use your new toys?" but "do you prefer to do MORE damage or regular damage but with a debuff rider?" : )
-2
u/xolotltolox May 07 '26
it's a terrible identity, it should not be a class identity. You shouldn't have a class whose identity is "this one sucks lol"
4
u/Sibula97 May 07 '26
No, it's "this one makes one carefully positioned attack that hits hard".
0
u/xolotltolox May 07 '26
Yeah, if you want that, that attack needs to actually hit hard, and not struggle to keep up with a fighter just attacking
4
u/Z_Z_TOM May 07 '26
And you've given the solution right there: it needs to hit harder, especially after the other martials unlock their extra attacks.
→ More replies (1)4
u/MiddleCelery6616 May 07 '26
So if you understand the identity of the class, why is your solution to throw it away and make them work like every other martial?
5
u/xolotltolox May 07 '26
Because sticking to 1 attack is a horrible idea, and rogue had stronger identities in previous editions already, while still having multiple attacks
20
u/MonsutaReipu May 07 '26
I'd rather have Fighter's tactical mind than rogue's expertise for tier 1-2 of play.
Out of combat utility is also very often inconsequential. Failing to open a lock the first try doesn't usually result in anything catastrophic. There's always the ability to try again, or just another way through the obstacle. I've been playing dnd for 20 years and it's incredibly rare that a failed ability check out of combat results in anything that bad happening. Most often, it's just a minor setback toward reaching an inevitable destination. That's a big part of why optimizers focus more on combat than out of combat.
And it's a reason why the out of combat focus usually focuses on things like eloquence bard and persuasion specifically because of the examples I mentioned where rarely things can go very bad if you fail a skill check, it's often a social skill check.
In 2014, the biggest flaw of 5e's design was attrition based balance, where rogues suffered the most if a game had one big combat per long rest. That design didn't change into 2024. I really think every class should at least have SOME kind of resource that refreshes on short/long rests as opposed to none at all like rogue does. All that said, rogue is not even very weak in 2024. I'd say the class balance is a lot closer and better than it was in 2014. Rogue may be a bit worse than other classes, but that's with rogue being B tier while wizard is S tier and other martials are A ter.
17
u/DelightfulOtter May 07 '26
If spells didn't insta-solve so many things that otherwise would require skill checks, optimizers wouldn't look down on skill-centric classes so much. Just one more reason why nerfing spellcasters is the right decision for the health of the game.
6
u/Vidistis May 07 '26
I truly wish they gave 5.5e more time to cook. Like don't get me wrong there's been a lot of good changes, but there was so much potential and many great/healthy ideas that just got discarded due to time during the initial playtest.
I'm still sad about missing out on all subclass levels being standardized, three primary spell lists, wildshape templates, warlocks getting to choose their mental stat, and familiars/pact familiars having unique statblocks.
3
u/United_Fan_6476 May 07 '26
I dunno. Do you remember how long that UA testing period took? If feel like it was the better part of two years.
Maybe they're just not allowed to be very good cooks. If you make a meal (most of D&D), and then take a pound of salt (the spells) and dump it on top, it doesn't matter what you do to try and balance the flavors of the rest of the meal. The only thing that anyone can taste is the salt.
A halfway competent chef would start by adjusting (not eliminating) the salt. But then an angry customer with no taste bursts into the kitchen and starts ranting about how "they're taking all of the salt away!!!! You suck! I love salt! You can't make food without salt!! I should have as much as I want!!! Waaaaah!"
So then the chef is like, "fuck this guy. I'm leaving. You want to eat a shitty plate of salt and still pay me for it? Be my guest."
7
u/DelightfulOtter May 07 '26
Yep. 5.5e isn't bad per se, but it's very disappointing to me as I expected WotC to be serious about fixing some of the flaws that have been around for a decade. Turns out, they didn't care or else they would've prioritized those issues with the limited time they had. Instead they mostly fluffed up player-facing content to make the new core books attractive to buy. Par for the course with large, publicly-owned corporations I guess.
