D&D (2024) Rogue's Been in an Awkward Place, And This Survey Might Be Our Last Chance to Let WotC Know.

[Weiley31]

Ahem, being in an awkward place is the bard's job.

In more ways than one too!

 

[Weiley31]

I have yet to hear about any sort of negativity about the 5E monk. Except when conversations came up about the 2014 Assassin subclass.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Lower tier for damage, perhaps, but top tier for versatility and fun.

Fun is subjective and I'm sorry, you literally cannot use it in a rational argument about classes and how functional they are. It's an active abandonment of the subject of the discussion. Especially as no matter how bad a class is, objectively, someone will claim it's fun - this is a long lesson from RPGs of all kinds - just look at 2E's long-forgotten Mystic. A totally terrible class in every way - but someone thought it was "fun".

As for "versatile", no, not really. Rogues are extremely un-versatile. They rely entirely on Skills, and lean hard on the few skills they have Expertise or Reliable Talent, which they cannot change (unless I've missed something).

So I asked my play group about Rogues, and it seems the perception is that they deal great damage (so many d6's, and if you crit, wow!) and they can make all the skill checks- their only real problem is being a bit squishy.

Perception is not reality. Neither of those things is actually true. Rogues don't deal great damage. That your play group doesn't appreciate this is fine, but it just suggests they're not paying very close attention, and instead being dazzled by multiple dice being rolled. Rogues are pretty middling, damage-wise, compared to other martials. And they certainly do not "make all the skill checks", because they don't have Expertise or particularly Reliable Talent in enough skills for that to be true.

The effect of Expertise and Reliable Talent, plus more proficiencies, can't be understated. If the other characters in your party have 3-4 proficiencies each, including the potential for useless tool proficiency chosen for rp reasons, and you have 5 plus Thieves' Tools, that actually does something, and you can hit some really amazing DC's with ease, naturally there's going to be a perception that your class is busted somehow.

It can be wildly overstated, too, though. And it kind of looks like your play group is wildly overstating it.

Rogues get 2 more proficiencies than others, but no that doesn't "actually do something" in most cases, because the Rogue will only be the best person to be rolling in a few cases. It usually means they just have a couple of skills where they're okay but worse than another PC (i.e. any STR class for Athletics, any WIS class for Perception, any CHA class for social skills). They absolutely cannot "hit some really amazing DCs with ease" at lower levels. Expertise doubles prof bonus, but whilst that's nice, RNG on d20s is enough that it doesn't reliably give you the rolls you need. Reliable Talent does - but you don't get it until level 11 in 2014, by which point an awful lot of what the Rogue would be good for can be replaced by 100% reliable magic spells which cannot fail.

What you're illustrating is what has held Rogues back in every edition except 4E, which is an unreasonable perception, one detached from the realities of the game, that Rogues are "OP". Whilst players might hold such a belief and be forgiven, if game designers do, we're all in trouble.

I have yet to hear about any sort of negativity about the 5E monk. Except when conversations came up about the 2014 Assassin subclass.

It's been widely discussed/debated as one of the weakest classes in 5E on these boards and elsewhere since 5E came out. So that's curious.

 

[Pauln6]

Fun is subjective and I'm sorry, you literally cannot use it in a rational argument about classes and how functional they are. It's an active abandonment of the subject of the discussion. Especially as no matter how bad a class is, objectively, someone will claim it's fun - this is a long lesson from RPGs of all kinds - just look at 2E's long-forgotten Mystic. A totally terrible class in every way - but someone thought it was "fun".

As for "versatile", no, not really. Rogues are extremely un-versatile. They rely entirely on Skills, and lean hard on the few skills they have Expertise or Reliable Talent, which they cannot change (unless I've missed something).

Perception is not reality. Neither of those things is actually true. Rogues don't deal great damage. That your play group doesn't appreciate this is fine, but it just suggests they're not paying very close attention, and instead being dazzled by multiple dice being rolled. Rogues are pretty middling, damage-wise, compared to other martials. And they certainly do not "make all the skill checks", because they don't have Expertise or particularly Reliable Talent in enough skills for that to be true.

It can be wildly overstated, too, though. And it kind of looks like your play group is wildly overstating it.

