D&D 5E Want a better Rogue? Build a Wizard. Or why play a Rogue?

[Ashrym]

The title describes a conversation I recently had with a player. He likes to build characters of all types - not necessarily a min/maxer, but tries to embrace what a class is good at it. He could not come up with a fun build for a rogue. Almost everything a rogue does - the wizard does better. Knock, Invisibility, and other spells are effectively better than the rogue's skills. To make matters worse, the thing the rogue does semi-decently is to move ahead of the party and scout the situation - in other words, the best use of a rogue is fun for exactly one player at the table.

I am pretty much a DM exclusively, but I could not disagree with the player's point of view.

If you value the enjoyment of the game by the group as a whole - why ever play a rogue? What can a rogue do better than anyone else?

BTW - with the last name of Pogue, I am particularly sensitive to folks labeling the class FKA thief as some sort of make-up

As mentioned earlier, knock is terrible outside of some very situational uses.

Invisibility requires those skills to be useful at all and never replaces them; it enables using them in the event there isn't an opportunity to do so. I would suggest reviewing surprise rules because stealth enables surprise a lot even if it cannot bypass some encounters based on circumstances.

Cunning action, evasion, uncanny dodge, sneak attack, and reliable talent are all nice abilities that do not require limited resources like spell slots.

Expertise and extra skills allow them to be exceptional party faces, second only to bards.

Reliable talent works well for rogues as the party face. The nature of the DC's and bounded accuracy means increasing the bonuses available has diminishing returns while the avoidance of low rolls increases the success rate for the rogue.

I have a lot of fun with those guaranteed DC 20 favor requests that come with persuasion expertise and reliable talent. It's hard to call that second to bards unless the DM is using some higher DC rules not listed.

I'd go with the artificer for ultimate rogue: tool expertise, flash of genius, spell-storing item for invisibility, spider climb or such.
Infuse item: wand of detection, rope of climbing, goggle of night, gloves of thievery, boot/cape of elvenkind, etc

The artificer has the same issue as the wizard when it comes to invisibility. Flash of genius helps when it comes online but flash of genius becomes the new bottleneck over spell slots.

Anyone who insists invisibility is an issue can MC for it or go arcane trickster for it anyway. Invisibility is not a replacement for stealth abilities. It's a replacement for concealment that enables stealth abilities.

Artificers are pretty darned good for ability checks regardless, however; no denying that.

 

[Dausuul]

Anyone who insists invisibility is an issue can MC for it or go arcane trickster for it anyway.

Or, you can ask a spellcaster in the party to put it on you.

One of the things that tends to get forgotten in these theoretical debates is that D&D is a team game. Rather than the wizard investing in Dex and stealth and looking for ways to get Expertise, or the rogue digging into magic to pick up invisibility, it makes far more sense for the wizard to just be a wizard, and the rogue to just be a rogue, and they use their talents in concert for mutual benefit.

 

[Ashrym]

Or, you can ask a spellcaster in the party to put it on you.

One of the things that tends to get forgotten in these theoretical debates is that D&D is a team game. Rather than the wizard investing in Dex and stealth and looking for ways to get Expertise, or the rogue digging into magic to pick up invisibility, it makes far more sense for the wizard to just be a wizard, and the rogue to just be a rogue, and they use their talents in concert for mutual benefit.

In a fictitious serious of events a non-fictitious group of individuals on an internet forum considers non-fictitious rules as fictitious because the fictitious characters in the fictitious series of events working together is fictitious in itself -- how much of each is irony, paradox, and/or oxymoron in what the rogue has become?

 

[Aldarc]

Play an Arcane Trickster/Wizard and dabble in both worlds.

 

[pogre]

One of the things that tends to get forgotten in these theoretical debates is that D&D is a team game. Rather than the wizard investing in Dex and stealth and looking for ways to get Expertise, or the rogue digging into magic to pick up invisibility, it makes far more sense for the wizard to just be a wizard, and the rogue to just be a rogue, and they use their talents in concert for mutual benefit.

I agree in some respects, but consider the four character party - Is a rogue worthwhile of one of those spots? That is the question, in a sense, my player has posed. If you can mostly cover that niche with another mainstay (wizard) - then it frees up a slot for a better team player like a monk or bard.

As someone pointed out earlier we can quickly delve into white room discussions about a single character, but that is honestly not what my player is doing. They are asking, in the context of a party dynamic, what makes a rogue worthwhile?

Please understand I let players play whatever kind of a character they want. It is the player who is more concerned about being an effective and helpful party member.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I agree in some respects, but consider the four character party - Is a rogue worthwhile of one of those spots? That is the question, in a sense, my player has posed. If you can mostly cover that niche with another mainstay (wizard) - then it frees up a slot for a better team player like a monk or bard.

As someone pointed out earlier we can quickly delve into white room discussions about a single character, but that is honestly not what my player is doing. They are asking, in the context of a party dynamic, what makes a rogue worthwhile?

Please understand I let players play whatever kind of a character they want. It is the player who is more concerned about being an effective and helpful party member.

The team player thing is also irelevant. The wizard isnt gobbling up the rogues role and hogging the spotlight in this example.

