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

[FitzTheRuke]

So yeah, when it comes to partys with a Rogue, I think about 50% is a pretty good guess that also have strength-based martial who is also proficient in Athletics.

That just sounds to me like you play with players who have done "the math" and value Dex-martials and Casters more than your average, play-what-I-feel-like players.

IME, with many hundreds of players (running games at my FLGS), the likelihood of a STR-based character with Athletics in any given party is near 100%. Whether there's a rogue or not. Four of the 12 classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, & Ranger) lend themselves to it, plus the Cleric will often have 14 or better, and quite often have Athletics. Heck, I've seen Bards with decent STR and Athletics!

You play a very different game than I'm used to seeing.

 

[James Gasik]

I mean if anecdotal evidence is acceptable, in my current party, the highest-Strength character is our Cleric (16), who lacks Athletics. The Ranger is Dexterity-based, and neither the Bard or my Wizard have much Strength. The Monk has Str 12 and is proficient in Athletics, giving him a score slightly higher than the Cleric's (+4).

Any Strength challenges we've come across so far have either required multiple characters to begin with, or can benefit from Guidance and the Help Action. If more came up that we couldn't use Help for, we could prepare Enhance Ability, but it hasn't been needed yet.

There was one fight where Strength saves were quite dangerous, but somehow we survived it (we were facing wolf monsters that required a Str save with their bite or they knock you prone; they then had a bonus action attack against a prone target for hefty damage).

As for how often Dexterity comes up, several fights were made very easier due to winning initiative, the party has been lightning bolted three times now, and everyone but the Cleric relies on Dexterity for AC. Opening locked doors and bypassing traps has been important-both I and the Rogue have proficiency in Thieves' Tools, I'm skilled in Investigate, and the Monk has the best Perception in the party (+10 since he took a level of Rogue).

Carrying capacity hasn't really been an issue since we're using the basic 15 lbs. x Strength score rules. We did find a Bag of Holding, but it's really only used to carry coins, and we have way more money than we know quite what to do with at the moment.

A Strength+Athletics character has their uses, but we've been getting by without one, even in our recent fight with a lich where we had to use grapple to drag them away from a throne that protected them from spells.

 

[Clint_L]

It's usual to have one strength-based character in the party, because tanking is still very valuable in 5e, even if not as well defined as in, say 4e. But it's not mandatory. Maybe there's a moon druid, or maybe the party just opts to be without a tank because no one is interested. In my experience, this makes battles a lot more dangerous, but one of my recent campaigns had a monk, rogue/warlock, ranger, druid (not moon) and wizard, and they muddled through. Any kind of strength challenge was very hard for them, with the highest strength in the party being 10! A simple giant rolling ball blocking a passage, a la Raiders of the Lost Ark, almost doomed them!

So I agree that you are very likely to have a character with athletics, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is near 100%.

 

[Clint_L]

Getting back to the OP, are we all pretty much in agreement that just giving rogues the extra attack feature at level 5, like all other martial classes get, would go a long way and not be unbalancing?

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I mean if anecdotal evidence is acceptable, in my current party, the highest-Strength character is our Cleric (16), who lacks Athletics. The Ranger is Dexterity-based, and neither the Bard or my Wizard have much Strength. The Monk has Str 12 and is proficient in Athletics, giving him a score slightly higher than the Cleric's (+4).

Any Strength challenges we've come across so far have either required multiple characters to begin with, or can benefit from Guidance and the Help Action. If more came up that we couldn't use Help for, we could prepare Enhance Ability, but it hasn't been needed yet.

There was one fight where Strength saves were quite dangerous, but somehow we survived it (we were facing wolf monsters that required a Str save with their bite or they knock you prone; they then had a bonus action attack against a prone target for hefty damage).

As for how often Dexterity comes up, several fights were made very easier due to winning initiative, the party has been lightning bolted three times now, and everyone but the Cleric relies on Dexterity for AC. Opening locked doors and bypassing traps has been important-both I and the Rogue have proficiency in Thieves' Tools, I'm skilled in Investigate, and the Monk has the best Perception in the party (+10 since he took a level of Rogue).

