D&D 5E Want a better Rogue? Build a Wizard. Or why play a Rogue?

[Dausuul]

The title describes a conversation I recently had with a player. He likes to build characters of all types - not necessarily a min/maxer, but tries to embrace what a class is good at it. He could not come up with a fun build for a rogue. Almost everything a rogue does - the wizard does better. Knock, Invisibility, and other spells are effectively better than the rogue's skills.

Your player is... well, let's just say he isn't reading the spells carefully, or the relevant rules.

Knock in 5E is virtually useless. It makes a noise that alerts everyone within 300 feet! You might as well just hand a sledgehammer to the party fighter and save your spell slot. I don't think I have ever once seen this spell used or even prepared.

Invisibility is useful, but it does not excuse you from having to make Dexterity (Stealth) checks--it just gives you the opportunity to do so without needing cover. If you blow the roll, you will be detected regardless. As a result, invisibility is most effective when used as a buff for the stealthiest PC. The invisible wizard and the visible rogue are decent infiltrators, but an invisible rogue is vastly superior to either.

To make matters worse, the thing the rogue does semi-decently is to move ahead of the party and scout the situation.

Um... no. Rogues can do far more than scout. They are highly mobile combatants that can deal a lot of single-target damage, and their opportunity attacks are devastating. Expertise and extra skills allow them to be exceptional party faces, second only to bards.

 

[pogre]

Well at least you asked rather than just gloss over the issue. How many encounters do you generally have between long rests?
The length of the adventuring day can be the foundation of whether casters are overpowdered compared to non-casters. If the casters aren't reduced to cantrips during some encounters, they are going to overshadow the others, and shorter adventuring days only highlight the issue.
Changing the encounters per long rest is less than just making a cosmetic change to the rogue, and won't be regarded as a slap in the face by the wizard.

Judging by most threads around here I am closer to the standard 6-8 encounters per day than most folks. It's just that I typically have one situation during that time which a rogue could shine in - a trap, a scouting opportunity, etc. I could increase those opportunities and sometimes do - there are lots of traps in the old crypt, etc. The truth is though that the PCs are unlikely to face such challenges more than once or twice in an adventuring day.

 

[Undrave]

Personally I'd say the WARLOCK is closer to replacing the Rogue than the Wizard, simply because they can recharge Invisibilty and Spider Climb on Short Rest (then at 5th level they can essentially become invisible At-Will provided they don't move or take action and then later they can cast Invisibility at will!) and they have an Invocation that lets them cast Disguise Self at will. With a Criminal Background and possibly the Actor feat, they can be pretty effective. Even without Expertise.

 

[Dausuul]

then at 5th level they can essentially become invisible At-Will provided they don't move or take action...

That's like saying you can drive a Ferrari provided you don't start the engine. Anyway, as I pointed out above, invisibility is not a substitute for stealth in 5E.

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd go with the artificer for ultimate rogue: tool expertise, flash of genius, spell-storing item for invisibility, spider climb or such.
Infuse item: wand of detection, rope of climbing, goggle of night, gloves of thievery, boot/cape of elvenkind, etc

 

[Son of the Serpent]

If the wizard is SPECIFICALLY built to be a rogue with NO attempt to also be a good wizard, provided there osnt like...10 encounters, i do think its possible to to make a wizard rogue better than a rogue rogues. This is in the specific case where you never evwn built it to do the wizard's job. And you need to take feats too.

If you never even bother to make the wizard more of a wizard ajd you strictly build them for rogueing, then yeah. I think a wizard can pull this off.

You can also use glyph of warding creatively to replace backstab. At a distance. A huge distance.

If a wizard is done correctly rogues are basically obsolete. But you have to make the wizard DIRECTLY for that purpose.

 

[Undrave]

That's like saying you can drive a Ferrari provided you don't start the engine. Anyway, as I pointed out above, invisibility is not a substitute for stealth in 5E.

Sure but it combines with Stealth skill training well.

 

[Prakriti]

I have never seen a Wizard tank five fireball spells, but I have seen a level 7-8 Rogue do it (thanks to Evasion and proficiency in Dexterity saving throws).

In a full party of five, the Rogue was the last one standing against an Arcanaloth.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Play a rogue if you want to do rogue stuff because they are so much fun. IF you want to be a magicky rogue, play an arcane trickster and you'll still get to cast knock and invisibility and spider climb. You just won't ever need to.

My favorite rogue was a 10 year old boy. Do you know how often kids are overlooked in social situations? It was like having a free pass to explore people's houses while the 'adults' were talking about 'important stuff(yawn) in another room '.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I have never seen a Wizard tank five fireball spells, but I have seen a level 7-8 Rogue do it (thanks to Evasion and proficiency in Dexterity saving throws).

In a full party of five, the Rogue was the last one standing against an Arcanaloth.

First of all, if you are doing things correctly its very unlikely you will have to tank 5 fireballs.

Secondly, i would call that "tanking" the fireball spells in the slightest.

Thirdly, yeah. Wizards can avoid stuff like that too, when they are not in the slightest built to be a wizard.

Fourthly, im unsurprised. I doubt the wizards in question were built to do anything like that. Because they were built to be wizards. The wizard in question is basically not a wizard. They are a rogue. That is built using wizard rules. With no quarter given to a wizard ability they can get rid of in favor of being a rogue.

Consider this. Fly (not necessarily the spell fly), greater invisibility (you can cast spells while using both and it doesnt get rid of grwater invisibility). Racial abilities to assist. Stealth skill training. Spell glyph. Congratulations. You have a stealth bomber thay can attack from long range with impunity.