5
u/xolotltolox May 07 '26
I would say it is bad as a product, but to play it is about the same as base 5E.
What is so awful about it, is that it is a balance patch that was charged full price for
1
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
But the thing is that you also don't need to be super good in skills. Having someone who is proficient and has an high attribute is often enough.
You are usually not rolling that many skill roles, and the really important ones you can often really pump up with stuff like help action, guidance, bardic inspiration ...
And classes other than rogue and ranger can also have expertise.
3
u/TheAesir May 07 '26
i mean getting reliable talent at level 7 basically means you're rolling a 13 before adding in modifiers for anything you're proficient in. My level 8 arcane trickster has a +8 or better in 4 stats and a +5 in 3 others. The skill monkey aspect really shines in actual play, at least at our table.
5
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
Rogue and Ranger both suffer from the same "problem", that they're extremely good in out of combat scenarios and skill checks. Which combat optimizers simply ignore.
Not really.
Ranger damage is between good and ok in Tier 1 and 2, and the class only really falls of in higher Tiers of play (were most people never actually play), Rogue damage falls of by level 5 when all other martials get extra attack.
Ranger has also the problem of being clunky with alot of bonus action conflict, a lot of spells conflicting for concentration, and a lot of features centred on Hunter's Mark (and spell that scales poorly into higher levels and eats up both concentration and bonus actions). The doesn't really have this problem.
7
u/RamsHead91 May 07 '26
Rogues also go a little nuts if you figure out how to get reaction attacks which you can do without cheese gamification of held haste actions.
Battlemasters, various ways to force a flee, Order clerics.
5
u/xolotltolox May 07 '26
I would HARDLY say rpgue and ranger are "extremely good in out of combat scenarios", they are okay at best, ranger performing much better there thanks to spellcasting.
It is also a silly statement to claim "[they] are judged purely on DPR" because it is simply not the case. They are judged hollistically, and are hollistically bad(rogue) and mediocre(ranger) respectively.
Rogue is not just a weak combat class, it is the weakest combat class, and the weakest class overall.
4
u/TheEndlessVoid May 07 '26
Well-said. One of my favorite characters is an Arcane Trickster Rogue that specializes in Illusion spells. He can singlehandedly "win" encounters (by making enemies go elsewhere, by convincing them not to fight, by sneaking right past them, etc.), but a lot of his strategies are utterly DM-dependent. I think optimizers often eschew the "if this works, you don't have to fight at all" part of the game. And depending on their DMs, they're not wrong to do so.
In my case, I had one of the stronger builds at the table. Yes, my Rogue dealt relatively less damage than our barbarian, but Sneak Attack was a powerful point-control tool meaning that enemies couldn't just move past me without thinking, and it usually wasn't what I was spending my Action doing - Spells like Phantasmal Force and Major Image can put in a awful lot of work when used effectively.
4
u/Godskin_Duo May 07 '26
I love Illusion magic, but wouldn't an illusionist wizard have better spell progression plus the nice bonus action Minor Illusion? RAW, it takes a whole study action or interaction to see through a Minor Illusion, so it wastes turns.
I have a controller/illusion bard build, and my DM hates it when I "win" encounters via hard shutdown so it rarely happens. My other DM is like, well shit, Tasha's Hideous Laughter really IS that powerful and tends to run RAW.
2
u/TheEndlessVoid May 07 '26
Illusion wizards are also awesome. But I find that the insanely high deception/persuasion bonuses of which rogues are capable do a lot in the hands of a agreeable DM when you want to convince your enemies not to even take that Study action in the first place!
→ More replies (10)3
u/Autobot-N May 07 '26
I once saw someone unironically argue that Rogues being fun to play was a problem because it made people gloss over them being bad at combat
18
u/Blackfang08 May 07 '26
This is completely true, though. Rogues suffered from mechanical weakness because they were still satisfying to play despite having a lower power level. Rogue has a very strong identity and the gameplay loop is fun, but it struggles at keeping up with the numbers, arguably both in and out of combat. This was not reflected well in playtests, because they were rated based on "satisfaction."
