The rogue is fighting with a melee character to get Sneak Attack. The other melee PC is the reason why the rogue isn't chased around the field. And when they hit level 5, they can use uncanny dodge.
Or use Steady Aim from Tashas and stick in the back with a crossbow.
Steady aim is useful at times, both in melee and ranged, but hardly somethign you can do effectively every single turn, especially with cover.
The Rogue is fighting with a melee character to get SA and without that other character he sucks. He is pretty bad unless you build him specifically to be able to reliably create his own sneak attack and if you do that without picking a race that gets medium armor you are way behind.
People are throwing up all these conditions the Rogue can do as much damage IF there is another PC in melee, he doesn;t need a blocking character because another PC is doing that. If all those things are true he won't get attacked a lot so he worse AC won't matter and he will reliably do SA so he can keep it close in damage. IF-IF-IF then he can almost match a fighter.
All of that is conditions and it illustrates why as a class the Rogues are inferior to a fighter in combat.
A fighter needs none of that. He can be surrounded by orcs and still do full damage. The entire party can be down and he is still a combat machine.If a player comes to my table with a 16/8/10 fighter with 16 Charisma, I'd assume we were running a joke campaign.
If a player comes to my table with a 16/8/10 fighter with 16 Charisma, I'd assume we were running a joke campaign.
Whatever. You play what you want. I have played and DMd at plenty tables
Rogues have good AC and one of the highest mobility in the game. What 5e are you playing
They have the highest mobility in the game, higher even than a Monk until very high levels. But their AC is bad unless they are an AT with shield or they get medium armor through a feat or race.
I am playing 5E according to the rules. The maximum AC a point buy Rogue can have at 1st level is 15 without a feat or racial ability, that is tied for THE WORST in the game. Here are classes ranked first to last in terms of maximum AC at first level.
Fighter: 21
Paladin: 20
Ranger: 19
Artificer: 19
Cleric: 19 (more if he picks a subclass with heavy armor, and more with spells)
Barbarian: 19
Druid: 17
Wizard/sorcerer: 16 (21 with shield)
Warlock: 15 (or 19 for a hexblade or 24 for a hexblade with shield)
Rogue/Bard: 15
Now Rogues will usually have a better dexterity than some of the others near the bottom, but their AC will still be among the worst of any class and it will stay that way unless they have a feat, spell or racial ability that improves it.
Thanks for making my point.
Fans say knights and nobles are fighters but fighters make poor knights and nobles in 5e.
Fans are wrong and 5E rules say both knight and noble PCs can be any class.
Never mentioned hard checks. I said moderate checks.
You said they would fail most checks. At 5th level and above that is not true for moderate checks. A moderate check is DC
You are confusing me for someone else.
Yes and a DC 14 is not an easy check.
And those are for level 1 mundane obstacles and 1HD NPCs.
And fighter still suck at those checks.
Because its weak.
That's my main argument with you.
I don't ask for easy checks often. You do.
You think a fighter with 10 Dex and 8 Con is good. I think that's crazy talk.
Your game is easier than standard so a nerfed fighter works fine there.