Quote from Fateless>>Most rogue's do not miss often enough for their average damage to drop considerably. Particularly if they are played smart enough to almost always have their sneak attack to use on their attack.
Sneak attack doesn’t improve chance to hit.
no. The fact that Rogues stack dexterity as far through the roof as they can conceivably fit and combined with things like magical daggers or rapiers or the like is what improves their chance to hit. Which is a factor that seems to be getting ignored. They are a class that is very single attribute and anything else they are doing is gravy and/or flavor that they can mix up in a myriad of ways to their benefit. Not even their class abilities key off singular attributes like something like the Paladin or the Barbarian do, nor are they mainline tanks to require large amounts of a secondary attribute from that either.
The max ability modifier is +5, and fighters and barbarians get there too. Fighters even do it sooner thanks to their ASI at 6. And what campaign world do you live in where rogues get magic weapons and fighters/barbarians don’t?
Fateless arrived at what I think is the correct conclusion, but not by the usual road. Rogues are one of the few classes capable of reliably getting advantage on their attacks. Cunning Action allows them to Hide, and attacking while hidden means advantage on the attack roll. And if they can get advantage in melee, they can Dash in and make use of it. They're skirmishers who are comfortable at all ranges. A smart rogue player should reliably be able to get advantage on their attacks. The statistical bonus afforded by advantage might diminish as ability scores and proficiency bonus increase, but it's something.
Quote from Fateless>>Most rogue's do not miss often enough for their average damage to drop considerably. Particularly if they are played smart enough to almost always have their sneak attack to use on their attack.
Sneak attack doesn’t improve chance to hit.
no. The fact that Rogues stack dexterity as far through the roof as they can conceivably fit and combined with things like magical daggers or rapiers or the like is what improves their chance to hit. Which is a factor that seems to be getting ignored. They are a class that is very single attribute and anything else they are doing is gravy and/or flavor that they can mix up in a myriad of ways to their benefit. Not even their class abilities key off singular attributes like something like the Paladin or the Barbarian do, nor are they mainline tanks to require large amounts of a secondary attribute from that either.
The max ability modifier is +5, and fighters and barbarians get there too. Fighters even do it sooner thanks to their ASI at 6. And what campaign world do you live in where rogues get magic weapons and fighters/barbarians don’t?
Fateless arrived at what I think is the correct conclusion, but not by the usual road. Rogues are one of the few classes capable of reliably getting advantage on their attacks. Cunning Action allows them to Hide, and attacking while hidden means advantage on the attack roll. And if they can get advantage in melee, they can Dash in and make use of it. They're skirmishers who are comfortable at all ranges. A smart rogue player should reliably be able to get advantage on their attacks. The statistical bonus afforded by advantage might diminish as ability scores and proficiency bonus increase, but it's something.
It’s pretty clear that rogues that mostly use *ranged attacks* can get advantage almost every round. It’s not the case that melee rogues get advantage every round. In fact it’s more the exception than the rule (at least until higher tier play and greater invisibility enters the picture). You can say well, rogues should be smart and attack from range, but that really pidgin holes the class more than intended.
Quote from Fateless>>Most rogue's do not miss often enough for their average damage to drop considerably. Particularly if they are played smart enough to almost always have their sneak attack to use on their attack.
Sneak attack doesn’t improve chance to hit.
no. The fact that Rogues stack dexterity as far through the roof as they can conceivably fit and combined with things like magical daggers or rapiers or the like is what improves their chance to hit. Which is a factor that seems to be getting ignored. They are a class that is very single attribute and anything else they are doing is gravy and/or flavor that they can mix up in a myriad of ways to their benefit. Not even their class abilities key off singular attributes like something like the Paladin or the Barbarian do, nor are they mainline tanks to require large amounts of a secondary attribute from that either.
The max ability modifier is +5, and fighters and barbarians get there too. Fighters even do it sooner thanks to their ASI at 6. And what campaign world do you live in where rogues get magic weapons and fighters/barbarians don’t?
