May I be the first to point out that in D&D, supernatural feats are things thst happen every minute of every day?
Even in "Standard" settings like Greyhawk, players will be spamming that Prestidigitation like no tomorrow and that's just what happens. The PHB lists magical healing potions and level 1 magical scrolls as standard equipment.
The point you are missing in the context of this discussion- admittedly, one that I could have been clearer about- is the action economy advantage this creates. If mid-combat essentially any Rogue can find cover and become invisible functionally indefinitely and the only way to break the effect is a Search Action, then you’re effectively forcing at least one enemy to forgo attacking to make the attempt per round if they want to clear the effect, whereas it only takes a Bonus Action to be guaranteed to Hide per the RAW DC. Given the premium action economy represents in 5e, that’s enough of an ask that I expect most DMs to go without, especially when half the time my 7th level Rogue will be scoring higher than 19 on their rolls whereas enemy Perception bonuses are in the +4-7 range for CRs near that level per the current MM, with advantage granting mechanics for Perception checks having been largely if not completely phased out, making its application to counter Hide homebrew, not RAW.
I will say that that sounds okay to me, and even a tad underpowered. At level 7, this is one of the few ways that Rogues can create advantages in the action economy, and creatures at this CR can have Blindsight, which completely obviates the Hide action.
That's even only if their enemies in combat even care about detecting the Rogue in the first place, as Rogue damage is middling at best, and their CC options are limited.
If you ask me, we shouldn't have this issue with the Rogue. That guy's fine. The real issue is the Wizard. Wizards can get Stealth. That's a thing.
When Wizards use Invisibility, they can absolutely Hide and should Hide. Hide gives them the Invisible condition. After they're Hidden, they can cast spells. That breaks the Inivisibility spell. But it doesnt break their Invisible condition from hiding if the spell doesn't have verbal components.
Things like Fireball and Lightning Bolt have obvious sensory elements that would reveal a hiding Wizard. What about Hypnotic Pattern? Hold Person? Major Image? Haste? Slow? At that point, you can't even complain it's not realistic because it's explicitly magic.
The Rogue's stealth is supposed to be superior to that.
If you ask me, we shouldn't have this issue with the Rogue. That guy's fine. The real issue is the Wizard. Wizards can get Stealth. That's a thing.
All characters can stealth, so no matter what rule is written sneaking and stealth will never be unique to the Rogue. Already a Druid with Pass without Trace is better at sneaking than a Rogue for most of the game. In some ways a Shadow Monk is also better at sneaking than a Rogue. Rangers can also easily be better at sneaking than a Rogue. If the 'rogue fantasy' is being the infiltrator and sneaking around, then there is simply no way to achieve that by fiddling or re-interpreting the generic Hide rules. Many many characters are better at that than the Rogue. A warlock with Mask of Many Faces, a Druid with an innocuous Wildshape or a Wild companion, a Wizard or Warlock or anyone with Magic Initiate with a Familiar, an Eloquence Bard + a disguise, a Shadow monk .. they are all better infiltrators than a Rogue.
The way to live out the sneaky skulker fantasy in 2024 is the Skulker feat, which any class could take but is most likely to be taken by a Rogue.
The Rogue's stealth is supposed to be superior to that.
Why do you say that? A wizard has to spend a prepared spell and a spellslot, whereas a Rogue can sneak for free.
Because they're supposed to be equivalent classes. Bear that in mind when you're talking around the table. And be explicit and forthright about it. If you're the DM and you want the best infiltrator to be the Wizard, then tell that to anyone who wants to be a sneaky infiltrator. And tell them that if they want to play a Rogue anyway, what they want won't be happening.
By the by, it doesn't surprise me that everyone with spells is, in your ruleset, a better Rogue than the Rogue. I don't think that's a good balance, but you do what you want at your table so long as everyone is on the same page.
Maybe tweak the Rogue class to have a few extra perks to make up for it.
The point you are missing in the context of this discussion- admittedly, one that I could have been clearer about- is the action economy advantage this creates. If mid-combat essentially any Rogue can find cover and become invisible functionally indefinitely and the only way to break the effect is a Search Action, then you’re effectively forcing at least one enemy to forgo attacking to make the attempt per round if they want to clear the effect, whereas it only takes a Bonus Action to be guaranteed to Hide per the RAW DC. Given the premium action economy represents in 5e, that’s enough of an ask that I expect most DMs to go without, especially when half the time my 7th level Rogue will be scoring higher than 19 on their rolls whereas enemy Perception bonuses are in the +4-7 range for CRs near that level per the current MM, with advantage granting mechanics for Perception checks having been largely if not completely phased out, making its application to counter Hide homebrew, not RAW.
