D&D 5E [Poll] Rogue Satisfaction Survey

[Sacrosanct]

Once a year or so, I think it would be interesting to get a pulse on the satisfaction of the various classes. The game's been out for a few years now, and that's plenty of time to get a good experience on how each plays out.

For the purpose of this poll, I am keeping the answers to a minimum intentionally. When you have too many options, it's harder to really evaluate the results. And for the purposes of this, a general feeling is more than adequate.

Long term goal: Have a survey of each class, then compiled results to be easily referenced for future discussions that may want said information.

Previous polls here (voting still open, so #'s may change):

Barbarian: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?571787-poll-Barbarian-Satisfaction-Survey
Bard: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572038-Poll-Bard-Satisfaction-Survey
Cleric: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572311-Poll-Cleric-Satisfaction-Survey
Druid: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572570-poll-Druid-Satisfaction-Survey
Fighter: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?572847-Poll-How-Satisfied-Are-You-With-the-Fighter-Class
Monk: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?573153-poll-Monk-Satisfaction-Survey
Paladin: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?573453-Poll-Paladin-Satisfaction-Survey
Ranger: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?573683-Poll-Ranger-Satisfaction-Survey

 

[jgsugden]

This is the class that I believe should have been overhauled, rather than the ranger. It just doesn't deal enough damage in combat to be a contender at medium and higher levels, and it tends to have all the non-combat abilities get replaced by magic by about 6th level.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My experience playing a rogue is mostly an assassin. With some time as a thief. And of course I've seen a lot of people play them.

The thief was one of my favorite classes in AD&D. It was a class that naturally appealed to my desire to think outside of the box and find creative solutions to problems. So naturally it has an appeal to me in 5e as well.

I can honestly say I am playing the rogue right out of the box with no tweaks needed.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This is the class that I believe should have been overhauled, rather than the ranger. It just doesn't deal enough damage in combat to be a contender at medium and higher levels, and it tends to have all the non-combat abilities get replaces by magic by about 6th level.

I guess this is an example of a fundamental different in expectations of what the game is. For example, I don't think every class should do the same amount of damage as every other class in combat, and it appears you do. I am a fan of niche protection. Also, I've never seen the rogue's abilities get replaced by spells at 6th level or higher because the casters use their spells to assist in other ways and won't burn a valuable spell slot just to overshadow the rogue who is more than capable of doing what he/she does all day long.

 

[kbrakke]

I think the Rogue as written is a very solid class. The only things I would really change is updating the assassin, having seen and played many rogues, I think assassin is the worst of the subclasses when you use all the rules as written. The fact that you can set up your main assassinate ability and still have a chance to simply not get it because your initiative was too low is fairly absurd. As I write it out, I've determined that I'll just let them go first on their surprise round, then use their init as normal.

Overall, happy with rogue.

 

[jgsugden]

I guess this is an example of a fundamental different in expectations of what the game is. For example, I don't think every class should do the same amount of damage as every other class in combat, and it appears you do.

They should all have a role that is not overshadowed by others. I have seen a lot of games where the rogue plants their perfect sneak attack - only to watch the fighter outmatch their damage with two great weapon master aided strikes. It frustrates the rogue players every time to see a barbarian, paladin, or fighter do a lot more damage when the rogue's major combat ability is a high damage strike.

I am a fan of niche protection. Also, I've never seen the rogue's abilities get replaced by spells at 6th level or higher because the casters use their spells to assist in other ways and won't burn a valuable spell slot just to overshadow the rogue who is more than capable of doing what he/she does all day long.

Rogues are, primarily, skill and tool monkeys. Around 6th level I start to see the spellcasters with 10 to 13 spells per long rest start to use spells that do the rogue's job better.

Charms replace social skills. Locked door? Blast it open or by pass it. Knowledge? Rituals answer questions. Trap detection? There are plenty of ways to set those off at a safe distance with magic.

The only class I see less at the table is monk (and artificer and mystic), but when I see it the experience seems to be very consistent.

I have a rogue design that I want to try out to get more first hand experience that should get 2 sneak attacks per round, consistently. The damage is not that far behind a GWM character, and it looks like fun to play ... but it is a bit convoluted and what really makes it work has little to do with the rogue class.