Fateless arrived at what I think is the correct conclusion, but not by the usual road. Rogues are one of the few classes capable of reliably getting advantage on their attacks. Cunning Action allows them to Hide, and attacking while hidden means advantage on the attack roll. And if they can get advantage in melee, they can Dash in and make use of it. They're skirmishers who are comfortable at all ranges. A smart rogue player should reliably be able to get advantage on their attacks. The statistical bonus afforded by advantage might diminish as ability scores and proficiency bonus increase, but it's something.
yes. Advantage, flanking, or merely the presence of an ally to launce sneak attack all plays part in it. But I was trying to keep my response relatively short and stick to some of the main points.
Also Fighters and Barbarians to do that big damage are often using things like sharp shooter or GWM. So they are actually wiping out a good deal of their equal modifier to add that extra damage and require further steps to mitigate that fact but it also means that they tend to miss more often than the rogue. On top of this, They also miss more often by the sheer fact that they make a larger amount of rolls and so misses are going to come up more regularly anyway.
Sneak Attack is not advantage. The fact that you keep confusing the two means you don’t know rogue mechanics very well. Advantage increases the probability of hitting. Sneak Attack means damage dice. Melee rogues can’t really give themselves advantage the way Barbarians can or Fighters who use Superiority dice, or spend one of their attacks to shove prone can. Melee rogues have to rely on others to improve their chances to hit (the new ability Steady Aim from Tasha’s would work, but then you’re giving up mobility and survivability, rarely a great idea for a rogue).
Quote from Fateless>>Most rogue's do not miss often enough for their average damage to drop considerably. Particularly if they are played smart enough to almost always have their sneak attack to use on their attack.
Sneak attack doesn’t improve chance to hit.
no. The fact that Rogues stack dexterity as far through the roof as they can conceivably fit and combined with things like magical daggers or rapiers or the like is what improves their chance to hit. Which is a factor that seems to be getting ignored. They are a class that is very single attribute and anything else they are doing is gravy and/or flavor that they can mix up in a myriad of ways to their benefit. Not even their class abilities key off singular attributes like something like the Paladin or the Barbarian do, nor are they mainline tanks to require large amounts of a secondary attribute from that either.
The max ability modifier is +5, and fighters and barbarians get there too. Fighters even do it sooner thanks to their ASI at 6. And what campaign world do you live in where rogues get magic weapons and fighters/barbarians don’t?
Fateless arrived at what I think is the correct conclusion, but not by the usual road. Rogues are one of the few classes capable of reliably getting advantage on their attacks. Cunning Action allows them to Hide, and attacking while hidden means advantage on the attack roll. And if they can get advantage in melee, they can Dash in and make use of it. They're skirmishers who are comfortable at all ranges. A smart rogue player should reliably be able to get advantage on their attacks. The statistical bonus afforded by advantage might diminish as ability scores and proficiency bonus increase, but it's something.
It’s pretty clear that rogues that mostly use *ranged attacks* can get advantage almost every round. It’s not the case that melee rogues get advantage every round. In fact it’s more the exception than the rule (at least until higher tier play and greater invisibility enters the picture). You can say well, rogues should be smart and attack from range, but that really pidgin holes the class more than intended.
That's an option as early as 7th-level, so I don't know that I'd call it "higher tier play", though it is solidly in tier 2. Still, if we're adding spells to the mix, along with tools the rogue may not have, then you're leaving a lot out.
Anyone with access to hold person, or something similar, can not only grant advantage but also guarantee a critical hit if it does. Dark elves have access to faerie fire from 3rd-level on, and they can make fantastic rogues. One of the official pre-generated characters is a drow assassin. Path of the Totem Warrior barbarians with the Wolf Totem can grant pack tactics, as can a PH Beast Master ranger with a wolf. Or just take one for a sidekick, or a mastiff. Attacking prone enemies from within 5 feet grants advantage on melee attacks. Rogues can get expertise in Athletics, and I'd certainly want that on a Thief, but that kind of shoving (or tripping, if we're including Battle Masters) is probably better left to someone else. Maybe someone else with expertise in Athletics, like a College of Valor bard or a ranger using Deft Explorer from Tasha's.