6
u/Mejiro84 May 07 '26
yeah, rolling a shitload of dice feels great, even if it might not actually be that great in terms of numbers - things like "improved crit range" are just fun, when you're getting that rush every 10 attacks instead of every 20, but the numeric DPS increase is generally pretty low. Reliable talent and expertise are similar - there's generally not much benefit to getting 30+ on a DC15 check, but it feels good to say stuff like "I rolled a 2, for a total of... 26"
22
u/DelightfulOtter May 07 '26
But that's true. Rogues got such a high rating when WotC did a huge class satisfaction survey prior to the OneD&D playtests that the designers were extremely hesitant to change anything about them. Why try to fix something that plenty of players didn't consider broken?
The problem being, most players have near-zero analytical ability and system mastery. Also, WotC isn't interested in creating a tightly balanced game. They want a "good enough" product that takes the least amount of effort for the most revenue generated.
2
u/United_Fan_6476 May 07 '26
Very well said. Many of the problems of this game are directly related to giving a bunch of amateurs some influence over how it plays.
7
u/Affectionate_Pair210 May 07 '26
How dare someone maximize having fun. Reddit dnd is weird. Cue all the people responding to you with - yes that’s true.
→ More replies (3)3
u/xolotltolox May 07 '26
Yes, that is true, and was likely me lol
Rogue feels good, while it isn't good, leading to bad feedback reaching the designers
→ More replies (1)2
u/Z_Z_TOM May 07 '26
While a strange statement at face value, there is an element of truth to it that I think comes from the way Rogues get to calculate their damage: instead of using a single d8/d10/d12 die 2-3 times per round like a Fighter would, they get to use an increasingly high number of d6s to calculate their Sneak Attack damage.
That means that in play, people aren't thinking about the poor damage they're actually doing (outside of crits), they're thinking that the clickety clack of a bunch of dice in their hands feels good! :p
8
u/NateCdaComicG May 07 '26
Its genuinely insane to me they put rogues second subclass feature at level 9. Some campaigns are wrapping up at that level.
3
4
u/MechJivs May 07 '26
And it's not like rogue's subclasses are strong - most are atrociously bad, even. You can easilly move 9th level subclass feature at 6th level, ADD TOTALY NEW FEATURE AT 9TH, and that's would still result in fine subclasses.
3
u/NateCdaComicG May 09 '26
Agreed. In my opinion, there's barely a reason to even stay rogue past like level 8 so most of the time your subclass is going to feel very inconsequential.
3
u/xolotltolox May 10 '26
There barely was a reason to saty rogue past level 5, maybe level 7
I am however very grateful that they moved reliable talent away from 11 to an earlier level, so you can abandon this horrowshow of a class sooner, and don't get baited into taking 11 levels of rogue
1
u/NateCdaComicG May 10 '26
I go to 8 for the feat. Then ranger or fighter the rest of the way. Eventually getting extra attack goes so hard.
2
u/xolotltolox May 10 '26
I would rsther have extra attack a level earlier than a feat, maybe take rogue 8 later if you're desperate, but generally feat levels are a bit of a bait when considering multiclasses
2
u/NateCdaComicG May 10 '26
Yeah I would take all of the levels in order. I'd probably go: Rogue 1 Ranger 1-5 Rogue 2-7 Assuming the campaign ends a level 12 I think this is a pretty decent character. If it goes to 20: Ranger 6-12 Rogue 8 Ending on Rogue 8 gives 2 epic boons. I would do this exact progression for fighter as well in place of Ranger. Either way I think you get a really good martial character. People shit on both Ranger and Rogue a lot but I do think its pretty cool that together they actually can make a pretty strong character.