 

[Mercule]

Overall, I like the Rogue in 5E. I have a vague feeling that it could benefit from some tweaks, but I don't have any specific issues.

As close as I get to specific qualms is that the Rogue has become too good of a combat character. It's perfectly reasonable to choose Rogue if you want to be combat focused, but lightly armored. I don't like that. This is especially ironic considering that I switched the Thief and Cleric attack tables in 1E AD&D because it made no sense to me that the street rat would be worse at fighting than the priest (militant or otherwise).

Hmm.... I just realized how telling that statement is about how flawed I feel the Cleric is and how deep that feeling runs. It probably adds a lot of color to my commentary in that class' thread.

 

[Mercule]

I have a rogue design that I want to try out to get more first hand experience that should get 2 sneak attacks per round, consistently. The damage is not that far behind a GWM character, and it looks like fun to play ... but it is a bit convoluted and what really makes it work has little to do with the rogue class.

Meanwhile, I'd consider any Rogue build that matched Fighter damage output with any sort of reliability to be a non-starter.

 

[jgsugden]

Meanwhile, I'd consider any Rogue build that matched Fighter damage output with any sort of reliability to be a non-starter.

... because? Rogues, who have a main feature designed around dealing additional damage, should not deal damage well?

Fret not, though. Although the build can outclass fighters briefly in levels 1 to 4, it does fall behind the big weapon classes and their expected damage as it advances. It just doesn't fall ridiculously (50 rogue damage versus 125 fighter damage) behind. It is about 90 to 125, instead.

 

[Mercule]

... because? Rogues, who have a main feature designed around dealing additional damage, should not deal damage well?

Fret not, though. Although the build can outclass fighters briefly in levels 1 to 4, it does fall behind the big weapon classes and their expected damage as it advances. It just doesn't fall ridiculously (50 rogue damage versus 125 fighter damage) behind. It is about 90 to 125, instead.

Because the Rogue is a skill-monkey class that has moments of greatness in combat.

The Fighter should have a pretty level (but high) damage output. The Rogue should be lower, with periodic spikes that freak the Fighter out. Every one of those spikes should be accompanied by stealth, a trick maneuver, or something else that sets the attack off from the norm. A certain amount of that could be narrative, rather than making the player go through some sort of Deceive/Attack routine. Your 90 vs 125 sounds about the right ratio, from the hip. What I might be more inclined to do would be to make it harder to get a sneak attack, but raise the damage done when it does happen.... maybe.

Or, to your first point, if I were to change something about the class, it would be to move sneak attack to a secondary ability with the focus returning to skills, movement tricks, etc. I wouldn't knock it down to anything like a ribbon ability. I'd just make it clear that the class is what you play when your character is skillful. If you want to be a fighter, then play a Fighter. There should be absolutely no confusion about whether a duelist subclass would go under Fighter or Rogue -- it's a Fighter.

Really, though, I have a problem with any class that can outfight a Fighter. That's literally the class's name. Everyone else gets tricks that may help in combat, but not to the point of overshadowing the Fighter. Paladins should probably be the second strongest fighters, but they get toys like spells, healing, and turning undead, not just smite.

If I were to list the classes based on potential to use a weapon (or fist) to kill something, I'd probably do it this way:

1. Fighter
2. Paladin
3. gap
4. Ranger
5. Rogue
6. Monk (tied with Rogue?)
7. Valor Bard (tied with Monk?)
8. Cleric
9. Druid
10. Warlock
11. Lore Bard
12. gap
13. Sorcerer
14. Wizard

Absent from the list is Barbarian, which I don't think warrants its own class. FWIW, I think Cleric is the most screwed up of the remaining classes.

Note that this includes anything related directly to combat (melee or ranged), including AC, hit points, damage output, weapon selection, buffs, etc. It does not include things like setting traps, being able to sneak, etc. When the player makes the effort to use the surroundings and list of skills, the Ranger and Rogue should rock. If the Rogue gets a chance to ambush, it should pretty much be game over. The Ranger isn't a wilder-ninja, but jumps above Paladin if they get to ambush.