An archer rogue is fairly self-sufficient. But like any campaign, it's not all about them. It comes down to teamwork.
P.S. Technically, if you're using the options from Tasha's, rogues now have access to Steady Aim. It grants advantage at-will, at the cost of not moving. That can work even in melee, and under the right circumstances, it's a safe bet.
Right. Archer rogues are self-sufficient, melee rogues need their teammates or magic items. Either way fighters are still better at damage, which is fine. Magic users can wipe out entire rooms of enemies at once. Like I said before, rogues are good at skills and are “okay” at fighting, but they certainly are not top-tier damage dealers like some wish to believe.
Melee rogues have Steady Aim, so they're fine. And even archer rogues are reliant on having something to hide behind. They're slightly better off; if only because they're at range so fewer attacks are likely to hit them.
Steady aim is fine for archer rogues. The problem with it for melee rogues is it takes away one of the fun things about being a melee rogue, their mobility. If you’re just going to stand in one place and trade blows with an enemy, you’re better off just playing a fighter with heavy armor.
Depending on how many books you're using, Cunning Action can perform anywhere from 3-5 different functions. Heck, a rogue with a hand crossbow and CBX may not even want to Hide or use Steady Aim. Circumstances in combat can turn on a time.
The entire game is built around risk versus reward. It's not a problem if they choose to stand put and gain advantage on their one attack roll. They've made a choice.
Sneak Attack is not advantage. The fact that you keep confusing the two means you don’t know rogue mechanics very well. Advantage increases the probability of hitting. Sneak Attack means damage dice. Melee rogues can’t really give themselves advantage the way Barbarians can or Fighters who use Superiority dice, or spend one of their attacks to shove prone can. Melee rogues have to rely on others to improve their chances to hit (the new ability Steady Aim from Tasha’s would work, but then you’re giving up mobility and survivability, rarely a great idea for a rogue).
No. Your making the assumption that I am in any way talking about advantage. The reality is that advantage isn't needed despite your repeated focus upon needing advantage. Rogues function extremely well without advantage and still hit their enemies a lot. This is both at melee as well as in ranged. And the cold hard reality in play is that your often not doing things solo so working off your allies is a base assumption that can be made in most scenario's. The Solo functionality is actually more the exception in actual play scenario's which is one of the ways that it differs from white room theorycraft.
I have played Rogues many times and have very rarely had issue hitting. And when I have that has almost always meant that the Fighter or the Barbarian or the Paladin is having as much but most likely more difficulty hitting that opponent, To the point that they drop things like GWM just so that they have a better chance to hit which lowers the amount of damage they do per turn. Something that my rogue has not had to do in melee.
Why do you think rogues hit more often than fighters or barbarians? We all have the same +5 cap on ability bonus.
Again. As I have stated repeatedly just in this thread. To use things like GWM and Sharp Shooter. The users must actually lose most of their bonus. So it is not the same to hit cap when those feats are factored in. Which they are factored in very often when it comes to the damage that those classes can deal. Meaning that the Rogue is actually going to hit more often. The rogue is also going to hit more often in general because they are making less rolls. Less rolls actually means less chance for failure even while it also means less chance for critical success. The Barbarian and the Fighter and Even the Paladin are going to have to make more attack rolls than the rogue which means they are going to have more chances for failure. This is basic logic and rules without applying advantage to the situation.
Please look at the whole picture and not just one tiny part of it such as attribute modifier or advantage when looking at the issue.
Fewer attack rolls just means fewer attack rolls. The % to hit is going to be the same.