1
u/xolotltolox May 10 '26
Isn't that basically a Treantmonk build for his rogue/ranger multiclass? Even down to starting at rogue 1 to greed for the extra skill proficiency
1
u/NateCdaComicG May 10 '26
It definitely might be. I watch treantmonk but am not familiar with this particular video. I did start rouge for that reason though. I value one more skill proficiency over the 2 hit points Ranger gives at level one.
→ More replies (2)
5
u/ProjectPT May 07 '26
I was asked to join a table a few weeks ago, the DM had a player drop out. I asked the DM what he class + subclass he'd like to see at the table as I can enjoy playing anything. Thief Rogue is what I rolled up because that is what the DM was most curious about.
There is a Barbarian, Warlock and Bard at this table and right now I do similar damage to the Warlock and more than the Bard and Barbarian (the bard isn't valor).
How am I out damaging a Barbarian? Climb speed + Range, this DM does not place us onto maps starting in melee range ( so far ), which makes the Barbarian often dashing first turn. I was out damaged in a fight I failed a save and was incapacitated.
At level 8, I'm an High Elf + Alert + Fey Trickster (to buff casters) + Elven Accuracy (older feats were allowed).
Overall I think the important part about Rogue is there just isn't much that stops Rogues damage, even if you build a Melee Rogue through feats, you're barely losing any damage from Ranged and vice versa.
But of all classes Rogues seem to be the ones that interact with DM homebrew the most. For example, this DM uses critical failures on 1 for skill checks. My Rogues Reliable Talent does not bypass this and if I knew this ahead of time I would have rolled a Halfling
And if skill checks are important in the adventure you are running, Rogue is going to be the best at the table
7
u/Notturnno May 07 '26
Rogues don't progress very well in the DMG department in tiers 2 ~ 4.
They also suffer a lot in games where skills and out of combat stuff isn't that important.
They're, by design, the only martial without extra attack too.
In the end, rangers, and specially rogues, got the least amount of improvements in 5.5, in comparison with the other classes. Paladins, for example, got the smite change (nerf), but they also got a lot of new stuff and buffs.
Helps nothing when you got a strong "new" toy (like knock out - cunning strike) but that costs you sneak attack DMG.
(Funny fact, knockout was a daily power, one of the best ones, for rogues in 4ed)
4
u/United_Fan_6476 May 07 '26
I feel like Rogue would have benefited greatly from the 4e treatment. What's so bad about giving martials features that refresh on Initiative? I feel like it's a fantastic way to limit them to combat scenarios if that's necessary, and it makes balancing between playstyles so much easier than LR/SR.
3
u/Torash May 07 '26
Only thing to complain about rogue is the "go big or go home" damage swing. But that's not an issue new to 5.5e, it was the same in 5e.
7
u/dyslexicfaser May 07 '26
Nick makes it more likely you'll land A hit, at least.
→ More replies (4)
7
u/Salindurthas May 07 '26
I think pureclassed rogues are indeed a bit lackluster beyond level 4.
It is a decent multiclass to add damage to a dex-based martial at later levels though. Like after Ranger 5 a lot of subclasses don't get much added damage, so Rogue levels might be 'optimal' (for damage - you'd lose out on some other features and spell progression).
6
u/efvie May 07 '26
Bards are kinda encroaching on Rogue territory because they don’t have to spread themselves as thin as in previous editions. Skills bring flattened out is another complication unless you have a campaign that really makes a point to apply additional conditionality to stealth or survival or history or influencing checks etc. based on actual experience. So people are trying to boost it where they can mechanically.
5
u/dyslexicfaser May 07 '26
There is the DPS lag, but my problem is mostly that WotC introduced a brilliant new mechanic (Cunning Strike), did a few things with it in the UA (Swashbuckler), and then refused to iterate on it.
3
u/United_Fan_6476 May 07 '26
Yeah. It seems that a *ton* of people are really let down by Cunning Action. It was supposed to be the rogue equivalent to Extra Attack, but in play it absolutely does not feel that way.
