Rogue, "Guys, if you wait here I can sneak and scout ahead"
Wizard "Nah, I'll just send my little mouse friend and he can even walk beneath the doors and I'll see what he sees."
And the wizard is not wrong. The mouse is a better scout with no risk to any of the party members.
In the early days of D&D, a well balanced party was essential. There was a downside, of course. "Hey, we really need a healer! You need to play a cleric." But what if he/she doesn't want to play one? But now there's just sooooo many ways for players to completely replace all the things the Rogue brings to the table, and often alternative means are the optimal means. I'm not (necessarily) saying WoC should scale back the vast versatility they brought to the game. I suppose the question is, how do you continue to shine? What are some creative ways you can deploy a Roque, and avoid feeling like a highly skilled, yet obsolete skill monkey?
The thing I find is that part of the balance lies in the use of resources. The game now exists where you don't NEED any specific skill set for most early levels. Later on there are some issues of running without X in the party based on encounter design (Rogues = traps, Cleric = greater restoration, etc.). For example from level 8-11 in Frostmaiden a recent party I was in ran without a rogue, but man did the sorcerer complain about having to take knock and we took some damage from traps.. From 1-7 we didn't have a cleric and the bard complained a lot about having to take healing spells. For a lot of levels and with an accommodating DM you can live without some standard parts of the party. That is awesome. It means no longer being stuck playing something.
The rogue I am currently playing doesn't trust in magic or religion. If the wizard says he is running his familiar the rogue says it will be nice to have a friend out front even if its make believe. Besides my perception is MUCH better than a damn mouse, and my stealth is too. This would be the stubborn approach to holding your role.
The other part is simply playing the other tiers of play: exploration, role playing, etc. Rogues do decent damage, and their skills work in and out of combat.
Yeah you don't really need to play a rogue to be a good at stealth. Anyone with decent dex and stealth proficiency can do the job. A monk, a dex fighter, a bard.
Rogues get expertise and get it early which is good for skill monkeying with stealth and other things, but other classes 'can' get it. Bards get it, though not as early, and others can get it via feats. Rangers can get it if the DM allows the Tashas class features. Expertise is great for helping your stealth rolls be more reliably good, but it isn't necessary and other classes can fill the role of the scout without it.
Reliable Talent is their other big thing, but that's not until level 11. It is however, incredibly broken when combined with expertise. With 20 dex and stealth expertise you can't roll below a 23 at level 11. I find that while reliable talent was powerful though, it kind of made the game more boring in a way when I had a rogue that high, because my rolls became so much more predictable.
Cunning action is great inside of combat, but generally doesn't come into play before initiative is rolled. It mostly helps with battlefield mobility and getting advantage for sneak attack in combat.
I feel like a rogue is probably still 'best' at it though. Spells like invisibility and enhance ability can be cast on the rogue from others, bardic inspiration etc can be put on them, and getting expertise out the gate makes your modifiers in your chosen skills incredible. The main advantage a familiar brings IMO is that it 'might' be mistaken for a normal rat and not alert enemies if spotted, if they can't tell it's a familiar and not a normal rat/whatever animal is used. But the rogue is generally going to have better stealth and perception than a famliar. In terms of modifiers, getting expertise at level 1 lets them outpace the modifiers of other dex classes that could also take stealth expertise. They're still really good at the role, but they're just not the only option for it.
(Rogues also tend to have the advantage of not having rest based resources on their abilities, outside of some subclass features like arcane trickster spell slots. If your game has short adventuring days with only a couple of encounters this may be bad for you, but on longer adventuring days with many encounters, they can keep going when the wizard is running dry on slots etc.) )
Now the rogue can have the familiar through Arcane Trickster or a feat.
But to the point of the thread: nah, rogues and rangers still keep their niche as the stealthy scouts of the group. There will be especially dangerous occasions where a spell like Find Familiar, invisibility, or Arcane Eye might be wiser, but they have limitations and can cost resources.
The answer I guess is "yes and no"; while other classes have options that can allow them to fulfil similar tasks, they don't get the whole package.
While yes, a familiar can handle scouting duty, what does it do if it encounters a door it can't bypass? The Rogue can pick the lock and move on. You also can't do things with a familiar like take out guards, and they're limited in their ability to retrieve things and disarm traps.