What is actually happening is the wizard is providing a better rogue for the party than a rogue wouod be and IS NOT being a wizard. It doesnt even make sense to make a comment about "team playing". The person who makes such a comment is clearly blind to the fact that this is one of the BEST examples of team playing directly as what ive laid out is a wizard who has entirely sacrificed their capacity to be a good wizard to INSTEAD be a rogue. One could say the party basically has a rogue but not a wizard. Its an example of how your role in the party is not what your character sheet says in the "class" box. The wizard hasnt taken over the spot light. Hes not even being a wizard. If we are being realistic we would realize that means if the party needs a wizard then they will need a different player to do that. There is no point in paintingnthe hypothetical player as being monopolistic. Thats an absurd comparison.

Tbh, i really think that unless someone min maxes the heck out of a rogue, then a couple of creative and skillful tweaks as well as decent spell choice in fact does create a wizard that causes rogue obsolescence WITHOUT minmaxing the wizard. But its going to play like a magical rogue because the skill and feat selections as well as spells will basically be a list of what a rogue would steal from a candy shop (where the candy is class building mechanics) if he couod grab whatever he wanted.

There is only one area the rogue is a better rogue in than a wizard who builds everything around being a rogue. Skills. Rogues can absolutely have a greater skill pool. Thats it.

 

[Ashrym]

I agree in some respects, but consider the four character party - Is a rogue worthwhile of one of those spots? That is the question, in a sense, my player has posed. If you can mostly cover that niche with another mainstay (wizard) - then it frees up a slot for a better team player like a monk or bard.

As someone pointed out earlier we can quickly delve into white room discussions about a single character, but that is honestly not what my player is doing. They are asking, in the context of a party dynamic, what makes a rogue worthwhile?

Please understand I let players play whatever kind of a character they want. It is the player who is more concerned about being an effective and helpful party member.

Back in August the party size and configuration metrics were released from DDB and a 3 person party was far more likely to carry a rogue than a wizard. Typically the groups were a rogue, a cleric or sometimes a druid, and a fighter or fighter replacement class and the arcane caster was added to the 4 person parties to demonstrate which was being more dispensable.

Like I said earlier, rogues have a lot of abilities that are useful in and out of combat, and those spells do not overshadow rogues.

I don't take knock. It takes +2 proficiency and 16 ability score (available at 1st level) to take 10 time the normal time and assume success on any DC 20 lock. Any DEX build proficient in thieves' tools can do that, and using thieves' tools doesn't cost a spell slot or alert everyone in the immediate area.

A climber's kit prevents falling even if a person uses failure equals falling instead of lack of moving forward that attempt because of the anchors.

Invisibility is a joke without some DEX and proficiency bonus. Passive perception with no bonus is 10 so that typically 14 DEX wizard gets noticed a lot while invisible. Having a place to hide while sucking at being quiet or concealing tracks doesn't help much. Plus, hiding and stealth are not the same thing. Hiding is an action to avoid detection. Being stealthy is moving along quietly trying not to be seen or heard and helps the DM determine surprise / encounter distance at the beginning of the encounter.

(EDIT: hiding uses stealth, but stealth encompasses hiding and more. Invisibility only prevents being seen, and that allows for the benefits that include the option to hide.)

Familiars scout using the same ability checks characters do. The difference is the familiar also has low AC and no hp while most look like food to various predators. At least familiars are relatively easy to replace.

Wizards don't have the spell slots to keep pace with the number of checks rogues can do. That's also why I prefer bards to wizards even though wizards are better spell casters. If he wants to be a wizard instead of a rogue then let him. Heck, make it an online campaign, I'll make the rogue to join, and then he can see how differently they play.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As other have said, the rogue doesn't require spell slots to do those things.

(As to your comment about success rate, the rogue might have automatic successes...depending on the DM...when there's no consequence for failure. c.f. previous really long threads about ability checks in 5e.)

Also, Sneak Attack is really fun. As are Evasion and Uncanny Dodge.

 

[FrozenNorth]

In one sense, I agree it is a bit of white room thinking. However, I do have a player building a character who is considering these questions - thus, there is a practical application for us.

Well then, what is a rogue? Rogues are good at stealthing, disarming traps, scouting, dealing damage and being a skillmonkey. In particular, they can be a very good party face.

Under certain circumstances, wizards can outperform them at certain tasks. A wizard can’t outperform them at all their tasks.

Even then, it is very campaign dependent. A campaign where wizards don’t receive access to a lot of new spells means the wizard is giving up more useful spells to perform rogue tasks.

 

[gyor]

Having played both, I disagree that a wizard is a better rogue in 5e.

Let's compare getting a door open. Knock not only creates a loud noise (which will often be counter productive to picking the lock) but also uses up a limited resource (spell slots). Whereas the rogue can pick locks all day.

Sneaking. The wizard can cast invisibility, but that doesn't improve his sneak check and it costs a limited resource. Granted, without invisibility a rogue cannot try to hide in plain sight, but with cover or concealment he can hide all day. IME, the rogue is the best target for invisibility.

In both cases, with IMO the likeliest choices for expertise (stealth and thieves tools) the rogue is fairly unlikely to fail those checks.

Again, IME the only rogue thing a wizard arguably does better is act as a forward scout via a familiar (or at later levels, spells like Arcane Eye). The rogue will likely have a better perception, so it isn't always preferable, but the familiar is far more expendable than the rogue, which is a big plus.

I would say I enjoyed playing my rogue more than my wizard, though both were quite effective overall.

The Rogue can get a familiar as a Arcane Trickers or with a feat, or in the case of a Thief with a Find Familiar scroll when it gets use magic item feature.