D&D (2024) Maybe this is a bit late, but let's talk about Rogue's Niche, and What Rogue Should Be.

[Minigiant]

IME very few players want anything without any magic in 5E. Among Rogues AT is the most popular subclass I see by a sizable margin and those that are not ATs usually pick up Booming Blade and/or Green Flame Blade in some way.

Most people I see play Rogues do it for the bonus action options and subclass options, many of which are unique to the class. Others play it for the skill abilities, although that is probably not enough to carry the class.

Players are going to be disappointed if they try to make a Rogue play like a lightly armored Warrior. Rogue players need to be the kind of PCs who are going to go in for a sneak attack for ok (not great) damage and then use a Bonus action fast hands or mage hand to tie the enemies shoe laces together or to drop a chandaleer on someone. PCs and players that want to do that kind of fun stuff in combat are the ones that shine and have the most fun playing a Rogue. A basic fighter or really any martial and in fact most casters offer a better platform for someone looking for high damage numbers and someone that is looking for damage numbers in combat is probably not going to be happy with the class.

I agree with the bolded.

Fans have to accept that the Fighter will always outdamage the Rogue in any following edition. The WOW/EQ/FF rogue that is raw DPS and out damages the heavy tank doesn't exist in D&D, Pathfinder, or any other D&D clone.

If you want to sneak up on a foe and DEAL DA MOST DAMAEG in D&D, you need to play fighter, ranger, or some new class.

 

[Neonchameleon]

My solution was to boost Dex Fighter or create a new class.

But how far behind is a Rogue with Vex Rapier and Nick Scimitar from a Fighter with a Vex Rapier and Nick Scimitar?

That depends (although without a feat you can't use a rapier) - and the role of the nick weapon is very different for the two builds.

A key difference is that the principle the rogue should be using their dagger on most of the time is "if the left don't get you then the right one will". If the shortsword hits you keep the dagger in reserve because it only does 1d4 damage and you want Advantage on your next attack. If it misses and you are double teaming the foe? The dagger now does 1d4+Sneak Attack damage.

Meanwhile the fighter is doing d6+Dex damage with both their shortsword and their scimitar. So a very different damage profile and relationship to armour.

For back of the envelope numbers the rogue does d6+4 +3d6SA damage with their shortsword at L5 and a potential extra D6 off-hand. Meanwhile the two weapon fighter does 3xd6+4. So that's 5d6+4 Vs 3d6+12. Not much in it especially with the rogue more likely to get advantage.

The part Rogue players have to suck up is

A damage-build D&D Rogue will never outdamage a damage-build D&D fighter outside of 4e.
The designers will never allow it. Because D&D is not a videogame with no OOC.

They didn't in reality out damage a damage build fighter in 4e over normal length fights; sneak attack being 1/turn and limited access to multiple attacks saw to that. But good rogues threw in a whole lot of control effects.

 

[tetrasodium]

D&D has a whole chapter on Combat, no such chapter on non combat.

That's because

Spoiler: it's a book

That book is Called the Dungeon Master's Guide.

One of the stated goals of the 2024 rewrite is doing a better job with that book and hopefully writing it for the needs of the person responsible for drawing from that book at the table.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I believe @bloodtide position is That the rogue isn't a warrior class. If you want to be a warrior , play a warrior class.

The rogue isn't a warrior class - but they have always had warrior-type damage right since the TSR days when they could backstab with two handed weapons.

What has historically separated them from the more mainstream warriors has never been their ability to dish out a hit. It has always been their ability to take one. Their armour is light, their hit points mediocre, and before 5e's Uncanny Dodge their defensive tech poor.

The rogue is a skill class.

If only they were any good at it. Proficiency is too small a bonus in tier 1 and tier 2 - and so many skills are made irrelevant by magic

Especially in 5.24 where the fighter's ability to use Second Wind on skills lets them outdo the rogue.

People play it as a warrior class and they get upset. In order to get the rogue to the correct amount of feeling and skills and they had to weaken his combat ability.

This is simply not true. The problem was that they (for whatever reason) made the fighter no more use than a Commoner out of combat. They then made the rogue only a little better.