Yes. But at the same time no. The more that your roll the more often you are going to get value's below that percentage. The less that you roll the less this is going to happen. This is how percentages works. This is also why crit fishing works. There is a low percentage chance to get a crit but the more chances you take to do it such as by having advantage then the more often you are actually going to hit within that range and thus get a critical. Missing works the exact same way.
Fewer attack rolls just means fewer attack rolls. The % to hit is going to be the same.
Yes. But at the same time no. The more that your roll the more often you are going to get value's below that percentage. The less that you roll the less this is going to happen. This is how percentages works. This is also why crit fishing works. There is a low percentage chance to get a crit but the more chances you take to do it such as by having advantage then the more often you are actually going to hit within that range and thus get a critical. Missing works the exact same way.
This.
Or, to put it another way, the more dice you roll the more likely you are to succeed and deal at least some damage.
Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin will always do more damage on average than rogue due to a wide variety of factors but mostly because they get more attacks/bonus to attacks than rogue.
Rogue is meant to get Sneak Attack almost every round to maintain their output....its just lower than fighter and the rest. This is also completely fine as they have more of a split focus than the others and can do more outside of combat. Honestly if Rogue did as much damage as the others it would be a bad deal for those other classes.
Every class has their down sides (Barbs are MAD, fighters do not much outside of combat, Paladin damage output tied to spell slots) which balances things.
Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin will always do more damage on average than rogue due to a wide variety of factors but mostly because they get more attacks/bonus to attacks than rogue.
Rogue is meant to get Sneak Attack almost every round to maintain their output....its just lower than fighter and the rest. This is also completely fine as they have more of a split focus than the others and can do more outside of combat. Honestly if Rogue did as much damage as the others it would be a bad deal for those other classes.
Every class has their down sides (Barbs are MAD, fighters do not much outside of combat, Paladin damage output tied to spell slots) which balances things.
The idea of who's on top can vary from level to level, tier to tier, for any number of factors. But in a straight game with no optional rules?
Rogues beat most barbarians, every fighter, and paladins (if they don't use Divine Smite) in Tier 1 play. They fall a little behind in Tier 2, but not so much they cannot meaningfully contribute. And by Tier 3 they're back to running with the big dogs. If you play all the way into Tier 4, they're nothing short of phenomenal.
If you make allowances for feats, they can start to fall behind due to the likes of GWM and SS. That said, the deceased hit chance offsets the added damage to a certain degree. And feats come with an explicit warning that they can make characters much more powerful than normally capable. Allowing them in your game is the same as saying you're okay with a greater imbalance in power between the classes.
Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin will always do more damage on average than rogue due to a wide variety of factors but mostly because they get more attacks/bonus to attacks than rogue.
Rogue is meant to get Sneak Attack almost every round to maintain their output....its just lower than fighter and the rest. This is also completely fine as they have more of a split focus than the others and can do more outside of combat. Honestly if Rogue did as much damage as the others it would be a bad deal for those other classes.
Every class has their down sides (Barbs are MAD, fighters do not much outside of combat, Paladin damage output tied to spell slots) which balances things.
The idea of who's on top can vary from level to level, tier to tier, for any number of factors. But in a straight game with no optional rules?
Rogues beat most barbarians, every fighter, and paladins (if they don't use Divine Smite) in Tier 1 play. They fall a little behind in Tier 2, but not so much they cannot meaningfully contribute. And by Tier 3 they're back to running with the big dogs. If you play all the way into Tier 4, they're nothing short of phenomenal.
If you make allowances for feats, they can start to fall behind due to the likes of GWM and SS. That said, the deceased hit chance offsets the added damage to a certain degree. And feats come with an explicit warning that they can make characters much more powerful than normally capable. Allowing them in your game is the same as saying you're okay with a greater imbalance in power between the classes.
DPR will always favor Barbs for one reason: Reckless attack.
I compare whatever builds you want but with rage damage, STR weapons, and Auto-ADV A barbarian will never fall behind a rogue in damage.
Its just not possible especially in T1 but the gap widens significantly once GWM is in play. If you are talking level 1 maybe but level 1 is a joke anyway.