So while the familiar lets a Wizard handle some of one aspect of what a Rogue can do, and you can always build to take on more elements, or spread it among the party, or just take longer to achieve something, but you're still better off having a Rogue. This is similar to how a Ranger can give you various bonuses for travel and exploration, or you can have another character go survival focused with the Outlander background to make for some of what you don't have without the Ranger.
5e basically just makes it so that no one class is absolutely crucial to adventuring; you should be able to get by no matter what your party choose to play. It's still better to have a good balance and mix of abilities, but you're not out of options if you're missing something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
"Needing" a rogue because they have some arbitrary unique benefit that is mandatory for progression is terrible. So yes, sort of, and thank god for it.
But rogues are still really really good at everything they can do at the same time.
Part of being a good player is knowing when to step aside and let the other players shine. I have been the wizard with a solution to every problem, and plenty of times I made the choice to not speak up when I knew someone else could handle things.
Additionally, many classes have flexibility within them for this reason. Familiar isn't a great example because it's a ritual and just overall very strong, but ideally if a wizard is travelling with a rogue, they don't have to worry about preparing "rogue-y" spells and can rather prepare other stuff.
Part of being a good player is knowing when to step aside and let the other players shine. I have been the wizard with a solution to every problem, and plenty of times I made the choice to not speak up when I knew someone else could handle things.
Additionally, many classes have flexibility within them for this reason. Familiar isn't a great example because it's a ritual and just overall very strong, but ideally if a wizard is travelling with a rogue, they don't have to worry about preparing "rogue-y" spells and can rather prepare other stuff.
Really wise words and I like the way you think. These are good discussions to have at session zero. The role each player intends to fulfill, and how everyone will work together.
The game I'm currently in has both a Soul Knife Rogue and my Battlesmith Artificer. Through no fault or intent of my own, I now have +17 Investigation and I think +12 for Thieve's Tools. IMHO Thieve's Tools should be SOLELY for the Rogue class because if they have any one 'thing' it's that. Right now I Investigate the traps and let her disarm them even though I'm better at it because if I don't then she's got Stealth in with the rest of the hulking Warforged horde. Not much fun for her.
If you look at it, the Barbarian is a better Ranger than the Ranger is in many ways.
As much as I like the fact that you no longer need 'the perfect blend' party, I do miss some of the old ways. Many of the players now are more from the computer game crowd than not and as a result, many of them are used to playing games where you can build characters that can do it all in one. I think the current path of 5e has been influenced by that thought process.
I'm not sure what, if anything, can or needs to be done about this though.
I do think it's weird that artificer gets thieves tools and, at level 6, automatic expertise with thieves tools. However, I feel like rogues are still the 'best' in that niche.
DEX is our primary stat, so rogues should generally have a higher modifier than an artificer on their thieves tools.
They can choose thieves tools expertise at level 1, getting it five levels earlier than artificers and starting the game with it.
Reliable talent + expertise is absurdly broken when you reach level 11. +13 modifier and never being able to roll below a nat 10? Means you can never roll below a 23 on your thieves tools, and if you get into higher levels that can get even higher.
Thieves specifically can use a bonus action to disarm a trap in combat. Arcane trickster specifically can use their mage hand to use their thieves tools up to 30 feet away. These are subclass specific yes, but they are still things only rogues can do.
I feel like rogues are still generally the 'best' at it still. Without giving them a monopoly on it and making rogues feel required to round out a party.
If you look at it, the Barbarian is a better Ranger than the Ranger is in many ways.
This seems a weird comment, as I'm struggling to think of any overlap between the two; Barbarians are tanks, Rangers are not, Barbarians aren't very good at range whereas any DEX based Ranger can excel at ranged (even if built primarily for melee). Barbarians don't add any extra scouting, exploration or travel abilities and so-on.
Really not seeing how you can build a better Ranger with a Barbarian, as thematically Barbarians are all about their rage and Rangers really aren't.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
5E isn't "stealing" the thunder as much as making sure that you don't need a Rogue (or any other particular class) just to make it rain. A lot of design focus of 5E is a) cooperation and teamwork and b) making sure that no class is mandatory in a party. Which I think is good. As pointed out, there are many things that many classes can do that overlap but there will still be things that certain classes (and subclasses) excel at. A Rogue Scout is probably the best scout the game has to offer, all things considered.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rogue, "Guys, if you wait here I can sneak and scout ahead"
Wizard "Nah, I'll just send my little mouse friend and he can even walk beneath the doors and I'll see what he sees."