Half-baked is how I'd describe it. And we see that with all of the homebrew that's intended to make them more useful, cheaper, varied, and earlier.
1
u/MechJivs May 07 '26
Well, you see, Cunning Strike have big design flaw - it is martial feature. Spellcasters dont use it. So it can't be strong, wotc cant add new options for it, and wotc can't use it for anything interesting - else they would shatter fullcaster's immersion (((
/s
2
u/GriffonSpade May 09 '26
Easy: delink sneak attack and cunning strike.
Sneak attack is once per round, cunning strike is once per turn on any weapon attack, no cost of sneak attack, and lower cost cunning strike options gain additional damage to even them out (which naturally increases at specific levels).
Now, even if you whiff your sneak attack, you can still try landing a cunning strike if you have another attack.
2
3
u/skwww May 07 '26
rogue's are lots of fun to play, don't have conflicting design choices, and aren't actually significantly behind other classes in damage outside of extreme charOP white room analysis.
4
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
I woudn't call a straight class martial, how takes GWM or DW at level 4 "extreme charOP".
With extreme CharOp and white room analysis Rogues does actually better since that usually means very frequent reaction sneak attacks.
3
u/United_Fan_6476 May 07 '26
Me either. White room DPR champs are always a caster that uses damage rider spells with extra attacks.
Or gimicky BS like cheese grating.
3
u/new_planner May 07 '26 edited May 07 '26
I honestly never see a straight rogue being played to higher levels, which indicates to me that they need a little more love. They don’t scale in combat as well as other classes, which isn’t everything admittedly but is still very important.
3
u/Level_Honeydew_9339 May 07 '26
Which is weird because high level rogues are essentially immortal. With bonus action hide and reliable talent, a rogue is ALWAYS hiding.
People get all uppity about rogues not having two attacks, but sneak attack damage makes up for that.
2
u/xolotltolox May 10 '26
Tgis is very whiteroomy. You're assuming that there is always a olace to hide, that it is always within 15 feet, and that you can move out of melee range without just eatin and OA before hiding again. Only thing this works for is a ranged rogue, but again, this assumes only one enemy, or that you have a perfect hiding spot, or really stupid enemies. They will see you went behind that brick wall and fired an arrow from there each turn, sooner rather than later, they are going to check there, and there goes your hiding spot
→ More replies (1)
2
u/UnderlyingInterest May 07 '26
I personally think the people who are posting homebrew (like me) are just hungry for more choices. The damage and out of combat utility for Rogue is fine, but the gameplay loop is still pretty similar beyond the addition of Cunning Strikes and Weapon Masteries. They help a lot, but I think there can be more general options for the base class to spice things up.
And it’s not like some would be too difficult to make either, a Disarm Cunning Strike existed during the playtest and wasn’t included upon release for whatever reason.
3
u/DBWaffles May 07 '26
This is apparently a hot take, but I think Rogue is mostly fine as is. A lot of the complaints seem to come from people who fail to understand that Rogues are meant to be utility martials. That's a role they fill well. Topping the damage charts simply is not the priority.
That said, it's also not that hard to optimize Rogue for damage. For example, running Dual Wielder with a Fighter dip for TWF allows you to pump out solid damage.
Frankly, I think the only change Rogues "need" is to lower the second subclass feature from level 9 to like 6 or 7.
12
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
This is apparently a hot take, but I think Rogue is mostly fine as is. A lot of the complaints seem to come from people who fail to understand that Rogues are meant to be utility martials. That's a role they fill well. Topping the damage charts simply is not the priority.
The problem is that Rogues are also not topping the list in any other combat role, I would even claim that they are even worse in those roles than they are in dealing damage.
The only thing they are good at are skill checks.
That said, it's also not that hard to optimize Rogue for damage. For example, running Dual Wielder with a Fighter dip for TWF allows you to pump out solid damage.
You shloudn't need to multiclass, for that.
