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

[Chaosmancer]

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 is a skill class. 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. Rogue was the highest rated class in the original playtest

The issue is 5E'S TWF.

People want to play as light armored dual wielders.

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.

People want to be a light armor warrior with stealth abilities but the Fighters skills and the Rogue's combat are not up to par.

You could make a Fighter/Rogue mutliclass but it takes too many levels to turn on.

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

Sounds like the Non-magical Ranger parts of the community crave. A mix of the 4e Ranger/Rogue..

1. Expertise in one skill
2. A damage bonus
3. A speed bonus
4. Light armor only
5. No shields
6. No magic in the bass chassis

Overall Rogue, Ranger, and Fighter are blatant displays of the differences between the people who were in the original 5th edition playtest and the people who play the game now 10 years later.

Even if I accept that this premise is correct (which I do not) then the solution cannot be to make Rogues worse in combat. That is a bad solution. We have seen how much taking a class like the fighter and denying them out-of-combat utility has hurt them. And things out of combat are far lower stake than things in combat tend to be.

And frankly, the dual-wielding "problem" is much better now. They only fell behind the most optimized builds, and usually only significantly behind by level 11. With the advent of weapon masteries like Nick allowing for bonus action use to continue,

Sure, a Dual-Wielding Rogue at 11th level might not match the pure DPR output of a Fighter with PAM+GWM+Charger or a Divine Smithing Paladin with PAM+GWM+Charger... but do we need them to match that DPR? Especially if they can take things like Magic Initiate for Booming Blade, Skulker to remain hidden, and can play cat and mouse with their opponents? Rogues don't fight the same way Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians do, but I do not think that makes them weak in combat, especially not weak enough to need a third buff to their damage.

 

[ECMO3]

Not really.

The thing is people want to be able to be a high dex, lightly armored, high damage melee Warrior without magic.

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.

 

[Bluenose]

Video game Rogues have high damage because there's typically no out of combat play. So they're damage is increased compensate for that.

There's a whole genre of video games based around stealth and solving puzzles. There are certainly plenty of video games where the MMO Holy Trinity means the Rogue gets to be DPS and there's almost no non-combat content, but they're a distinct minority. Garrick (from the Thief series) is simply not what you're suggesting.

Although I could see Lara Croft as one model for a 6e Rogue.

 

[Chaosmancer]

combat should make somewhat of a shift back towards being treated more like a failure state rather than the main component of play and classes should be designed with that idea kept in mind, a rogue's sub-optimal damage should be treated as less of an inherent failing because with their high skill checks and other options they can avoid your group getting into combat in the first place.

But, if you do that, then you not only lose a lot of design space, you lose a lot of what people play the game to do.

Look, I get DnD is not all combat all the time... but punching in a demon's teeth and saving a town is satisfying. And if you design the game around the idea that "if you are in combat, something has gone horribly wrong" there are only two ways to do it.

1) Cthulhu - Combat is a fail state, and the game is focused on investigations and/or politics
2) Fantasy Vietnam - Combat is a fail state, because you gave your enemy time to respond instead of killing them when they had no chance to retaliate.

And both those style of games have their place... but neither would feel like DnD to me. They are not what I am looking for when I go to craft a DnD adventure, which is far more of a balance between the various elements.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If and only if you want to do the non combat things strictly through skills. And you aren't e.g. scouting by sending in either a druid-spider as plausibly deniable or a familiar as actually expendible. Or using Pass Without Trace. And stealth is supposed to be a Rogue Thing.

Yeah, this is a rough problem for the Rogue. I heard it phrased best by the Dungeon Dudes, but the problem with the Rogue as a stealth build is that they have to follow the rules. They need cover and normal sized passageways or they cannot infiltrate.

I think this is a space to discuss improving the skill system though, rather than purely a "rogue" solution, because if the skill system gets more robust, and the rogue is given access to the heights of the system, then it naturally flows.

Then again, another minor fix would be to take the Invisible condition that comes with making a stealth check, and simply applying it unless the rogue ends their turn out of cover. So, a rogue starts their turn in the middle of a courtyard, but they can dash to cover and hide? To the guards they simply disappeared. A rogue rolled very high on their stealth, but the guard patrol passes past where they are and removes their cover? A rogue has until the end of their next turn to re-establish cover, and if they do, they won't be seen. A rogue needs to cross an empty room with guards watching the room? As long as they cross it and reestablish cover by the end of their turn, no one notices anything.