I will say that that sounds okay to me, and even a tad underpowered. At level 7, this is one of the few ways that Rogues can create advantages in the action economy, and creatures at this CR can have Blindsight, which completely obviates the Hide action.
That's even only if their enemies in combat even care about detecting the Rogue in the first place, as Rogue damage is middling at best, and their CC options are limited.
If you ask me, we shouldn't have this issue with the Rogue. That guy's fine. The real issue is the Wizard. Wizards can get Stealth. That's a thing.
When Wizards use Invisibility, they can absolutely Hide and should Hide. Hide gives them the Invisible condition. After they're Hidden, they can cast spells. That breaks the Inivisibility spell. But it doesnt break their Invisible condition from hiding if the spell doesn't have verbal components.
Things like Fireball and Lightning Bolt have obvious sensory elements that would reveal a hiding Wizard. What about Hypnotic Pattern? Hold Person? Major Image? Haste? Slow? At that point, you can't even complain it's not realistic because it's explicitly magic.
The Rogue's stealth is supposed to be superior to that.
There's a reason Rogues don't get much disruption- it's called "Sneak Attack". As a class, their combat hat is high dpr hits, not control. Plus, my point isn't that they'd actually use up enemy actions against a DM with some sense of the numbers. The point is that the numbers are so far in the Rogue's favor for staying hidden versus Search and the opportunity cost of the attempt is so high that most DMs would likely not bother with Search, negating the idea that Rogues might not be able to maintain their consistent Invisible status.
Because they're supposed to be equivalent classes.
They are. The Wizard is more powerful than the Rogue if they use spellslots but they have limited spellslots and once they are gone they are much weaker than the Rogue. In contrast the Rogue is reliable, it can do its think all day, every round, for hours and hours, and be fine - a Rogue's sneak attack can deal as much damage as a Wizard's fireball but that rogue can sneak attack every turn of every combat and even sometimes as a reaction, whereas a Wizard has a finite number of fireballs they can cast a day. A wizard using the Invisible spell is doomed if a random trap breaks their concentration, whereas if a Rogue gets spotted they can dash around a corner and hide again, or lie their way out of it.
The point you are missing in the context of this discussion- admittedly, one that I could have been clearer about- is the action economy advantage this creates. If mid-combat essentially any Rogue can find cover and become invisible functionally indefinitely and the only way to break the effect is a Search Action, then you’re effectively forcing at least one enemy to forgo attacking to make the attempt per round if they want to clear the effect, whereas it only takes a Bonus Action to be guaranteed to Hide per the RAW DC. Given the premium action economy represents in 5e, that’s enough of an ask that I expect most DMs to go without, especially when half the time my 7th level Rogue will be scoring higher than 19 on their rolls whereas enemy Perception bonuses are in the +4-7 range for CRs near that level per the current MM, with advantage granting mechanics for Perception checks having been largely if not completely phased out, making its application to counter Hide homebrew, not RAW.
I will say that that sounds okay to me, and even a tad underpowered. At level 7, this is one of the few ways that Rogues can create advantages in the action economy, and creatures at this CR can have Blindsight, which completely obviates the Hide action.
That's even only if their enemies in combat even care about detecting the Rogue in the first place, as Rogue damage is middling at best, and their CC options are limited.
If you ask me, we shouldn't have this issue with the Rogue. That guy's fine. The real issue is the Wizard. Wizards can get Stealth. That's a thing.
When Wizards use Invisibility, they can absolutely Hide and should Hide. Hide gives them the Invisible condition. After they're Hidden, they can cast spells. That breaks the Inivisibility spell. But it doesnt break their Invisible condition from hiding if the spell doesn't have verbal components.
Things like Fireball and Lightning Bolt have obvious sensory elements that would reveal a hiding Wizard. What about Hypnotic Pattern? Hold Person? Major Image? Haste? Slow? At that point, you can't even complain it's not realistic because it's explicitly magic.
The Rogue's stealth is supposed to be superior to that.
There's a reason Rogues don't get much disruption- it's called "Sneak Attack". As a class, their combat hat is high dpr hits, not control. Plus, my point isn't that they'd actually use up enemy actions against a DM with some sense of the numbers. The point is that the numbers are so far in the Rogue's favor for staying hidden versus Search and the opportunity cost of the attempt is so high that most DMs would likely not bother with Search, negating the idea that Rogues might not be able to maintain their consistent Invisible status.
Rogues are not high DPR. Full stop. Even if Rogue were perma-Invisible, their DPR would be mediocre.
