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

[Gadget]

WOTC has made great strides in overcoming this particular complaint in 5e (the spellcasters step on the Rogue's toes). Between nerfing spells like Knock & Find Traps, Concentration on Invisibility (which ends now if the target attacks or casts a spell), and the limited duration of Improved Invisibility, the spell caster really has to put forth some effort to even partially replace a Rogue.

And while the Wizard can use a familiar or Arcane Eyes (or some other divination spell) to scout ahead, but that is at the cost of doing something else, not to mention the Rogues unique in combat benefits of sneak attack, cunning action, evasion and such.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Oh ive looked. People have posted references too.

I saw no contradictions at all. None.

In this thread? I've read all of the posts. Didn't see anyone post a reference to a bag of holding not moving.

There is nothing in the bag of holding entry that either states or implies that the inside does not move. An immobile interior bag of holding is not RAW.

 

[Dausuul]

I am reminded of an approach I mulled over at one point that one might call 'stealth parties.' The gist of this is that if the entire party can be stealthy and manoeuvrable then they can all participate in sneaksy-tricksy missions or stuff other than dungeon crawls. This involves trading off min-maxing characters for combat to make them stealthier. It also means that a rogue isn't necessarily a specialty but something you might spin into other character builds.

For example, rather than a fighter you might have a ranger, maybe have wizard-thief or cleric-thief multi classes and so forth. Bards have pretty good stealth abilities, as do way-of-shadow monks. You could take a rogue with some levels of another class to get (say) multi-attacks or certain spells or other class abilities.

With this approach you have a party that might not be optimal for dungeon crawling but better for a variety of other nefarious activities. One could fairly easily balance combat encounters to reflect this.

You definitely want a druid or a ranger in that party. For group stealth, pass without trace is insane.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You said rogues in your experience dump Wisdom. I don't think it is "daring" to say that it is sub-optimal for the skill-monkey class to dump the ability score for the most commonly-used skill in the game.

You don't have to pump Wisdom; a moderate investment, plus an Expertise slot, is plenty. Forget scouting, it will pay for itself in averted ambushes alone.

In a party of one, sure.

In a real party? When several classes have WIS as their primary or secondary stat, and virtually every PC who has WIS as a primary takes Perception, and many with a secondary? You're burning expertise just to have the same number as the Cleric/Druid/etc. (and eventually he has more). The can't roll less than 10 thing won't avert ambushes because they use passive perception.

It's not a disaster, indeed it's an okay idea, but yes, it absolutely is "daring" to claim it's literally optimal.

Agree re: Pass without Trace. That spell is utterly bonkers and I had no idea until a player who doesn't normally play Druids played one and pulled it out.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In a party of one, sure.

In a real party? When several classes have WIS as their primary or secondary stat, and virtually every PC who has WIS as a primary takes Perception, and many with a secondary? You're burning expertise just to have the same number as the Cleric/Druid/etc. (and eventually he has more).

How do you figure?

Level	Wis 12 and Expertise	Wis 16, raised to 20, no Expertise
1	5	5
5	7	7
9	9	9
13	11	10
17	13	10

And, anyway, Perception is not like, say, Persuasion. Having multiple party members with solid bonuses is extremely useful.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

How do you figure?

Level	Wis 12 and Expertise	Wis 16, raised to 20, no Expertise
1	5	5
5	7	7
9	9	9
13	11	10
17	13	10

And, anyway, Perception is not like, say, Persuasion. Having multiple party members with solid bonuses is extremely useful.

ME AM NO GUD AT MATHS

I forgot how big the proficiency bonus actually got, you are correct. I do agree multiple people having it is beneficial, typically, too. I just don't buy that it's "optimal" (which suggests to me a singular path) to build this way, merely one good choice you have. I should have noticed btw because the Rogue in my higher-level group has Expertise in Athletics and looking with 14 STR (IIRC) has a better Athletics bonus than the STR 20 Fighter. I guess I didn't because the Fighter is a Goliath and so often rolls Athletics with Advantage but I really have no excuse!

 

[Aldarc]

You definitely want a druid or a ranger in that party. For group stealth, pass without trace is insane.

I believe that Shadow Monks already get pass without trace as one of their spells. But a Gloomstalker Ranger would definitely help spread the stealth burden so the Shadow Monk could use their ki for other things.

 

[akr71]

Why play a rogue? Because they can use Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion & Sneak Attack every turn, all day long and you don't have to fiddle with spell slots.

The rogue can mix it up in melee, disengage (or dodge) without taking too much damage and not have to worry about being too frail like a wizard.

 

[FrozenNorth]

If you design your rogue sub-optimally, then its performance will be sub-optimal.

That isn't the fault of the class.

Count me with the high Perception Rogues. I played a high Perception Rogue in Curse of Strahd, because as the guy responsible for disarming traps, I wanted to have a decent chance of spotting them ahead of time.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Why play a rogue? Because they can use Cunning Action, Uncanny Dodge, Evasion & Sneak Attack every turn, all day long and you don't have to fiddle with spell slots.

The rogue can mix it up in melee, disengage (or dodge) without taking too much damage and not have to worry about being too frail like a wizard.

The Rogue has literally 1HP/level more than the Wizard, and quite likely has a similar AC (though there are so many factors that it's hard to say, especially with magic items in play).

I agree with all your other points, but suggesting Rogues are significantly less "frail" than Wizard is dubious, I'd suggest. They've got some nice options to "get out of jail", but so has any Wizard who prepared spells on the assumption he might end up in melee.

I think the concept of Wizards in 5E as "frail" is really more than a little outdated.

You play a Rogue because you like the style, or because you want to do that stuff, and don't want to mess with spells.