Rogues get 2 more proficiencies than others, but no that doesn't "actually do something" in most cases, because the Rogue will only be the best person to be rolling in a few cases. It usually means they just have a couple of skills where they're okay but worse than another PC (i.e. any STR class for Athletics, any WIS class for Perception, any CHA class for social skills). They absolutely cannot "hit some really amazing DCs with ease" at lower levels. Expertise doubles prof bonus, but whilst that's nice, RNG on d20s is enough that it doesn't reliably give you the rolls you need. Reliable Talent does - but you don't get it until level 11 in 2014, by which point an awful lot of what the Rogue would be good for can be replaced by 100% reliable magic spells which cannot fail.

What you're illustrating is what has held Rogues back in every edition except 4E, which is an unreasonable perception, one detached from the realities of the game, that Rogues are "OP". Whilst players might hold such a belief and be forgiven, if game designers do, we're all in trouble.


It's been widely discussed/debated as one of the weakest classes in 5E on these boards and elsewhere since 5E came out. So that's curious.

Yes, fun is subjective but I know fewrr people with criticisms of the rogue class than any other class. If you look at rogues on paper, sure, you might say 'but all they can do is skills'. Stick them in a Dungeon setting though and cunning action lets them run rings around many other characters. Not everything is about dice rolls and number crunching.

I agree with the criticism that they are too squishy (they always have been - that's part of the class) but maybe the new options for cunning strike might help improve that. It was only in 4e where they were strikers that they were top damage dealers and even there they were at the lower end of strikers.

I genuinely cannot see a strong argument for saying they need a further boost. How can fighters compete if everyone is out-damaging them?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yes, fun is subjective but I know fewrr people with criticisms of the rogue class than any other class.

And I know more people with criticisms of the 5E Rogue class than any other class.

Which demonstrates my point - fun is subjective - and the people who think the Rogue is best are people who, shocker, don't play Rogues. This is evident from the way people in this thread talk about them - it's never about the Rogue player boasting about how great they are - it's always about other players admiring them.

Stick them in a Dungeon setting though and cunning action lets them run rings around many other characters.

No, it doesn't. It's useful but it has specific and limited uses. You need to be more specific in your claims about how abilities like that advantage Rogues. As I've said, the entire problem Rogues have faced in most editions is ridiculously inflated perceptions of their capabilities from people who don't actually play them.

I genuinely cannot see a strong argument for saying they need a further boost. How can fighters compete if everyone is out-damaging them?

Who is outdamaging Fighters? In 2014 an optimized Fighter is one of the highest DPR classes. Even a Fighter who just takes GWM and uses it will be doing very good damage compared to a lot of classes. Rogues are should be doing comparable or better single-target damage than most Fighters, because it's their main deal in combat (they can't take a hit, but they should be dealing big ones), but they're not. As cooperation and magic items get involved, Fighters get even further ahead - indeed any class with multiple attacks benefits in ways Rogues do not. Sneak Attack in 5E is just not very well-designed, and doesn't really synergize with anything - it benefits from Advantage, but Advantage doesn't stack or anything, and there are a ton of ways to get it. Anything that adds a bonus, like Bless, +damage spells, +X magic weapons, +damage magic weapons (like +2d6 flaming swords), etc. works better with multiple attacks.

 

[Pauln6]

And I know more people with criticisms of the 5E Rogue class than any other class.

Which demonstrates my point - fun is subjective - and the people who think the Rogue is best are people who, shocker, don't play Rogues. This is evident from the way people in this thread talk about them - it's never about the Rogue player boasting about how great they are - it's always about other players admiring them.

No, it doesn't. It's useful but it has specific and limited uses. You need to be more specific in your claims about how abilities like that advantage Rogues. As I've said, the entire problem Rogues have faced in most editions is ridiculously inflated perceptions of their capabilities from people who don't actually play them.