In reality druids and familiars out-scout rogues at most levels because rogues stick to the basic rules. The fighter and barbarian would not be even vaguely OP if they had rogue level skills - and the rogue moved that much further along.

Rogue was the highest rated class in the original playtest

Because compared to the 3.5 rogue it's the bomb. You need to have played a bit to realise how mediocre it is before Reliable Talent.

However fighter base dual wielding is weak.
Ranger base dual thing is better but requires magic which they don't want to use.
Rogue based to wielding is the best but it is under the damage threshold chosen by the community.

Where "chosen by the community" = what the benchmarks are found to be in play.

The obvious solution is to just make a class that is a mix of a fighter and a rogue without the magic.

The obvious solution is to fix both the fighter to not be a supernumerary out of combat and fix the rogue.

 

[Minigiant]

The rogue isn't a warrior class - but they have always had warrior-type damage right since the TSR days when they could backstab with two handed weapons.

What has historically separated them from the more mainstream warriors has never been their ability to dish out a hit. It has always been their ability to take one. Their armour is light, their hit points mediocre, and before 5e's Uncanny Dodge their defensive tech poor

False.

TSR went out their way to make backstab hard to do.
WOTC forced you to have a flanker and made a bunch of monsters immune in 3e.

In 2e and 3e, If your rogue or thief decided that they were going to hold back and take sides to fight a heavily armored CR appropriate knight as your fighter for the other knight

1) The rogue or thief would not kill the knight.
2) The Rogue or thief Be killed by the knight

The rogue or thief has not ever been a fighter substitution in D&D. The rogue is not a warrior class.

The rogue has only outdamaged to fighter or other warrior classes in 4e. The road has never out tank the fighter or any Warrior classes.

If only they were any good at it. Proficiency is too small a bonus in tier 1 and tier 2 - and so many skills are made irrelevant by magic

Especially in 5.24 where the fighter's ability to use Second Wind on skills lets them outdo the rogue

I agree that this is an error in design.

This is simply not true. The problem was that they (for whatever reason) made the fighter no more use than a Commoner out of combat. They then made the rogue only a little better.

In reality druids and familiars out-scout rogues at most levels because rogues stick to the basic rules. The fighter and barbarian would not be even vaguely OP if they had rogue level skills - and the rogue moved that much further along.

More design errors I agree.

Rogues and fighters suffer the most from the modern desire to have low numbers and simple characters.

But none of this goes to the core problem.

What do rogue character players want?

If it's too outdamage the fighter sorry that's never going to happen and then D&D or most D&D adjacent games.

If it's to outskill most other classes you might be able to get designers to back that and support that

If it's to have more skill options than most other classes you might be able to get designers to back that and support that

 

[Remathilis]

The "Every player wants to be the special chosen one" is yet another problem.

Yes, why EVER would D&D players want to emulate the vast majority of fiction protagonists when they could be playing nobodies who throw themselves into endless meatgrinders to eventually earn third level maybe a name? (not as in reputation, as in "Well, fighter #14 made it third, lets name him a real name now.)

This is absolutely one of my biggest pet peeves. The idea that PCs shouldn't be special. That they should be any Tom, Dick or Sally that managed to pick up a sword or wand. That Luke, Han, and Leia should have just been a random farmboy, smuggler, and senator rather than have destinies tied to the most powerful villains in galaxy. That PCs should just be Pete on Deadpool's X-Force. No thank you. I'm a random nobody in real life, I'd like to pretend to be someone special when I play pretend, thank you very much!

 

[Remathilis]

Especially in 5.24 where the fighter's ability to use Second Wind on skills lets them outdo the rogue.

This is simply not true. The problem was that they (for whatever reason) made the fighter no more use than a Commoner out of combat. They then made the rogue only a little better.

The obvious solution is to fix both the fighter to not be a supernumerary out of combat and fix the rogue.

Can I ask how all three of these sentences can be true at the same time?

 

[Minigiant]

Can I ask how all three of these sentences can be true at the same time?

Easy. I'll answer for him.

WOTC screwed up. They built fifth edition around full encounter spotlight stealing and the wrong amount of encounters per day.