Because they're supposed to be equivalent classes.
They are. The Wizard is more powerful than the Rogue if they use spellslots but they have limited spellslots and once they are gone they are much weaker than the Rogue. In contrast the Rogue is reliable, it can do its think all day, every round, for hours and hours, and be fine - a Rogue's sneak attack can deal as much damage as a Wizard's fireball but that rogue can sneak attack every turn of every combat and even sometimes as a reaction, whereas a Wizard has a finite number of fireballs they can cast a day. A wizard using the Invisible spell is doomed if a random trap breaks their concentration, whereas if a Rogue gets spotted they can dash around a corner and hide again, or lie their way out of it.
That's bullshit. It's nonsense.
Equivalency lies in quantifiable measures, not in "I can do this all day," statements. Even at 7th level, a Wizard has functionally NINE spell slots of 2nd level or higher with which they can perform their feats throughout the day. Are you running 18 encounters in a day? Surely not.
The numbers matter. We're not gully dwarves here. We can count above two.
The point you are missing in the context of this discussion- admittedly, one that I could have been clearer about- is the action economy advantage this creates. If mid-combat essentially any Rogue can find cover and become invisible functionally indefinitely and the only way to break the effect is a Search Action, then you’re effectively forcing at least one enemy to forgo attacking to make the attempt per round if they want to clear the effect, whereas it only takes a Bonus Action to be guaranteed to Hide per the RAW DC. Given the premium action economy represents in 5e, that’s enough of an ask that I expect most DMs to go without, especially when half the time my 7th level Rogue will be scoring higher than 19 on their rolls whereas enemy Perception bonuses are in the +4-7 range for CRs near that level per the current MM, with advantage granting mechanics for Perception checks having been largely if not completely phased out, making its application to counter Hide homebrew, not RAW.
I will say that that sounds okay to me, and even a tad underpowered. At level 7, this is one of the few ways that Rogues can create advantages in the action economy, and creatures at this CR can have Blindsight, which completely obviates the Hide action.
That's even only if their enemies in combat even care about detecting the Rogue in the first place, as Rogue damage is middling at best, and their CC options are limited.
If you ask me, we shouldn't have this issue with the Rogue. That guy's fine. The real issue is the Wizard. Wizards can get Stealth. That's a thing.
When Wizards use Invisibility, they can absolutely Hide and should Hide. Hide gives them the Invisible condition. After they're Hidden, they can cast spells. That breaks the Inivisibility spell. But it doesnt break their Invisible condition from hiding if the spell doesn't have verbal components.
Things like Fireball and Lightning Bolt have obvious sensory elements that would reveal a hiding Wizard. What about Hypnotic Pattern? Hold Person? Major Image? Haste? Slow? At that point, you can't even complain it's not realistic because it's explicitly magic.
The Rogue's stealth is supposed to be superior to that.
There's a reason Rogues don't get much disruption- it's called "Sneak Attack". As a class, their combat hat is high dpr hits, not control. Plus, my point isn't that they'd actually use up enemy actions against a DM with some sense of the numbers. The point is that the numbers are so far in the Rogue's favor for staying hidden versus Search and the opportunity cost of the attempt is so high that most DMs would likely not bother with Search, negating the idea that Rogues might not be able to maintain their consistent Invisible status.
Rogues are not high DPR. Full stop. Even if Rogue were perma-Invisible, their DPR would be mediocre.
Oh yes, by 7th level they're at a measly 4d6 for 14 extra points of damage on average from Sneak Attack. Of course, that's applied nearly every. Single. Turn. They. Hit. Kindly do the math on a long adventuring day with multiple encounters and compare it to the three 3rd and one 4th level spell full casters will have at that point. Casters look good on paper with 8d6 AoE burst damage. Interestingly enough, you'll note that two Sneak Attacks matches that on a per target basis. The AoE force multiplies their effectiveness when they can get in a good opening shot, but purely by the dice rolled per day they can easily fall behind martials if there's more than one or two serious encounters.
The point you are missing in the context of this discussion- admittedly, one that I could have been clearer about- is the action economy advantage this creates. If mid-combat essentially any Rogue can find cover and become invisible functionally indefinitely and the only way to break the effect is a Search Action, then you’re effectively forcing at least one enemy to forgo attacking to make the attempt per round if they want to clear the effect, whereas it only takes a Bonus Action to be guaranteed to Hide per the RAW DC. Given the premium action economy represents in 5e, that’s enough of an ask that I expect most DMs to go without, especially when half the time my 7th level Rogue will be scoring higher than 19 on their rolls whereas enemy Perception bonuses are in the +4-7 range for CRs near that level per the current MM, with advantage granting mechanics for Perception checks having been largely if not completely phased out, making its application to counter Hide homebrew, not RAW.
