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

[Dausuul]

Claiming the optimal design of Rogues is to pump WIS so they can scout seems like a very daring take on what "optimal" is. It's certainly a design that you can do - whether it's an "optimal" one is another question and one that depends on your party and how they operate.

You said rogues in your experience dump Wisdom. I don't think it is "daring" to say that it is sub-optimal for the skill-monkey class to dump the ability score for the most commonly-used skill in the game.

You don't have to pump Wisdom; a moderate investment, plus an Expertise slot, is plenty. Forget scouting, it will pay for itself in averted ambushes alone.

 

[Fanaelialae]

That is not how the math on Advantage works. It's dependent entirely on the target DC. It often works out close to +5.

The point is, the Familiar is near-zero investment. If you can cast Find Familiar, you will, and if you want an optimal familiar, you will pick Owl (it's pretty much all-round the best also it's an owl and owls are awesome).

Whereas you're talking about prioritizing WIS to some degree (and thus likely having a 0 mod in CHA and also STR, though the latter is generally only used for Athletics, which, sadly, includes all climbing - you might also have a lower CON as a result), then picking Perception for Expertise.

I've already stated earlier in the thread that familiars are preferable scouts simply as a result of being expendable.

All I was responding to was your claim that a rogue would have a poorer Perception.

 

[billd91]

The point is, the Familiar is near-zero investment. If you can cast Find Familiar, you will, and if you want an optimal familiar, you will pick Owl (it's pretty much all-round the best also it's an owl and owls are awesome).

Whereas you're talking about prioritizing WIS to some degree (and thus likely having a 0 mod in CHA and also STR, though the latter is generally only used for Athletics, which, sadly, includes all climbing - you might also have a lower CON as a result), then picking Perception for Expertise.

Well, vive la frickin' différence. If someone likes to have a perceptive rogue, they're going to make the investment and it's going to pay off with better wisdom saves as well. The investment isn't exactly tragic.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

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.

heh...rouge wizards of thay. I see what you did there.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

You do not say what "some things" are, and you are on record as claiming--in all seriousness--that stacking glyphs of warding on the inside of a bag of holding should get around the "you can't move the glyph" restriction and thus allow wizards to store and trigger an unlimited number of spells.

So... yeah. Gonna need a little more than just your unsupported assertion that there are "some things" which can do this.

Hah. I said you NEED a bag of holding. Thats not what you applie the glyph of warding to. Its what you put the thing that you applied it to inside of. There is no stacking either. As a matter of fact every glyph has to be on a seperate object.

Im never on record being wrong about spell glyphs. Pay attention. And yes. It would prevent the glyph being moved with the traditional understanding of a bag of holding. Oh. Also mentioned before but ill say it again. Doesnt have to be a bag of holding. Just an extraplanar space that doe not move that has an opening tethering it to your plane that does move.

The reason it works is you arent moving them. Super simple. It requires a house rule for the bag of holding thing to not work. Im going to require a source from you on that bag of holding thing before i take your requests seriously. I just see you guys as blatantly ignoring the rules when they dont suit you.

Do not be hypocritical. If you contradict the obvious rules claiming the rules support you you need a source. IMO its the people who are claiming bags of holding dont work this way that are doing that. You guys are on record saying some pretty silly stuff aboit bags of holding. Maybe ill just hold you to that. Hah!

 

[Son of the Serpent]

You do not say what "some things" are, and you are on record as claiming--in all seriousness--that stacking glyphs of warding on the inside of a bag of holding should get around the "you can't move the glyph" restriction and thus allow wizards to store and trigger an unlimited number of spells.

So... yeah. Gonna need a little more than just your unsupported assertion that there are "some things" which can do this.

And no. Im not gonna bother just because you say so. What a waste of my time.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Hah. I said you NEED a bag of holding. Thats not what you applie the glyph of warding to. Its what you put the thing that you applied it to inside of. There is no stacking either. As a matter of fact every glyph has to be on a seperate object.

Im never on record being wrong about spell glyphs. Pay attention. And yes. It would prevent the glyph being moved with the traditional understanding of a bag of holding. Oh. Also mentioned before but ill say it again. Doesnt have to be a bag of holding. Just an extraplanar space that doe not move that has an opening tethering it to your plane that does move.

The reason it works is you arent moving them. Super simple. It requires a house rule for the bag of holding thing to not work. Im going to require a source from you on that bag of holding thing before i take your requests seriously. I just see you guys as blatantly ignoring the rules when they dont suit you.

Do not be hypocritical. If you contradict the obvious rules claiming the rules support you you need a source. IMO its the people who are claiming bags of holding dont work this way that are doing that. You guys are on record saying some pretty silly stuff aboit bags of holding. Maybe ill just hold you to that. Hah!

You are wrong about the bag of holding. Look at the DMG. It says the bag is bigger on the inside than the outside. It says nothing about the interior of the bag not moving.

If you see something to that effect, please quote it to me. Otherwise, it is not RAW but rather falls under the DM's ruling (and I don't think most DMs would rule your way).

 

[jgsugden]

A lot of rogues have a +1 to +2 for ability score bonuses on perception, have it trained, and often use expertise on it - it is not all of them, but it is very common. Dex is the primary stat. Con is second. Wisdom is often third, but even when strength or charisma is third, wisdom is right behind it at 12 or better.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

You are wrong about the bag of holding. Look at the DMG. It says the bag is bigger on the inside than the outside. It says nothing about the interior of the bag not moving.

If you see something to that effect, please quote it to me. Otherwise, it is not RAW but rather falls under the DM's ruling (and I don't think most DMs would rule your way).

Oh ive looked. People have posted references too.

I saw no contradictions at all. None.

 

[Nobby-W]

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

I am reminded of an approach I mulled over at one point that one might call 'stealth parties.' The gist of this is that if the entire party can be stealthy and manoeuvrable then they can all participate in sneaksy-tricksy missions or stuff other than dungeon crawls. This involves trading off min-maxing characters for combat to make them stealthier. It also means that a rogue isn't necessarily a specialty but something you might spin into other character builds.

For example, rather than a fighter you might have a ranger, maybe have wizard-thief or cleric-thief multi classes and so forth. Bards have pretty good stealth abilities, as do way-of-shadow monks. You could take a rogue with some levels of another class to get (say) multi-attacks or certain spells or other class abilities.

With this approach you have a party that might not be optimal for dungeon crawling but better for a variety of other nefarious activities. One could fairly easily balance combat encounters to reflect this.