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

[Mort]

More than that - it probably is a reflection of how I run my campaign. I'm not really big on a lot of social skill rolls and I run a lot of combat in D&D. So, I think, kind of the opposite of your inference here, the player is very perceptive about the limitations of the class relative to my campaign and how I run D&D.

5e rogues are DEVASTATING in combat!

Between cunning action, sneak attack (which is much easier to pull off than prior editions thus a lot more common) and proper use of the hide skill they really bring a lot to the battlefield.

Is your player used to 3e/3.5? Because what you're saying is certainly true in that edition (I even remember starting a long thread on the very topic), but almost all of those issues have been fixed in 5e.

 

[Fenris-77]

Even in a combat heavy game the rogue is going to be a solid addition to the party. As @Mort says, they are quite good in combat in 5e, and they bring mobility that the righter doesn't. The benefit of the wizard isn't to be underestimated of course, but there are diminishing returns when it comes to stacking full casters, and they aren't a straight replacement for what the rogue brings to the table. The Bard might be closer since he can still fill the skill monkey role, but he's not even close to a replacement for the rogue in melee.

 

[Hoffmand]

The day wizards stop turning invisible, flying, teleporting, and charming people in d&d is the day I might as well play a different game. That’s kinda what wizards do. But I don’t think the 5E rogue is hurting. It may be the most effective and well rounded class in the game.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The Rogue can get a familiar as a Arcane Trickers or with a feat, or in the case of a Thief with a Find Familiar scroll when it gets use magic item feature.

Yeah, I mean technically any class can get Find Familiar via the Ritual Caster feat, which is really the way to go if you want a "disposable" familiar. 10 minutes and 10 gold is nothing in most cases, but a spell slot is costly even at high levels (since that could instead be a casting of Shield).

I still gotta give it to wizards in this particular respect, since they can cast it as both a spell and a ritual as needed, without it costing a feat. Plus, they get access to the better divination spells like Arcane Eye earlier than any rogue.

That said, I do think the rogue is better overall. A familiar can be foiled by a simple closed door, whereas a rogue won't be (just for starters). The familiar is simply more expendable, which is a significant advantage for a forward scout in a game like D&D. A rogue with a familiar is in many respects the best of both worlds.

 

[Garthanos]

The truth is though that the PCs are unlikely to face such challenges more than once or twice in an adventuring day.

That is the issue of making those kinds of challenges identity central to a class

 

[pogre]

5e rogues are DEVASTATING in combat!

Between cunning action, sneak attack (which is much easier to pull off than prior editions thus a lot more common) and proper use of the hide skill they really bring a lot to the battlefield.

Fair enough. Not here to argue DPR or really to argue at all

I would take a wizard over a rogue for most combats, but your point is understood.

Is your player used to 3e/3.5? Because what you're saying is certainly true in that edition (I even remember starting a long thread on the very topic), but almost all of those issues have been fixed in 5e.

Nope.

My point, which I made poorly, was that one area that folks repeatedly pointed to as a potential spotlight for rogues is as face of the party. I just don't have much rolling going on during social interactions.

 

[Mort]

Fair enough. Not here to argue DPR or really to argue at all

I would take a wizard over a rogue for most combats, but your point is understood.

I think it depends on what style the player likes to play. In 5e rogues and wizards are differently but about equally effective in combat. And really, a wizard AND a rogue in a combat is best.

Nope.

My point, which I made poorly, was that one area that folks repeatedly pointed to as a potential spotlight for rogues is as face of the party. I just don't have much rolling going on during social interactions.

Ok. Just that your post highlighted a few things (knock, invisibility) which used to be prime examples of the wizard cutting into the rogue's shtick but really aren't anymore.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Every resource the wizard spends being a rogue is a resource that can't be spent being a wizard. If you're talking about the wizard taking on rogue ditues in a party, that fewer resources available to do the exoected wizard things, like cast spells in combat.

Not to mention, as has been oft noted, the ways a wizard can replicate rogue abilities usually have drawbacks.

 

[Flamestrike]

Almost everything a rogue does - the wizard does better. Knock, Invisibility, and other spells are effectively better than the rogue's skills

Invisibility is all but useless without a high Stealth score to pair it with. The spell only ALLOWS you to hide. It doesnt make you hidden (until you take the Hide action, and succeed on a Stealth check vs nearby observers Passive Perceptionn scores).

An 9th level Wizard has (at best) a +7 or so bonus to Stealth (presuming he's even proficient in it anyways), and I cant see him wasting his Action just to Hide all that often.

In combat it's an Action to cast and you cant even attempt to Hide until the following turn, when you need to waste another Action to take the Hide action (with no guarantee of being successful due to your likely mediocre Stealth).

An 8th level Rogue probably has a Stealth bonus of +13 or so, and can take the Hide action as a Bonus action. Heck; hes a few levels off 'Reliable talent' so he (and only he) reliably and totally vanishes from anyone with a Passive Perception of 23 or less as a Bonus action when invisible.

Knock lets everyone within a 300 feet know you're breaking in. It creates a giant crashing sound that makes it a bit pointless for stealth entry and B&E. You could probably achieve the same thing with an Axe in 99 percent of circumstances.

Just like how Charm person no longer invalidates the party 'face', or Haste no longer invalidates the party 'meatshield', (the Wizard gets a small benefit for using those spells on himself, but he gets a much bigger benefit using them to augment the guys in the party that are already good at the job) Invisibility and Knock dont replace the Rogue at all; they're designed to make the Rouge better at the things he is already good at.

I think WoTC knocked it out the park in this edition with those spells (unlike 3E where the Wizard could invalidate other PCs with ease).

 

[tommybahama]

If you eliminate the rogue then you can take two wizards: One to cast Silence and the other to cast Knock. One or more of the wizards can be a member of the Rouge Wizards of Thay as a bonus.

I typically have one situation during that time which a rogue could shine in - a trap, a scouting opportunity, etc.

The problem with traps in 5e is that you need the Wisdom of a cleric to perceive a trap, the Intelligence of wizard to investigate the trap, and then the Dexterity of a rogue to disarm the trap. That's three chance to fail and leave the rogue rouge handed.