I will say that that sounds okay to me, and even a tad underpowered. At level 7, this is one of the few ways that Rogues can create advantages in the action economy, and creatures at this CR can have Blindsight, which completely obviates the Hide action.
That's even only if their enemies in combat even care about detecting the Rogue in the first place, as Rogue damage is middling at best, and their CC options are limited.
If you ask me, we shouldn't have this issue with the Rogue. That guy's fine. The real issue is the Wizard. Wizards can get Stealth. That's a thing.
When Wizards use Invisibility, they can absolutely Hide and should Hide. Hide gives them the Invisible condition. After they're Hidden, they can cast spells. That breaks the Inivisibility spell. But it doesnt break their Invisible condition from hiding if the spell doesn't have verbal components.
Things like Fireball and Lightning Bolt have obvious sensory elements that would reveal a hiding Wizard. What about Hypnotic Pattern? Hold Person? Major Image? Haste? Slow? At that point, you can't even complain it's not realistic because it's explicitly magic.
The Rogue's stealth is supposed to be superior to that.
There's a reason Rogues don't get much disruption- it's called "Sneak Attack". As a class, their combat hat is high dpr hits, not control. Plus, my point isn't that they'd actually use up enemy actions against a DM with some sense of the numbers. The point is that the numbers are so far in the Rogue's favor for staying hidden versus Search and the opportunity cost of the attempt is so high that most DMs would likely not bother with Search, negating the idea that Rogues might not be able to maintain their consistent Invisible status.
Rogues are not high DPR. Full stop. Even if Rogue were perma-Invisible, their DPR would be mediocre.
Oh yes, by 7th level they're at a measly 4d6 for 14 extra points of damage on average from Sneak Attack. Of course, that's applied nearly every. Single. Turn. They. Hit. Kindly do the math on a long adventuring day with multiple encounters and compare it to the three 3rd and one 4th level spell full casters will have at that point. Casters look good on paper with 8d6 AoE burst damage. Interestingly enough, you'll note that two Sneak Attacks matches that on a per target basis. The AoE force multiplies their effectiveness when they can get in a good opening shot, but purely by the dice rolled per day they can easily fall behind martials if there's more than one or two serious encounters.
A Fireball's 8d6 damage applies to multiple targets. A Fireball applied to a single target is an extremely bad use of a Fireball. Conservatively, a Fireball should have something like 3 targets. Generously, all the enemies in an encounter area. Let's say 4, just to be fair.
Most combats should last about 4 rounds. That means Rogues need two encounters of turn after turn favorable combat to match a single Fireball. I don't run more than 6 encounters in a day, usually. Two Fireballs will match the Rogue's damage output easily.
For single targets, the Wizard is best when applying CC. They can insta-end an encounter with effective CC. Wizards are notably also mediocre at single target DPR. If the Rogue is just barely matching the Wizard, it's also mediocre DPR.
Barbarians and Paladins have good single target DPR. And they don't need to Hide to do it.
I'm not saying the Rogue should outperform every metric on every party member. I'm just saying their damage output is mediocre. Which it is.
Equivalency lies in quantifiable measures, not in "I can do this all day," statements. Even at 7th level...
And if rogues (and for that matter, all martial classes) got more significant features at mid to late level (linear fighter/quadratic wizard isn't as bad in 5e as it was in prior editions, but it's still there) that would be fine, but they shouldn't be getting it at level 1. For example, the supreme sneak ability at thief level 9 is extremely underwhelming (why bother when you can just use a bonus action to hide?), replace it with something that makes you actually supremely stealthy.
Equivalency lies in quantifiable measures, not in "I can do this all day," statements. Even at 7th level...
And if rogues (and for that matter, all martial classes) got more significant features at mid to late level (linear fighter/quadratic wizard isn't as bad in 5e as it was in prior editions, but it's still there) that would be fine, but they shouldn't be getting it at level 1. For example, the supreme sneak ability at thief level 9 is extremely underwhelming (why bother when you can just use a bonus action to hide?), replace it with something that makes you actually supremely stealthy.
Rogues don't get truly broken Stealth until level 7 - mid level - which is when they get Reliable Talent. I think that scales well to Polymorph, presuming we interpret the Hide rules generously.
Alright. What generous interpretation of Stealth is broken here? Not rhetorical. What's the broken thing Rogues can accomplish here?
Turn invisible at will with no counters that aren't completely nonviable from an action economy standpoint.