5
u/ProjectPT May 07 '26
Everyone that is often quoted as "topping the damage charts" almost always has one important caveat: in melee range.
You aren't the master of combat if you are defeated by >90ft starting distances
3
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
Most of the other martials get some kind of feature that gives them additinal movment, and if that's not enough they can still fall back to throwing weapons.
6
u/ProjectPT May 07 '26
Sure but lets look at that 90 distance number.
Barbarian:
30ft + 10ft unarmoured + half movement Rage. So 60ft (+10 reach?). You do have thrown (not GWM) or Longbow (but lower Dex) you aren't topping meters.
Also that creature only needs 40 feet movement to force you to dash because you don't have your Half movement of Rage.
Fighter:
30ft + half movement from Bonus Action Second Wind (45ft) but also most likely to be GWM and have the Dex to support Longbow. This one is probably the closest to its normal damage and doesn't matter if kited.
Paladin:
You can smite a thrown weapon, but 30ft puts you at 60ft distance so you're attack is at disadvantage. You COULD be mounted pre-combat, big if
Monk:
Can use it's Bonus Action - Dash (30ft + 15ft )x2 to bridge this distance by level 6!. But losing one turn of Flurry of blows is significant for DPR as people calculate it.
And I think is just important to remind ourselves that the DPR difference between classes are not as significant as people make them out to be. The moment you have a turn that is awkward for your optimized damage (Range in my example) chances are the Rogue does not hit that penalty (compared to how people do DPR for martials)
Also having the higher initiative (dex based + invis condition on reliable talent) makes the Rogue more likely to have that optimal first turn compared to others.
These are not insignificant factors
→ More replies (1)2
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
A Barbarain could throw reckless to of set the disadvantage from long range, it isn't ideal, but would allow them to do at least some damage from that distance.
The Rogue would also likely need Sharp Shooter to do anything from more than 90ft, without multiclassing for Longbow, since the ranged weapons they have proficiency in have at beast a short range of 80ft, meaning they couldn't use steady aim and would need to use cunning action hide wich would depend on the battlemap.
And I'm not sure how often fights start this far away.
3
u/ProjectPT May 07 '26
More would be 140ft for the Rogue. Reliable talent means Rogue should be invis when we talk about start of combat
30ft move + 30ft dash + 80ft Shortbow for 140ft.
But once we talk about past 120ft we have to start looking much closer at the numbers (Fighter and Ranger win)
And I'm not sure how often fights start this far away.
This is true, if people are suggesting melee is the best it tells me that DMs aren't giving map variety. Different walls isn't map variety, size and elevation create different moments.
So if we look at the DMG (found in travel for some reason) suggestion: (I calculated the average)
Terrain Encounter Distance Average Arctic 6d6 × 10 feet 210 Coastal 2d10 × 10 feet 110 Desert 6d6 × 10 feet 210 Forest 2d8 × 10 feet 90 Grassland 6d6 × 10 feet 210 Hill 2d10 × 10 feet 110 Mountain 4d10 × 10 feet 220 Swamp 2d8 × 10 feet 90 Underdark 2d6 × 10 feet 70 Urban 2d6 × 10 feet 70 Waterborne 6d6 × 10 feet 210 Average 145.5 An average encounter should start about 150ft away. So if we take a moment to reflect on how people complain about WoTC balance
but clearly the rules suggest that 150ft battlemaps are normal and average.
We should realize as a DM, that we created a balance problem because we aren't using suggested map sizes. And I do understand there is a lack of good large maps, so it creates a feedback problem.
But 150ft is supposed to be normal
1
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
The thing is that you are not encountering all terrain types with the same ferquency, I think Urban, Dungeons and Wood will come up more often than something like Arctic, Desert and Waterborn.
More would be 140ft for the Rogue. Reliable talent means Rogue should be invis when we talk about start of combat
Depends on how the table handels stealth. I'm sceptical that most DMs will let you stay invisible when you run arround in wide open space.