Who is outdamaging Fighters? In 2014 an optimized Fighter is one of the highest DPR classes. Even a Fighter who just takes GWM and uses it will be doing very good damage compared to a lot of classes. Rogues are should be doing comparable or better single-target damage than most Fighters, because it's their main deal in combat (they can't take a hit, but they should be dealing big ones), but they're not. As cooperation and magic items get involved, Fighters get even further ahead - indeed any class with multiple attacks benefits in ways Rogues do not. Sneak Attack in 5E is just not very well-designed, and doesn't really synergize with anything - it benefits from Advantage, but Advantage doesn't stack or anything, and there are a ton of ways to get it. Anything that adds a bonus, like Bless, +damage spells, +X magic weapons, +damage magic weapons (like +2d6 flaming swords), etc. works better with multiple attacks.

Almost every class I have ever played has at least 3 levels of Rogue. One of our players played a single classed Rogue for the first time last year and was genuinely shocked at how good they were to play.

I do agree that there could be more ways to synergise sneak attack in some magic items and multiclass options - the removal of multiclass synergy feels painful when it was more magical adept that needed a nerf.

 

[Stalker0]

Perception is not reality. Neither of those things is actually true. Rogues don't deal great damage.

well that’s certainly not true on both accounts. Perception is absolutely the reality in a fantasy game like this. When players love a class because they think it does well and they have fun…then you’ve won. The actuals don’t mean squat.

But the rogue does do reasonable damage. We’ve shown it with some casual math, we have looked at treantmonks for more optimized builds. The rogue is not top dog by any means, but they do alright and come with all that extra flexibility on top

 

[Mistwell]

I'd argue that increaseing sneak attack by one extra d6 at level 5 and/or 11 would not hurt though. Would bring them exactly im the middle. Or slightly above.

Sure and I'd be fine with that

 

[Ruin Explorer]

One of our players played a single classed Rogue for the first time last year and was genuinely shocked at how good they were to play.

The guy in my main group who habitually played Rogues since early 2E finally quit playing Rogues in 5E, because they were just not very effective and he wasn't having much fun when even with Expertise he was missing rolls. We got to 15 with that party and Reliable Talent was really nice for a while but we had casters in the party and magic resolves so many problems that it wasn't as big a boost as one might expect.

I think they need to make it so you get Reliable Talent with specific skills at a much, much lower level than 11. If someone wants to make it so it's virtually impossible for them to get a really bad Stealth roll or the like with Expertise and Reliable Talent on the same skill, more power to them. I forget if 2024 is actually doing that.

well that’s certainly not true on both accounts. Perception is absolutely the reality in a fantasy game like this.

No, it isn't, because we're talking about how Rogues are balanced mechanically, and perceptions are subjective anyway. One man's "Fun class!" is another man's "Why the hell are you calling 2E Mystic 'fun'"?

When players love a class because they think it does well and they have fun…then you’ve won. The actuals don’t mean squat.

Uh-huh, but when a class isn't very good, fewer people who actually play it think that. What I've seen if that people who don't play Rogues, don't want them to be changed or improved, and often think they're overpowered. People who do actually play them are much more likely to want them improved, and to recognise the issues with them.

But the rogue does do reasonable damage. We’ve shown it with some casual math, we have looked at treantmonks for more optimized builds. The rogue is not top dog by any means, but they do alright and come with all that extra flexibility on top

What extra flexibility? As I've demonstrated, Rogues aren't actually very flexible. That's one of the curious things about their design in 5E. Their damage is mediocre to bad. They thus fail to fulfil the "class fantasy" of the deadly assassin or the like (and D&D 5E has no mechanics to support that outside combat). In combat, they have some mobility, but don't have OA protection which limits it's value, and have to be constantly focused on making sure their bonus damage (Sneak Attack) is available at all, whereas for most classes, it's just a given, because it's coming from multiple attacks. Rogue is a class that has to work hard just to stay worse than other classes who do not have to work hard. Outside combat they face the fact that at lower levels, D&D's skill system doesn't really reward skill investment very well, it primarily rewards lucky rolls, and whilst the gap between them and others increases at higher levels on skill rolls, they then start losing out to magic simply invalidating the need for skill rolls, and that magic works 100% of the time, doesn't even require a roll.

I think at the very least Rogues should be hitting the class fantasy of being able to totally murderise a single target, but they really aren't.

 

[Mistwell]

The rogue ranks extremely high in favorability ratings in the surveys. That is an objective measure people like it as it is. It's a much better measure than "people I know." It's a better measure than almost any other measure, as it's the one that really counts when it comes to a game.