It isn't a perfect fix, but it gives just enough wiggle room to make it slightly better.

 

[Remathilis]

combat should make somewhat of a shift back towards being treated more like a failure state rather than the main component of play and classes should be designed with that idea kept in mind, a rogue's sub-optimal damage should be treated as less of an inherent failing because with their high skill checks and other options they can avoid your group getting into combat in the first place.

And yet, a module like Wild Beyond the Witchlight was mocked for having non-combat solutions to EVERY encounter in the module. "It's dumbing down D&D" "it's too kiddie" "people just want to play kumbiya rather than face danger" was the complaints.

The rogue became a combat class, just like every other class became a combat class, because DMs fed a diet of "roll for initiative" style adventures for 40 years. It was in denial about that for the first 25 (which is why classes like druid, bard, illusionist and thief were so terrible at it) but eventually WotC (and Paizo) figured out people don't want to sit bored in combat, especially when DMs were terrible about letting PCs resolve hostile encounters with anything but an initiative roll...

 

[Chaosmancer]

There's a whole genre of video games based around stealth and solving puzzles. There are certainly plenty of video games where the MMO Holy Trinity means the Rogue gets to be DPS and there's almost no non-combat content, but they're a distinct minority. Garrick (from the Thief series) is simply not what you're suggesting.

Although I could see Lara Croft as one model for a 6e Rogue.

Yeah, this really gets to a problem of definitions.

In the 2013 Tomb Raider reboot, we follow Laura Croft as she is stranded on a hostile island full of mercenaries. During the game you fight trained adult mercenaries and I believe enchanted stone samurai (that could have been the sequel) killing them with a pickaxe, like a fighter might. You also skulk around creating traps, investigating, and interacting with complex puzzles, like a rogue would. You also navigate the wilderness and use a bow and arrow, like a ranger would.

So which is she? A fighter, a ranger, or a rogue? AHA! you might say, since she does all three, she must be a multi-class character. Except, she's 16 and this is her very first adventure, it is an origin story, it doesn't quite make sense for her to be a level 6 or 8 multi-class.

The truth is, she isn't any of those classes... because she is Laura Croft, and she just has the skills needed for the gameplay to be exciting. Jake from the Primal Hunter series is an Archer, and I would likely build him as a ranger, he is also the Divine Chosen one of an immensely powerful god, has an inborn magical gift, is an alchemist, and can grow dragon wings... he just doesn't fit neatly into the class structures of DnD... because he wasn't written to do so. And when we start taking these more complex characters and trying to make them fit, and in the process we start cutting out people with fighting abilities then claiming that because we cut them out, this rogue archetype should not have fighting abilities... well, we are creating that perception by our choices of what to include. And then trying to cement that by excluding counter-examples because they can fight.

Everyone having different definitions also makes it difficult to understand what they mean

 

[CreamCloud0]

But, if you do that, then you not only lose a lot of design space, you lose a lot of what people play the game to do.

Look, I get DnD is not all combat all the time... but punching in a demon's teeth and saving a town is satisfying. And if you design the game around the idea that "if you are in combat, something has gone horribly wrong" there are only two ways to do it.

1) Cthulhu - Combat is a fail state, and the game is focused on investigations and/or politics
2) Fantasy Vietnam - Combat is a fail state, because you gave your enemy time to respond instead of killing them when they had no chance to retaliate.

And both those style of games have their place... but neither would feel like DnD to me. They are not what I am looking for when I go to craft a DnD adventure, which is far more of a balance between the various elements.

i wasn't saying reduce combat purely to being fail state but lessen the amount that it's treated as the primary intended state of play and method of resolution, recognise that combat is a strong drain on resources and often a more inefficent use of those resources compared to their out of combat uses, punching a demon's teeth in can still be part of the adventure but recognise that it'll be better for your characters in that fight if they haven't had to slog their way through a half-dozen encounters before that

 

[Minigiant]

Even if I accept that this premise is correct (which I do not) then the solution cannot be to make Rogues worse in combat. That is a bad solution. We have seen how much taking a class like the fighter and denying them out-of-combat utility has hurt them. And things out of combat are far lower stake than things in combat tend to be.