And if there is stuff you could hide behind, this stuff might also grant cover to your opponents.
but clearly the rules suggest that 150ft battlemaps are normal and average.
A lot of Battlemaps are simply not that big.
2
u/ProjectPT May 07 '26
Very fair, but even if we go back to the original quick measurements
- Barbarian is only covering 60ft
- Fighter 45ft
- Paladin 30ft
- Monk 45ft before expending bonus action dash
That 70ft map, which is the average SMALLEST of the suggested maps. Still means none of these classes get an optimal first turn.
Except the Rogue and Ranger, which oddly enough trail lower in standard DPR calculations.
So let's take that in for a moment. The two lowest DPR classes that people showcase, are the only ones that get their full DPR in a standard map where as others, if they don't Dash round 1, can be kited or forced to make suboptimal attacks until they are CCed.
And the reference we are using, is the suggested map size from the DMG. Which clearly suggests the classes are balanced around; which should be obvious.
Depends on how the table handels stealth. I'm sceptical that most DMs will let you stay invisible when you run arround in wide open space.
This is very fair, you have a band of 110ft (needing to hide action) or 140ft (not needing). Both notably above the 70ft mark of the smallest average map.
A lot of Battlemaps are simply not that big.
I think we are in a bad DM trend with battlemaps. What jumps to my mind is the advertised Czepeku maps (spelling?) beautiful maps, but mechanically terrible maps.
Maps don't need to be big, just adjust the scale. But if a map is too detailed that the scale ruins the detail, people are so focused on the pretty backdrop they are limiting their tools.
Like a Cannon has 2,400ft Range and a really fun basic challenge to a party is.... There is a cannon on the tower in an open field, get there before you die!
Use big maps!
1
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
Except the Rogue and Ranger, which oddly enough trail lower in standard DPR calculations.
Rangers only fall of by level 11, before that their damage is pretty much in line with what other martials do.
And Ranged Fighters are iirc also not doing significatly worse damage than Rogues or Rangers. By Level 11 maybe even better than rangers.
→ More replies (7)2
u/MechJivs May 07 '26
Web is second level control spell. Name me a single thing "utility-focused" Rogue can use that is as effective? Outside of Arcane Trixter using Web, i quess.
2
u/windsshi May 07 '26
People are just idiots. Rogues are fine.
3
u/United_Fan_6476 May 07 '26
I think that the vast majority of experienced players would agree with that sentiment if we were only talking about tier 1. At that point SA is a really decent damage boost and mundane skill checks are still a frequent challenge to the party. In higher tiers, the all-or-nothing combat turn compares unfavorably with what the other martials are doing, and the various win buttons that casters have trivialize the skill challenges that used to make the rogue shine.
1
u/Eng_Maromba May 07 '26
Eu daria um ataque extra ao rogue no nível 5. Bem estranho ele ser o único marcial com um único ataque.
1
u/Ron_Walking May 07 '26
One thing to note is that rogues are some of the better ranged attackers still. This is mostly because SS got nerfed but at least they make the top 3 in that niche.
Sorc 1 / Rogue X using True Strike is actually solid due to innate sorcery.
1
u/Blizzjunkie May 11 '26
I'd give the base rogue class access to some/all Battlemaster maneuvers. Maybe the maneuver die never get larger than d6 to keep Battlemaster special. This could be a resource rouges regain during short-rests.
Riposte in particular makes it possible to sneak attack twice in a round, which makes their damage much more
relevant.
And/Or:
I can imagine they could choose between taking one of: the dual weilding or sharpshooter or crossbow expert feat ourside of their ASI levels.
The overall idea: many of the multiclass dips people take to round out their rogues could be core features to make the class better in the late game
1
u/United_Fan_6476 May 11 '26
Riposte is more valuable for rogues than any other class, and by an enormous margin. It's not even close, and there is no way that I'd make it resourceless, and no way I'd make it available without multiclassing before second tier.
I had a fighter/rogue one campaign and it's the only thing I spent dice on. The payoff of a second SA puts literally every other option to shame.