And the wizard is not wrong. The mouse is a better scout with no risk to any of the party members.
In the early days of D&D, a well balanced party was essential. There was a downside, of course. "Hey, we really need a healer! You need to play a cleric." But what if he/she doesn't want to play one? But now there's just sooooo many ways for players to completely replace all the things the Rogue brings to the table, and often alternative means are the optimal means. I'm not (necessarily) saying WoC should scale back the vast versatility they brought to the game. I suppose the question is, how do you continue to shine? What are some creative ways you can deploy a Roque, and avoid feeling like a highly skilled, yet obsolete skill monkey?
The thing I find is that part of the balance lies in the use of resources. The game now exists where you don't NEED any specific skill set for most early levels. Later on there are some issues of running without X in the party based on encounter design (Rogues = traps, Cleric = greater restoration, etc.). For example from level 8-11 in Frostmaiden a recent party I was in ran without a rogue, but man did the sorcerer complain about having to take knock and we took some damage from traps.. From 1-7 we didn't have a cleric and the bard complained a lot about having to take healing spells. For a lot of levels and with an accommodating DM you can live without some standard parts of the party. That is awesome. It means no longer being stuck playing something.
The rogue I am currently playing doesn't trust in magic or religion. If the wizard says he is running his familiar the rogue says it will be nice to have a friend out front even if its make believe. Besides my perception is MUCH better than a damn mouse, and my stealth is too. This would be the stubborn approach to holding your role.
The other part is simply playing the other tiers of play: exploration, role playing, etc. Rogues do decent damage, and their skills work in and out of combat.
Yeah you don't really need to play a rogue to be a good at stealth. Anyone with decent dex and stealth proficiency can do the job. A monk, a dex fighter, a bard.
Rogues get expertise and get it early which is good for skill monkeying with stealth and other things, but other classes 'can' get it. Bards get it, though not as early, and others can get it via feats. Rangers can get it if the DM allows the Tashas class features. Expertise is great for helping your stealth rolls be more reliably good, but it isn't necessary and other classes can fill the role of the scout without it.
Reliable Talent is their other big thing, but that's not until level 11. It is however, incredibly broken when combined with expertise. With 20 dex and stealth expertise you can't roll below a 23 at level 11. I find that while reliable talent was powerful though, it kind of made the game more boring in a way when I had a rogue that high, because my rolls became so much more predictable.
Cunning action is great inside of combat, but generally doesn't come into play before initiative is rolled. It mostly helps with battlefield mobility and getting advantage for sneak attack in combat.
I feel like a rogue is probably still 'best' at it though. Spells like invisibility and enhance ability can be cast on the rogue from others, bardic inspiration etc can be put on them, and getting expertise out the gate makes your modifiers in your chosen skills incredible. The main advantage a familiar brings IMO is that it 'might' be mistaken for a normal rat and not alert enemies if spotted, if they can't tell it's a familiar and not a normal rat/whatever animal is used. But the rogue is generally going to have better stealth and perception than a famliar. In terms of modifiers, getting expertise at level 1 lets them outpace the modifiers of other dex classes that could also take stealth expertise. They're still really good at the role, but they're just not the only option for it.
(Rogues also tend to have the advantage of not having rest based resources on their abilities, outside of some subclass features like arcane trickster spell slots. If your game has short adventuring days with only a couple of encounters this may be bad for you, but on longer adventuring days with many encounters, they can keep going when the wizard is running dry on slots etc.) )
Now the rogue can have the familiar through Arcane Trickster or a feat.
But to the point of the thread: nah, rogues and rangers still keep their niche as the stealthy scouts of the group. There will be especially dangerous occasions where a spell like Find Familiar, invisibility, or Arcane Eye might be wiser, but they have limitations and can cost resources.
The answer I guess is "yes and no"; while other classes have options that can allow them to fulfil similar tasks, they don't get the whole package.
While yes, a familiar can handle scouting duty, what does it do if it encounters a door it can't bypass? The Rogue can pick the lock and move on. You also can't do things with a familiar like take out guards, and they're limited in their ability to retrieve things and disarm traps.