And frankly, the dual-wielding "problem" is much better now. They only fell behind the most optimized builds, and usually only significantly behind by level 11. With the advent of weapon masteries like Nick allowing for bonus action use to continue,

Sure, a Dual-Wielding Rogue at 11th level might not match the pure DPR output of a Fighter with PAM+GWM+Charger or a Divine Smithing Paladin with PAM+GWM+Charger... but do we need them to match that DPR? Especially if they can take things like Magic Initiate for Booming Blade, Skulker to remain hidden, and can play cat and mouse with their opponents? Rogues don't fight the same way Fighters, Paladins and Barbarians do, but I do not think that makes them weak in combat, especially not weak enough to need a third buff to their damage.

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?

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.

 

[bloodtide]

And the last three editions have not made the whole focus of the game combat, as I have had many sessions in 5e that are non-combat sessions.

D&D has a whole chapter on Combat, no such chapter on non combat. And if you can have non-combat sessions, why would you say each class must be combative?

However, making all characters competent in all pillars seems better to me than turning to one or two party members and saying "okay, for the next twenty minutes, only you get to play the game"

Not sure what the pillars are....but is every class competent in all pillars in 5E? In any group activity there will be times you must wait. The D&D focus on "you must roll a d20 each round and have combat" is a flaw.

And I only know Farfied and Gray Mouser because people mention them on these forums, I have literally never heard of them anywhere else, and no one else has ever mentioned them. I also have no idea who Regis, Danny Ocean, Ethan Hunt, Mal, Zoe or Jayn are. Though I have heard a little bit about Firefly from the grapevine.

Different Strokes...

However, my point at throwing my own list of names at you was to show that these archetypes are not limited, and some of your criteria is is haphazard at best. You mention Hon Solo doesn't fight on the frontline, as in, with a melee weapon... neither do the VAST VAST majority of Star Wars characters. Other than Jedi or Sith with lightsabers in the first 6 movies (haven't seen the newest ones) EVERYONE uses guns. Are we going to say that the Stormtroopers, literal soldiers of the empire are not fighters because they use guns?

It does not matter if the attack is ranged.

You also have to consider the genre. A Rogue character in a movie about fighting monster bugs is going to have combat capabilities, because a conman with a silver tongue who can't fight doesn't make a good member of a team of fighters in a story about following that team fighting. That's why it seems silly to me that you are taking a Spy like Bond and saying he has Fighter and Artificer levels. Sure, he uses gadgets.. it is a high action spy movie, gadgets are part of the genre.

And James Bond, for example...is a 20th level character too...

And yet, if you want to build a spy character... you'd go with a rogue. Even if it meant cutting the gadgets, because you aren't going to use the Fighter's heavy plate mail on a spy like Bond or Twilight.

Well, not in 5E, as the Super Attack is a waste of an ability. I'd pick a spellcaster so I can have sneaky spy abilities...not doing massive damage.

So which is she? A fighter, a ranger, or a rogue? AHA! you might say, since she does all three, she must be a multi-class character. Except, she's 16 and this is her very first adventure, it is an origin story, it doesn't quite make sense for her to be a level 6 or 8 multi-class.

This is a big problem with a lot of modern movies: Characters are born demigods. If she is 16, then she should be weak, unexperienced, and not so great. The idea that she learned everything about everything as a kid is just silly.

The truth is, she isn't any of those classes... because she is Laura Croft, and she just has the skills needed for the gameplay to be exciting. Jake from the Primal Hunter series is an Archer, and I would likely build him as a ranger, he is also the Divine Chosen one of an immensely powerful god, has an inborn magical gift, is an alchemist, and can grow dragon wings... he just doesn't fit neatly into the class structures of DnD... because he wasn't written to do so. And when we start taking these more complex characters and trying to make them fit, and in the process we start cutting out people with fighting abilities then claiming that because we cut them out, this rogue archetype should not have fighting abilities... well, we are creating that perception by our choices of what to include. And then trying to cement that by excluding counter-examples because they can fight.

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