Carrying capacity hasn't really been an issue since we're using the basic 15 lbs. x Strength score rules. We did find a Bag of Holding, but it's really only used to carry coins, and we have way more money than we know quite what to do with at the moment.

A Strength+Athletics character has their uses, but we've been getting by without one, even in our recent fight with a lich where we had to use grapple to drag them away from a throne that protected them from spells.

I don't think anyone was suggesting that you can't get by without one, or that DEX isn't the #1 most useful ability. It's more a matter of whether or not "NO ONE (in the party) with STR and/or Athletics" happens ~50% of the time (in "your average" game).

I think that I might have seen it once or twice. Like your party above. But not often.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Getting back to the OP, are we all pretty much in agreement that just giving rogues the extra attack feature at level 5, like all other martial classes get, would go a long way and not be unbalancing?

I think that would be fine!

 

[ECMO3]

That just sounds to me like you play with players who have done "the math" and value Dex-martials and Casters more than your average, play-what-I-feel-like players.

Yes and no.
If you look at it by class: Barbarians and Paladins are still usually strength based. Rangers and Rogues are usually Dex based and Monks are always dex based.

So out of the 5 five martial classes 60% are inclined towards dexterity based on the rules.

So that leaves fighter which goes both ways. As you note it is more powerful running dex, but even if you assume players don't look at this you are still only half of fighters that are strength.

Put this together and there are substantially more dex-based martials.

Now start a party that has a Rogue in it already and you are left with only few other characters. I think it would be uncommon to have more than one of them be another martial and over half of those are going to be dex-based

 

[ECMO3]

. It's more a matter of whether or not "NO ONE (in the party) with STR and/or Athletics" happens ~50% of the time (in "your average" game).

No that is not the argument. The argument is in a party that already has a Rogue also has another character with BOTH Strength AND athletics (not and/or) in your average game.

I said that happens in about 50% of the time and I do not think that is low.

 

[ECMO3]

Strength based fighter barbarian or paladin PCs generally makes up like 30-50% of players at my tables(both AL and regular)

How many players are Rogues, Dex-based Rangers, Dex-based Fighters and Monks combined? And then how many are full casters combined?

Data on DND beyond from 2020 indicates fighters (13%), barbarians (8%) and Paladins (7%) together compromise 28% of characters total and that number includes many dex-based fighters and a few odball dex-based Paladins. If you aqssume half the fighters are strength it would be 21% total

Rangers, Rogues and Monks made 25% combined, add in in half the fighters would make that 31%

Full casters were 45% combined on DND beyond in 2020.

In my games would say it is probably about 20% of all PCs that are strength based martials (including the oddball strength Rogue and strength Ranger), making it relatively common. But they are not ubiquotous in every party, especially parties that already have a Rogue.

I put up 5 current/recent games I am in above as examples with 22 total PCs, that included:
4 Strength martials (including one multiclass Fighter/Rogue) - 18%
7 Dex martials (includes 2 Rogues and 1 fighter) - 32%
9 full casters - 41%
1 Artificer - 5%
1 Bard/Rogue multiclass - 5%

So my anecdote from recent games tracks well with the numbers from DND beyond above. Here is the DNDB numbers:

D&D: And The Most Popular Class Is...

We're looking at the most popular classes according to the latest data and seeing how your favorites stack up. But one class stands a cut above the rest.

www.belloflostsouls.net

 

[FitzTheRuke]

No that is not the argument. The argument is in a party that already has a Rogue also has another character with BOTH Strength AND athletics (not and/or) in your average game.

That is what I thought you meant - 50% of the time no one in the party is STR/Athletics based. I guess your caveat is "when there is a Rogue in the party".

I said that happens in about 50% of the time and I do not think that is low.

And I think that it's extremely low. You also seem to think that DEX-based fighters happen 50% of the time, and I think THAT is extremely low, too. It doesn't matter that DEX-based fighters are very good, it's just not how (IMO) most people play the game.

Most Star Wars fans watch the movies without complaining about them; Most comic book fans read their comics and don't worry about how much they'll be "worth" some day; Most sports fans go to the game without wearing their team's colors painted on their faces; AND Most D&D players play what they like without worrying about if it's "powerful" or not.

Because of that last point, I don't think DEX is as dominant out there in the (rest of) the world as it is in your game.