Paladins I can mostly agree with as they are more about NOVA damage vs. consistent damage which is a fair bet rogue will average more damage over the course of the day but Paladin will just be the king of "you are dead now".
Fighters will depend on subclass but mostly beat out rogue in early levels with Battlemaster, Echo Knight, and likely Rune Knight as they have ways to increase damage/to hit. The others like Eldtrich knight, Samurai, Arcane Archer will likely be more in line with the rogue but offer something in alternative (NOVA damage for Samurai, Defense for EK, Debuffs for AA)
Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin will always do more damage on average than rogue due to a wide variety of factors but mostly because they get more attacks/bonus to attacks than rogue.
Rogue is meant to get Sneak Attack almost every round to maintain their output....its just lower than fighter and the rest. This is also completely fine as they have more of a split focus than the others and can do more outside of combat. Honestly if Rogue did as much damage as the others it would be a bad deal for those other classes.
Every class has their down sides (Barbs are MAD, fighters do not much outside of combat, Paladin damage output tied to spell slots) which balances things.
The idea of who's on top can vary from level to level, tier to tier, for any number of factors. But in a straight game with no optional rules?
Rogues beat most barbarians, every fighter, and paladins (if they don't use Divine Smite) in Tier 1 play. They fall a little behind in Tier 2, but not so much they cannot meaningfully contribute. And by Tier 3 they're back to running with the big dogs. If you play all the way into Tier 4, they're nothing short of phenomenal.
If you make allowances for feats, they can start to fall behind due to the likes of GWM and SS. That said, the deceased hit chance offsets the added damage to a certain degree. And feats come with an explicit warning that they can make characters much more powerful than normally capable. Allowing them in your game is the same as saying you're okay with a greater imbalance in power between the classes.
DPR will always favor Barbs for one reason: Reckless attack.
I compare whatever builds you want but with rage damage, STR weapons, and Auto-ADV A barbarian will never fall behind a rogue in damage.
Its just not possible especially in T1 but the gap widens significantly once GWM is in play. If you are talking level 1 maybe but level 1 is a joke anyway.
Paladins I can mostly agree with as they are more about NOVA damage vs. consistent damage which is a fair bet rogue will average more damage over the course of the day but Paladin will just be the king of "you are dead now".
Fighters will depend on subclass but mostly beat out rogue in early levels with Battlemaster, Echo Knight, and likely Rune Knight as they have ways to increase damage/to hit. The others like Eldtrich knight, Samurai, Arcane Archer will likely be more in line with the rogue but offer something in alternative (NOVA damage for Samurai, Defense for EK, Debuffs for AA)
That is a myopic and, if I'm being honest, ignorant opinion. Barbarians are not always on top, and Reckless Attacks is not enough to put them ahead of everyone else. It isn't even enough to guarantee they'll be ahead of the rogue. But, sure, I'll bite. Compare a half-orc wolf totem vs a high elf arcane trickster, using the standard array, and with no feats. Who's outputting the greater DPR, and by how much?
I do think it's weird how you'll bring in a lot of subclasses for one and still completely disregard all of the subclasses for another. But, hey, you're going to keep doing you. Can't fault you for being consistent.
Outcome: AT Rogue will beat Maul Wolf Barb but tie with Handaxe wolf barb. I say tie as the Rogue has no consistent way of producing ADV by themselves (solo contest not a party calc for now)
5th level:
AT Rogue 5th level: Two Shortswords
AT Rogue 5th level: Booming Blade Rapier Wolf Barb 5th Level: Maul Wolf Barb 5th level: Two Handaxes
Winner: Rogue actually due to the Stack effect of Booming blade.
So in a featless game you will have either a tie or slight edge towards Barb or Rouge at different levels.
If the Rogue can get ADV 90% of the time they will be better off (say if they have a wolf barb pal :) ) But if they can't it will be in the barbs favor majority of the time.