So while the familiar lets a Wizard handle some of one aspect of what a Rogue can do, and you can always build to take on more elements, or spread it among the party, or just take longer to achieve something, but you're still better off having a Rogue. This is similar to how a Ranger can give you various bonuses for travel and exploration, or you can have another character go survival focused with the Outlander background to make for some of what you don't have without the Ranger.
5e basically just makes it so that no one class is absolutely crucial to adventuring; you should be able to get by no matter what your party choose to play. It's still better to have a good balance and mix of abilities, but you're not out of options if you're missing something.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
"Needing" a rogue because they have some arbitrary unique benefit that is mandatory for progression is terrible. So yes, sort of, and thank god for it.
But rogues are still really really good at everything they can do at the same time.
Part of being a good player is knowing when to step aside and let the other players shine. I have been the wizard with a solution to every problem, and plenty of times I made the choice to not speak up when I knew someone else could handle things.
Additionally, many classes have flexibility within them for this reason. Familiar isn't a great example because it's a ritual and just overall very strong, but ideally if a wizard is travelling with a rogue, they don't have to worry about preparing "rogue-y" spells and can rather prepare other stuff.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Really wise words and I like the way you think. These are good discussions to have at session zero. The role each player intends to fulfill, and how everyone will work together.
The game I'm currently in has both a Soul Knife Rogue and my Battlesmith Artificer. Through no fault or intent of my own, I now have +17 Investigation and I think +12 for Thieve's Tools. IMHO Thieve's Tools should be SOLELY for the Rogue class because if they have any one 'thing' it's that. Right now I Investigate the traps and let her disarm them even though I'm better at it because if I don't then she's got Stealth in with the rest of the hulking Warforged horde. Not much fun for her.
If you look at it, the Barbarian is a better Ranger than the Ranger is in many ways.
As much as I like the fact that you no longer need 'the perfect blend' party, I do miss some of the old ways. Many of the players now are more from the computer game crowd than not and as a result, many of them are used to playing games where you can build characters that can do it all in one. I think the current path of 5e has been influenced by that thought process.
I'm not sure what, if anything, can or needs to be done about this though.
I do think it's weird that artificer gets thieves tools and, at level 6, automatic expertise with thieves tools. However, I feel like rogues are still the 'best' in that niche.
DEX is our primary stat, so rogues should generally have a higher modifier than an artificer on their thieves tools.
They can choose thieves tools expertise at level 1, getting it five levels earlier than artificers and starting the game with it.
Reliable talent + expertise is absurdly broken when you reach level 11. +13 modifier and never being able to roll below a nat 10? Means you can never roll below a 23 on your thieves tools, and if you get into higher levels that can get even higher.
Thieves specifically can use a bonus action to disarm a trap in combat. Arcane trickster specifically can use their mage hand to use their thieves tools up to 30 feet away. These are subclass specific yes, but they are still things only rogues can do.
I feel like rogues are still generally the 'best' at it still. Without giving them a monopoly on it and making rogues feel required to round out a party.
This seems a weird comment, as I'm struggling to think of any overlap between the two; Barbarians are tanks, Rangers are not, Barbarians aren't very good at range whereas any DEX based Ranger can excel at ranged (even if built primarily for melee). Barbarians don't add any extra scouting, exploration or travel abilities and so-on.
Really not seeing how you can build a better Ranger with a Barbarian, as thematically Barbarians are all about their rage and Rangers really aren't.
Former D&D Beyond Customer of six years: With the axing of piecemeal purchasing, lack of meaningful development, and toxic moderation the site isn't worth paying for anymore. I remain a free user only until my groups are done migrating from DDB, and if necessary D&D, after which I'm done. There are better systems owned by better companies out there.
I have unsubscribed from all topics and will not reply to messages. My homebrew is now 100% unsupported.
5E isn't "stealing" the thunder as much as making sure that you don't need a Rogue (or any other particular class) just to make it rain. A lot of design focus of 5E is a) cooperation and teamwork and b) making sure that no class is mandatory in a party. Which I think is good. As pointed out, there are many things that many classes can do that overlap but there will still be things that certain classes (and subclasses) excel at. A Rogue Scout is probably the best scout the game has to offer, all things considered.