The Fighter is a warrior
The Rogue is an expert

In Combat with appropriate # of encounters: Warriors >Experts, Mages, and Priests

In Out of Combat with appropriate # of encounters:: Mages, and Priests >Experts >>>>>>Warriors

 

[CreamCloud0]

Yes, why EVER would D&D players want to emulate the vast majority of fiction protagonists when they could be playing nobodies who throw themselves into endless meatgrinders to eventually earn third level maybe a name? (not as in reputation, as in "Well, fighter #14 made it third, lets name him a real name now.)

This is absolutely one of my biggest pet peeves. The idea that PCs shouldn't be special. That they should be any Tom, Dick or Sally that managed to pick up a sword or wand. That Luke, Han, and Leia should have just been a random farmboy, smuggler, and senator rather than have destinies tied to the most powerful villains in galaxy. That PCs should just be Pete on Deadpool's X-Force. No thank you. I'm a random nobody in real life, I'd like to pretend to be someone special when I play pretend, thank you very much!

whereas some people want their character's achievements to be because of their own hard work and effort, not because they're a nepo-baby of destiny.

it's really really satisfying to win knowing the universe was rigged for you all along. /s

 

[Neonchameleon]

False.

TSR went out their way to make backstab hard to do.
WOTC forced you to have a flanker and made a bunch of monsters immune in 3e.

In 2e and 3e, If your rogue or thief decided that they were going to hold back and take sides to fight a heavily armored CR appropriate knight as your fighter for the other knight

1) The rogue or thief would not kill the knight.
2) The Rogue or thief Be killed by the knight

The rogue or thief has not ever been a fighter substitution in D&D. The rogue is not a warrior class.

Come back with those goalposts. Who is asking for the rogue to be a "fighter substitution". Other than straw-people.

The rogue has always been a high damage mobile glass cannon. If the rogue tried fighting as a knight they wouldn't be fighting as a rogue. You are arguing against a strawman.

The rogue has only outdamaged to fighter or other warrior classes in 4e.

A backstabbing rogue out damaged a fighter in 1e and frequently even 2e. A flanking rogue wasn't limited to sneak attack being 1/round or 1/turn in 3.x; multi-sneak attacking rogues were an easy way to get high damage. And there were good reasons rogues were dual wielders of choice.

Rogues have always been strikers and able to bring the damage when able to behave like rogues.

The road has never out tank the fighter or any Warrior classes.

5e is the only version of D&D where this is in question.

Rogues and fighters suffer the most from the modern desire to have low numbers and simple characters.

But none of this goes to the core problem.

What do rogue character players want?

If it's too outdamage the fighter sorry that's never going to happen and then D&D or most D&D adjacent games

Other than in oD&D, 1e, 3.0, 3.5, and 4e when the fighters are built like tanks and the rogues are able to do rogue things.

The only edition where rogues when able to do rogue things didn't handily out damage tank-specced fighters (as opposed to damage specced fighters) was 2e where Weapon Mastery was overturned and doing rogue things was harder even than 1e due to subtle nerfs. The 2e rogue was in a far worse place than the 5e monk and probably even than the 3.0 monk. While the 1e monk was just a 1e rogue

5e however has two weird things that to me seriously undermine the long term feels:

1. Ultra-tough rogues thanks to Uncanny Dodge
2. Rogues who take a minimum of both risk and effort to do rogue things (you just need one ally next to the foe)

What I want to feel as a rogue is that I'm dancing on the edge. As in almost every edition I am very effective at taking out foes - but to do it I'm taking risks and outthinking the foe. The 4e rogue gave me that in spades (including the skill focus) but the 5e rogue is too tough and too easy to get their advantages with.

The platonic ideal of a rogue to me is Justice League Batman - seriously overmatched and can barely take a slap from most Justice League foes, but incredibly smart and dangerous, operating from the shadows, and when he strikes it's a game changer.

If it's to outskill most other classes you might be able to get designers to back that and support that

If only skills were worth more...

If it's to have more skill options than most other classes you might be able to get designers to back that and support that

If only skills options were worth anything compared to spells.