So bottom line its more even than I anticipated with AT thanks to its ability to use Boomer Blade. For the rest of the rogues it will likely be less of a even split. If you are relying on the off hand sword short 90% of the time for damage you are effectively taking cunning action away from the rogue so its a HUGE offset.
Without that off hand sword their DPR does drop fairly high in most levels:
Which is where my point comes from....how often will a rogue actually use its BA every single turn to use that off hand sword vs. how often a barbarian will Reckless on an attack? As you mention it is likely up to the group and how they play but I would hazard that the barbarian is using reckless a lot more often than the rogue is using that off hand BA sword but thats my experience.
I will say that AT trickster has some great damage output for a rogue and if you pair with shadowblade you are looking at a pretty decent rogue damage dealer.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Fateless arrived at what I think is the correct conclusion, but not by the usual road. Rogues are one of the few classes capable of reliably getting advantage on their attacks. Cunning Action allows them to Hide, and attacking while hidden means advantage on the attack roll. And if they can get advantage in melee, they can Dash in and make use of it. They're skirmishers who are comfortable at all ranges. A smart rogue player should reliably be able to get advantage on their attacks. The statistical bonus afforded by advantage might diminish as ability scores and proficiency bonus increase, but it's something.
It’s pretty clear that rogues that mostly use *ranged attacks* can get advantage almost every round. It’s not the case that melee rogues get advantage every round. In fact it’s more the exception than the rule (at least until higher tier play and greater invisibility enters the picture). You can say well, rogues should be smart and attack from range, but that really pidgin holes the class more than intended.
yes. Advantage, flanking, or merely the presence of an ally to launce sneak attack all plays part in it. But I was trying to keep my response relatively short and stick to some of the main points.
Also Fighters and Barbarians to do that big damage are often using things like sharp shooter or GWM. So they are actually wiping out a good deal of their equal modifier to add that extra damage and require further steps to mitigate that fact but it also means that they tend to miss more often than the rogue. On top of this, They also miss more often by the sheer fact that they make a larger amount of rolls and so misses are going to come up more regularly anyway.
Sneak Attack is not advantage. The fact that you keep confusing the two means you don’t know rogue mechanics very well. Advantage increases the probability of hitting. Sneak Attack means damage dice. Melee rogues can’t really give themselves advantage the way Barbarians can or Fighters who use Superiority dice, or spend one of their attacks to shove prone can. Melee rogues have to rely on others to improve their chances to hit (the new ability Steady Aim from Tasha’s would work, but then you’re giving up mobility and survivability, rarely a great idea for a rogue).
That's an option as early as 7th-level, so I don't know that I'd call it "higher tier play", though it is solidly in tier 2. Still, if we're adding spells to the mix, along with tools the rogue may not have, then you're leaving a lot out.
Anyone with access to hold person, or something similar, can not only grant advantage but also guarantee a critical hit if it does. Dark elves have access to faerie fire from 3rd-level on, and they can make fantastic rogues. One of the official pre-generated characters is a drow assassin. Path of the Totem Warrior barbarians with the Wolf Totem can grant pack tactics, as can a PH Beast Master ranger with a wolf. Or just take one for a sidekick, or a mastiff. Attacking prone enemies from within 5 feet grants advantage on melee attacks. Rogues can get expertise in Athletics, and I'd certainly want that on a Thief, but that kind of shoving (or tripping, if we're including Battle Masters) is probably better left to someone else. Maybe someone else with expertise in Athletics, like a College of Valor bard or a ranger using Deft Explorer from Tasha's.
An archer rogue is fairly self-sufficient. But like any campaign, it's not all about them. It comes down to teamwork.
P.S.
Technically, if you're using the options from Tasha's, rogues now have access to Steady Aim. It grants advantage at-will, at the cost of not moving. That can work even in melee, and under the right circumstances, it's a safe bet.
