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

[Mistwell]

That would require multiple checks between short rests to be relevant. Which is reasonable in a dungeon, but not when the party is out and about in a city or wilderness. It's just a free better Expertise until lv17 on any check.

This doesn't mesh with experience or with the published adventures. When encounters in a city are part of an adventure it very often requires many many skill checks between rests. A chase scene, an interrogation, an investigation scene, it would be far more common for a half dozen checks instead of just one or two. 5e doesn't have skill challenges like 4e but it often simulates them with many checks from several PCs.

But again, fundamentally this entire discussion is silly. They're not even gathering data on the rogue, and it scored very high. This whole thing is a moot point.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't disagree. +2/+3 all the time has always been good. It's just getting less and less valuable when it being not enough in crucial checks. Their current skill powers just can't compensate their damage anymore, especially when the damage floor has been raised in OneD&D while Rogue benefits from it less than others.

I also don't disagree. I also would give the rogue something tied to his level that hepps him for skill checks.
So a scaling reliable talent was the first thing that came to my mind.

Level 2 should give skills a floor of 5+modifiers (like passive checks with disadvantage) or something.
Then rogue 7 should be 10+modifiers (passive check). Level 12 or 13 or so should give a floor of 15+modifiers (passive with advantage).
For ALL actively used skills.

This way, the rogue will be the skill machine. Failure nearly impossible.

Now that grapple and shove is decoupled from ability checks, I would not be concerned about balance as I would have been in 2014.

 

[Clint_L]

I also don't disagree. I also would give the rogue something tied to his level that hepps him for skill checks.
So a scaling reliable talent was the first thing that came to my mind.

Level 2 should give skills a floor of 5+modifiers (like passive checks with disadvantage) or something.
Then rogue 7 should be 10+modifiers (passive check). Level 12 or 13 or so should give a floor of 15+modifiers (passive with advantage).
For ALL actively used skills.

This way, the rogue will be the skill machine. Failure nearly impossible.

Yeah, gross, no. Failure is essential for the game and story to have any stakes. Even with reliable talent we rule that a natural 1 always fails, and a floor of 15+ for skill checks would just make them pointless.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, gross, no. Failure is essential for the game and story to have any stakes. Even with reliable talent we rule that a natural 1 always fails, and a floor of 15+ for skill checks would just make them pointless.

Because martials are limited by versimilitude and can't have nice things at level 13, while wizards can just alter reality with level 7 spells???

If you don't like it, make it a prof bonus per long rest, recharge 1 per short rest ability.

Do you rule that spellcasters have to roll a d20 for utility spells and on a 1 they fail?

 

[DEFCON 1]

That assumes both sides are equally on the money - it could also be that one side or the other is just wrong. I'm certainly going to go looking through Treantmonk's videos to see if I can find an updated calculation, but it should be possible to compare the two sets of calculations and see which one did it better.

And who then determines if one side is "wrong"? What, do we have some outside "Game Balancer" source that we can bring in to look at how both sides are and make a ruling on which side is right? No. Of course not.

And besides... even if we DID have something like that... if one side was WAS declared as being objectively "wrong"... if half those people are happy with the wrong thing, then it doesn't matter whether they are wrong or not. There would be no reason for WotC to "correct" things unless they felt they wanted to.

 

[Soulknife_Infiltrator]

Yeah, gross, no. Failure is essential for the game and story to have any stakes. Even with reliable talent we rule that a natural 1 always fails, and a floor of 15+ for skill checks would just make them pointless.

See, this is exactly why Rogue are underpowered for having such combat-powers. Cuz Spells always win in so many out-of-combat encounters. Skills, something that should have a chance to fail, shouln't cost too many combat-powers like this.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

See, this is exactly why Rogue are underpowered for having such combat-powers. Cuz Spells always win in so many out-of-combat encounters. Skills, something that should have a chance to fail, shouln't cost too many combat-powers like this.

AD&D 2e had a supplement: high level campaigns. There martial characters really could get epic moves. Rogues could have death strike, run over water and such by being epic. So there is a precedent for martials having nice things before 4e.

 

[Charlaquin]

The rogue is perfectly fine. In combat it lacks nova potential compared to some of the stronger damage-dealing classes, but it can output above-average damage very consistently, which is a reasonable place to be. Mastery with finesse weapons will help make their damage even more reliable, and cunning strike gives them some extra tactical utility that will be a lot of fun to play around with.

Out of combat, they get more skill proficiencies than anyone else, with expertise giving them a higher floor and a higher ceiling for their specialized skills than other characters, allowing them to comfortably attempt higher-DC tasks. Yes, fighters now being able to spend second wind to add 1d10 to a failed check is a bigger bonus than expertise, but it can only actually turn a failure into a success once per short rest and a scaling number of additional times per long rest, averaging between 4 and 6 times per day assuming the standard 2-short-rest adventuring day. And each of those uses comes at the cost of 1d10 + con mod of potential healing, and from 5th level on, a free half-speed disengage. That’s not a trivial cost, whereas the rogue gets their expertise all the time for free. Much like their performance in combat, the rogue doesn’t have the same “nova” potential, but does perform at an above-average level consistently.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

How being the bottom in combats and doing bit better in skills makes them the top? I don't see how Bard and Ranger worse than a Rogue as Experts, both in and out of combats.

You're talking some questionable DPR numbers. I'm talking Class Satisfaction. People who play Rogues love playing Rogues. I know I do. There's nothing wrong with them.

You're also not taking into account the nerfs that are likely to happen between the playtest and the print 2024 books. It's at the start of EVERY UA: Power Level. The character options you read here might be more or less powerful than options in the 2014 Player’s Handbook. If a design survives playtesting, we adjust its power to the desirable level before publication. This means an option could be more or less powerful in its final form.

Go ahead and give your feedback to them - that's great - but it's not necessary to worry too much about the Rogue.

 

[Willie the Duck]

IMO, we'll never get to any kind of agreement on how valuable a Rogue's always-on skill benefits measure up to anyone else's burst benefits (and the same for their combat output), because no one ever agrees how many checks are likely to occur in an encounter, how many encounters there will be per day, or how many short rests one will be able to fit in (and whether they will occur between needs to use an expendable ability). Also, yes, wizards can do anything skills can do (and don't need a check), and might have the right spell to bring to bear at the right time (or not). Cue endless debate (which, if you're enjoying yourselves, please go ahead).

The takeaway from this discussion I find fruitful is this:

That also might work, but Skill System has just been...5e's Skill System has been too DM-depandent

I think this is pretty accurate. It isn't the success/failure chances which I think need to be re-thought, it's what a skill check can do (and how well that is communicated in the rules) that need attention. A rogue could have the ability 'a rogue always succeeds on any uncontested skill check, and has advantage in any contested skill check against a non-rogue' and it won't change being 'the skill guy' just isn't that meaningful under certain DMs.