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

[Vikingkingq]

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.

This is why I mentioned the Power Level pre-publication "pass" in my survey. I'm not asking for or expecting another Rogue playtest pack, just flagging that this is an issue to be considered for the pass.

 

[Clint_L]

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?

If a spellcaster wants to use up their only level 7 spell slot to get over a wall, more power to 'em. I suspect they will regret being so frivolous with their spells, but that's on them.

Last time I checked, skill checks weren't a limited resource.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Rogue also got the new cool cunning action.

 

[Mistwell]

Rogue also got the new cool cunning action.

And weapon masteries, and a boost to all of their subclasses.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

a boost to all of their subclasses.

A lv6-7 subclass feature like everyone else gets?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If a spellcaster wants to use up their only level 7 spell slot to get over a wall, more power to 'em. I suspect they will regret being so frivolous with their spells, but that's on them.

Last time I checked, skill checks weren't a limited resource.

No. But going by the arguments of some people here, second wind seems to be unlimited too.

But still my point stands: why do we want the thief to be limited by things others are not. Look at the monk and the ranger. One can run up walls, the other one gets a climb skill (as of tasha), why does the thief have to have a failure chance when climbing? Why does he have a failure chance when hiding (at level 10), when the new invisibility spell gives all the benefits of being hidden at level 3?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

A lv6-7 subclass feature like everyone else gets?

Ship has sailed... sadly. I would just give them an extra feat at level 6 in the base class instead of level 10. That helps a bit.
Bards get magical secrets on the standard subclass level 10, which somehow substitutes for a subclass feature, as you surely find a spell in some list that really helps your subclass.

 

[Mistwell]

A lv6-7 subclass feature like everyone else gets?

No, and that's a vacuous claim. Do you count the quantity of features and act like that is what has meaning?

Look Fluffy, I am finding your hot takes in this thread to be lacking in substance and I am sure I don't strike you too well either. Maybe we should each focus on more substantive conversations with others?

 

[Stalker0]

How do these numbers look when comparing just the base class, instead of including the subclasses? (In case a particular subclass is imbalanced and distorting the numbers)

I intentionally choose subclasses that don't impact the offense very much. Ultimately though, base class without subclass discussion is pointless.

People sometimes assuming that:
Class = Class
Subclass = Subclass
Class + Subclass = Class + Subclass

But that is NOT how 5e works. Some classes draw more power from the subclass than others.... so you cannot look at balance without them. Only Class + Subclass = Class + Subclass (in theory).

 

[Mistwell]

I intentionally choose subclasses that don't impact the offense very much. Ultimately though, base class without subclass discussion is pointless.

People sometimes assuming that:
Class = Class
Subclass = Subclass
Class + Subclass = Class + Subclass

But that is NOT how 5e works. Some classes draw more power from the subclass than others.... so you cannot look at balance without them. Only Class + Subclass = Class + Subclass (in theory).

I entirely agree.

For DPR conversations I was using Assassin because it's the DPR focused Rogue subclass. Rogue, more than some other classes, is highly subclass sensitive since they have many different roles that are amplified by different subclasses. And given they seem to have powered-up all their subclasses (often more than they did with the subclasses of other classes like Wizard) I think it's super-relevant to include subclasses in the whole analysis of this class.