Right. Archer rogues are self-sufficient, melee rogues need their teammates or magic items. Either way fighters are still better at damage, which is fine. Magic users can wipe out entire rooms of enemies at once. Like I said before, rogues are good at skills and are “okay” at fighting, but they certainly are not top-tier damage dealers like some wish to believe.
Melee rogues have Steady Aim, so they're fine. And even archer rogues are reliant on having something to hide behind. They're slightly better off; if only because they're at range so fewer attacks are likely to hit them.
Steady aim is fine for archer rogues. The problem with it for melee rogues is it takes away one of the fun things about being a melee rogue, their mobility. If you’re just going to stand in one place and trade blows with an enemy, you’re better off just playing a fighter with heavy armor.
Depending on how many books you're using, Cunning Action can perform anywhere from 3-5 different functions. Heck, a rogue with a hand crossbow and CBX may not even want to Hide or use Steady Aim. Circumstances in combat can turn on a time.
The entire game is built around risk versus reward. It's not a problem if they choose to stand put and gain advantage on their one attack roll. They've made a choice.
No. Your making the assumption that I am in any way talking about advantage. The reality is that advantage isn't needed despite your repeated focus upon needing advantage. Rogues function extremely well without advantage and still hit their enemies a lot. This is both at melee as well as in ranged. And the cold hard reality in play is that your often not doing things solo so working off your allies is a base assumption that can be made in most scenario's. The Solo functionality is actually more the exception in actual play scenario's which is one of the ways that it differs from white room theorycraft.
I have played Rogues many times and have very rarely had issue hitting. And when I have that has almost always meant that the Fighter or the Barbarian or the Paladin is having as much but most likely more difficulty hitting that opponent, To the point that they drop things like GWM just so that they have a better chance to hit which lowers the amount of damage they do per turn. Something that my rogue has not had to do in melee.
Why do you think rogues hit more often than fighters or barbarians? We all have the same +5 cap on ability bonus.
Again. As I have stated repeatedly just in this thread. To use things like GWM and Sharp Shooter. The users must actually lose most of their bonus. So it is not the same to hit cap when those feats are factored in. Which they are factored in very often when it comes to the damage that those classes can deal. Meaning that the Rogue is actually going to hit more often. The rogue is also going to hit more often in general because they are making less rolls. Less rolls actually means less chance for failure even while it also means less chance for critical success. The Barbarian and the Fighter and Even the Paladin are going to have to make more attack rolls than the rogue which means they are going to have more chances for failure. This is basic logic and rules without applying advantage to the situation.
Please look at the whole picture and not just one tiny part of it such as attribute modifier or advantage when looking at the issue.
Fewer attack rolls just means fewer attack rolls. The % to hit is going to be the same.
Yes. But at the same time no. The more that your roll the more often you are going to get value's below that percentage. The less that you roll the less this is going to happen. This is how percentages works. This is also why crit fishing works. There is a low percentage chance to get a crit but the more chances you take to do it such as by having advantage then the more often you are actually going to hit within that range and thus get a critical. Missing works the exact same way.
This.
Or, to put it another way, the more dice you roll the more likely you are to succeed and deal at least some damage.
Fighter/Barbarian/Paladin will always do more damage on average than rogue due to a wide variety of factors but mostly because they get more attacks/bonus to attacks than rogue.
Rogue is meant to get Sneak Attack almost every round to maintain their output....its just lower than fighter and the rest. This is also completely fine as they have more of a split focus than the others and can do more outside of combat. Honestly if Rogue did as much damage as the others it would be a bad deal for those other classes.
Every class has their down sides (Barbs are MAD, fighters do not much outside of combat, Paladin damage output tied to spell slots) which balances things.
The idea of who's on top can vary from level to level, tier to tier, for any number of factors. But in a straight game with no optional rules?
Rogues beat most barbarians, every fighter, and paladins (if they don't use Divine Smite) in Tier 1 play. They fall a little behind in Tier 2, but not so much they cannot meaningfully contribute. And by Tier 3 they're back to running with the big dogs. If you play all the way into Tier 4, they're nothing short of phenomenal.
