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

[pogre]

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. To make matters worse, the thing the rogue does semi-decently is to move ahead of the party and scout the situation - in other words, the best use of a rogue is fun for exactly one player at the table.

I am pretty much a DM exclusively, but I could not disagree with the player's point of view.

If you value the enjoyment of the game by the group as a whole - why ever play a rogue? What can a rogue do better than anyone else?

BTW - with the last name of Pogue, I am particularly sensitive to folks labeling the class FKA thief as some sort of make-up

 

[billd91]

Since, in 5e, those wizard spells are no longer so easy to put into 50 charge wands, each invisibility, spider climb, or knock spell comes at an increased cost. Why spend so flexible, limited, and thus valuable a resource on something the rogue can do all day? Doing it in a pinch or for a limited operation is one thing, doing it all day long in a dungeon is something quite different.

A rogue's cunning action is also really useful for situations in which they get into trouble. And, again, a lot cheaper than a barrage of misty steps.

 

[GMMichael]

BTW - with the last name of Pogue, I am particularly sensitive to folks labeling the class FKA thief as some sort of make-up

So, no comments about rosey cheeks?

Almost everything a rogue does - the wizard does better. Knock, Invisibility, and other spells are effectively better than the rogue's skills. To make matters worse, the thing the rogue does semi-decently is to move ahead of the party and scout the situation - in other words, the best use of a rogue is fun for exactly one player at the table. . .

If you value the enjoyment of the game by the group as a whole - why ever play a rogue? What can a rogue do better than anyone else?

Don't forget that the rogue is excellent at starting arguments about the merit of Expertise.

Does the wizard have a decent backstab spell? And if it doesn't kill the stone giant, can the wizard survive the club attack that's sure to follow?

I, for one, am perfectly happy to let the rogue have the fun if it means she is springing the traps and I'm not.

The best answer is that sure, the wizard can do roguey-stuff. But the rogue can do it non-stop. The wizard needs Rests to continue.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Having played both, I disagree that a wizard is a better rogue in 5e.

Let's compare getting a door open. Knock not only creates a loud noise (which will often be counter productive to picking the lock) but also uses up a limited resource (spell slots). Whereas the rogue can pick locks all day.

Sneaking. The wizard can cast invisibility, but that doesn't improve his sneak check and it costs a limited resource. Granted, without invisibility a rogue cannot try to hide in plain sight, but with cover or concealment he can hide all day. IME, the rogue is the best target for invisibility.

In both cases, with IMO the likeliest choices for expertise (stealth and thieves tools) the rogue is fairly unlikely to fail those checks.

Again, IME the only rogue thing a wizard arguably does better is act as a forward scout via a familiar (or at later levels, spells like Arcane Eye). The rogue will likely have a better perception, so it isn't always preferable, but the familiar is far more expendable than the rogue, which is a big plus.

I would say I enjoyed playing my rogue more than my wizard, though both were quite effective overall.

 

[Richards]

BTW - with the last name of Pogue....

Ah! Screen name explained! I love it!

Johnathan

 

[FrozenNorth]

Maybe my experience is off because I mostly play with new players, but wizards really don’t replace rogues.

Rogues are excellent for new players. For minimum investment you get a character that does good damage, (If ranged) has decent survivability even if played sub-optimally, and has the skills to participate (and often excel) in the social pillar (which is often a challenge for new players).

Saying wizards can replace rogues strikes me as white room thinking. The wizard can’t count on scribing an unlimited amount of spells, so choosing Knock, Invisibility etc. has an opportunity cost of not taking a spell that is more generally useful.

 

[pogre]

Saying wizards can replace rogues strikes me as white room thinking. The wizard can’t count on scribing an unlimited amount of spells, so choosing Knock, Invisibility etc. has an opportunity cost of not taking a spell that is more generally useful.

In one sense, I agree it is a bit of white room thinking. However, I do have a player building a character who is considering these questions - thus, there is a practical application for us.

 

[pogre]

Having played both, I disagree that a wizard is a better rogue in 5e.

I would say I enjoyed playing my rogue more than my wizard, though both were quite effective overall.

Thanks for replying. Can you explain why you found the rogue more enjoyable? That might help my player in his considerations.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

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. To make matters worse, the thing the rogue does semi-decently is to move ahead of the party and scout the situation - in other words, the best use of a rogue is fun for exactly one player at the table.

I am pretty much a DM exclusively, but I could not disagree with the player's point of view.

If you value the enjoyment of the game by the group as a whole - why ever play a rogue? What can a rogue do better than anyone else?

BTW - with the last name of Pogue, I am particularly sensitive to folks labeling the class FKA thief as some sort of make-up

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.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Thanks for replying. Can you explain why you found the rogue more enjoyable? That might help my player in his considerations.

My wizard had some great moments, like the time he fried dozens of giant wasps that would have wrecked the party with a series of fireballs. Or how he saved the party fighter who was at single digit hp when we were surrounded by stone giants by polymorphing him into a giant ape.

My rogue was not only effective at combat (though sneak attack is very satisfying). He once snuck into a duergar mine by distracting the guards in order to discover the secret temple they were unearthing below. And he was skilled in bluff and persuasion, so he had a knack for charming people and getting them to see things his way. With cunning action, if I got into trouble, I could typically also get myself out of it.

My wizard probably had more tools at hand if given time to long rest, but my rogue had more tools at any given moment.