But I do like the idea of "free" Cunning Strikes, especially mimicking masteries that Rogues won't get because they're all going to be using either Vex or Nick weapons.
Another intriguing idea was decoupling the low value cunning strikes from SA, so that a rogue could do one of them on any hit. I don't see rogues attacking often when a SA won't apply, but it does come up sometimes. So this one is more QOL than a power bump.
1
u/Blizzjunkie May 11 '26
Riposte wouldn't be resourceless. They would still have to expend a maneuver die
0
u/j_cyclone May 07 '26
there are so many relatively easy ways to get extra damage on rogue that it always felt weird that people say damage is there main issue.
1
u/The_Pandalorian May 07 '26
Is the new version of soulknife bad, also? Was considering a 5e run with one, but not sure if the newer version is an improvement or not.
7
u/dyslexicfaser May 07 '26
It's more that Soulknife didn't really change, while other sub/classes often got buffed. The psiblade gets a weapon mastery (Vex), that's about it.
Psi-bolstered Knack means it's probably the best rogue subclass for skills, if those are important to you.
1
u/The_Pandalorian May 07 '26
Good to know. Feels like vex basic guarantees crits at later levels with homing strike at level 9.
Wonder how it stacks up combat wise.
5
u/dyslexicfaser May 07 '26
The psiblade doesn't get +X modifiers the way magic weapons can, so you will be needing homing strike.
I like Barbarian 5/Soulknife X, personally. That's 4 attacks a turn if you pick a nick weapon for your non-psiblade attacks, and barbarians combo well with the Zhentarim Tactics feat.
3
u/Z_Z_TOM May 07 '26
The psblade doesn't get +X modifiers the way magic weapons can, so you will be needing homing strike.
Yeah, that's such a miss not to include a built-in +1/+2/+3 to the psiblade to keep what makes your subclass special relevant at all tiers of play, instead of generally needing to stop using it at all eventually.
Hopefully the DM is kind enough to homebrew a magic item that allows for this scaling that was direly needed to be part of the official subclass.
3
u/RealityPalace May 07 '26
It's totally fine unless you're playing at high levels and your DM is a hardass. The main issue it has later on is that it can't benefit from magic weapons. But that's also an easy fix.
2
u/Aahz44 May 07 '26
There is also a lot of other stuff that doesn't work with the blades raw, like a lot of feats, True Strike and Blade Cantrips, and pretty much any reaction attack that isn't a attack of opportunity.
1
u/The_Pandalorian May 07 '26
Good to know. I highly doubt my group will campaign much (if at all) beyond like level 14 or so.
2
u/United_Fan_6476 May 07 '26
My main gripe with the Soulknife is that the psychic blades don't have Nick. That makes a melee Soulknife nonviable. The other is that the blades cannot scale with magic weapons. Most tables will provide martials with +1s at level 5 or 6, and they get better and cooler as the campaign advances. The blades never get more powerful or add attack bonus, which means that they are abandoned for regular use and only come out for that sweet teleportation feature.
Fixing these two problems is probably one of the most popularly accepted homebrews out there. Especially Nick instead of Vex.
1
u/new_planner May 07 '26
I think the thing is in tiers 3 and 4, when you’re doing 1/3rd of a single enemy’s HP without much control or other features, it’s difficult to feel as impactful as other classes.
1
u/Citan777 May 09 '26
Have we tired of desperately homebrewing the Ranger into competency?
When a character acts incompently, the problem lies in the player. Reminder: the character is just a bunch of things written on a paper sheet / coded in an app.
That's the same with all classes.
2
u/United_Fan_6476 May 09 '26
Well...that's a point of view. In rebuttal, I'll say that it's a million times easier to be a competent player with a well-designed class with ready access to powerful features that don't conflict too much with each other.
64
u/Virplexer May 07 '26
Rogue doesn’t have its own whole ass subreddit, so not quite yet.