If you make allowances for feats, they can start to fall behind due to the likes of GWM and SS. That said, the deceased hit chance offsets the added damage to a certain degree. And feats come with an explicit warning that they can make characters much more powerful than normally capable. Allowing them in your game is the same as saying you're okay with a greater imbalance in power between the classes.
DPR will always favor Barbs for one reason: Reckless attack.
I compare whatever builds you want but with rage damage, STR weapons, and Auto-ADV A barbarian will never fall behind a rogue in damage.
Its just not possible especially in T1 but the gap widens significantly once GWM is in play. If you are talking level 1 maybe but level 1 is a joke anyway.
Paladins I can mostly agree with as they are more about NOVA damage vs. consistent damage which is a fair bet rogue will average more damage over the course of the day but Paladin will just be the king of "you are dead now".
Fighters will depend on subclass but mostly beat out rogue in early levels with Battlemaster, Echo Knight, and likely Rune Knight as they have ways to increase damage/to hit. The others like Eldtrich knight, Samurai, Arcane Archer will likely be more in line with the rogue but offer something in alternative (NOVA damage for Samurai, Defense for EK, Debuffs for AA)
That is a myopic and, if I'm being honest, ignorant opinion. Barbarians are not always on top, and Reckless Attacks is not enough to put them ahead of everyone else. It isn't even enough to guarantee they'll be ahead of the rogue. But, sure, I'll bite. Compare a half-orc wolf totem vs a high elf arcane trickster, using the standard array, and with no feats. Who's outputting the greater DPR, and by how much?
I do think it's weird how you'll bring in a lot of subclasses for one and still completely disregard all of the subclasses for another. But, hey, you're going to keep doing you. Can't fault you for being consistent.
Ok you got it:
AT Rogue 3rd level: Two Shortswords
Wolf Barb 3rd Level: Maul
Wolf Barb 3rd level: Two Handaxes
https://imgur.com/a/zqnXr3K
Outcome: AT Rogue will beat Maul Wolf Barb but tie with Handaxe wolf barb. I say tie as the Rogue has no consistent way of producing ADV by themselves (solo contest not a party calc for now)
5th level:
AT Rogue 5th level: Two Shortswords
AT Rogue 5th level: Booming Blade Rapier
Wolf Barb 5th Level: Maul
Wolf Barb 5th level: Two Handaxes
https://imgur.com/a/H3JBjhE
Winner: Barbarian as they will have ADV at will. If the Rogue can manage ADV they are close but do not have a consistent source by themselves.
11th level:
AT Rogue 5th level: Two Shortswords
AT Rogue 5th level: Booming Blade Rapier
Wolf Barb 5th Level: Maul
Wolf Barb 5th level: Two Handaxes
https://imgur.com/a/b2bv8EP
Winner: Rogue actually due to the Stack effect of Booming blade.
So in a featless game you will have either a tie or slight edge towards Barb or Rouge at different levels.
If the Rogue can get ADV 90% of the time they will be better off (say if they have a wolf barb pal :) )
But if they can't it will be in the barbs favor majority of the time.
So bottom line its more even than I anticipated with AT thanks to its ability to use Boomer Blade. For the rest of the rogues it will likely be less of a even split. If you are relying on the off hand sword short 90% of the time for damage you are effectively taking cunning action away from the rogue so its a HUGE offset.
Without that off hand sword their DPR does drop fairly high in most levels:
https://imgur.com/a/PQIx0Io
Which is where my point comes from....how often will a rogue actually use its BA every single turn to use that off hand sword vs. how often a barbarian will Reckless on an attack? As you mention it is likely up to the group and how they play but I would hazard that the barbarian is using reckless a lot more often than the rogue is using that off hand BA sword but thats my experience.
I will say that AT trickster has some great damage output for a rogue and if you pair with shadowblade you are looking at a pretty decent rogue damage dealer.