In fact, they can't do that. Even with the most generous interpretation, Rogues can only Hide under certain conditions. Not at will. Even if they could turn Invisible at will, they can't leverage that in any way that's superior to, say, Find Familiar.
At best, this only means they can't be attacked effectively. Given that Rogues have middling DPR and no truly effective CC, what's broken about it?
At best, this only means they can't be attacked effectively. Given that Rogues have middling DPR and no truly effective CC, what's broken about it?
Rogues in tier 1 have excellent DPR, it just doesn't scale well into higher tiers.
Assuming he gets Sneak Attack all the time, a 2nd level Rogue gets 2d6 + attribute damage once per turn.
A 2nd level TWF Ranger gets two attacks per turn with that damage, and that's without any notable cheesy optimization.
The Sneak Attack reqs are an ally next to the target or advantage- something half of the weapons they're likely to use can generate, and they have a 3rd level feature to produce as well. If you aren't getting Sneak Attack more turns than not, you're either not picking targets well or the DM is very actively screwing with you.
Also, you're ignoring the obvious point that there's nothing stopping a Rogue from TWF for only slightly less DPR independent of the Sneak Attack.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
May I be the first to point out that in D&D, supernatural feats are things thst happen every minute of every day?
Even in "Standard" settings like Greyhawk, players will be spamming that Prestidigitation like no tomorrow and that's just what happens. The PHB lists magical healing potions and level 1 magical scrolls as standard equipment.
I will say that that sounds okay to me, and even a tad underpowered. At level 7, this is one of the few ways that Rogues can create advantages in the action economy, and creatures at this CR can have Blindsight, which completely obviates the Hide action.
That's even only if their enemies in combat even care about detecting the Rogue in the first place, as Rogue damage is middling at best, and their CC options are limited.
If you ask me, we shouldn't have this issue with the Rogue. That guy's fine. The real issue is the Wizard. Wizards can get Stealth. That's a thing.
When Wizards use Invisibility, they can absolutely Hide and should Hide. Hide gives them the Invisible condition. After they're Hidden, they can cast spells. That breaks the Inivisibility spell. But it doesnt break their Invisible condition from hiding if the spell doesn't have verbal components.
Things like Fireball and Lightning Bolt have obvious sensory elements that would reveal a hiding Wizard. What about Hypnotic Pattern? Hold Person? Major Image? Haste? Slow? At that point, you can't even complain it's not realistic because it's explicitly magic.
The Rogue's stealth is supposed to be superior to that.
All characters can stealth, so no matter what rule is written sneaking and stealth will never be unique to the Rogue. Already a Druid with Pass without Trace is better at sneaking than a Rogue for most of the game. In some ways a Shadow Monk is also better at sneaking than a Rogue. Rangers can also easily be better at sneaking than a Rogue. If the 'rogue fantasy' is being the infiltrator and sneaking around, then there is simply no way to achieve that by fiddling or re-interpreting the generic Hide rules. Many many characters are better at that than the Rogue. A warlock with Mask of Many Faces, a Druid with an innocuous Wildshape or a Wild companion, a Wizard or Warlock or anyone with Magic Initiate with a Familiar, an Eloquence Bard + a disguise, a Shadow monk .. they are all better infiltrators than a Rogue.
The way to live out the sneaky skulker fantasy in 2024 is the Skulker feat, which any class could take but is most likely to be taken by a Rogue.
Why do you say that? A wizard has to spend a prepared spell and a spellslot, whereas a Rogue can sneak for free.
Because they're supposed to be equivalent classes. Bear that in mind when you're talking around the table. And be explicit and forthright about it. If you're the DM and you want the best infiltrator to be the Wizard, then tell that to anyone who wants to be a sneaky infiltrator. And tell them that if they want to play a Rogue anyway, what they want won't be happening.
By the by, it doesn't surprise me that everyone with spells is, in your ruleset, a better Rogue than the Rogue. I don't think that's a good balance, but you do what you want at your table so long as everyone is on the same page.
Maybe tweak the Rogue class to have a few extra perks to make up for it.
There's a reason Rogues don't get much disruption- it's called "Sneak Attack". As a class, their combat hat is high dpr hits, not control. Plus, my point isn't that they'd actually use up enemy actions against a DM with some sense of the numbers. The point is that the numbers are so far in the Rogue's favor for staying hidden versus Search and the opportunity cost of the attempt is so high that most DMs would likely not bother with Search, negating the idea that Rogues might not be able to maintain their consistent Invisible status.
They are. The Wizard is more powerful than the Rogue if they use spellslots but they have limited spellslots and once they are gone they are much weaker than the Rogue. In contrast the Rogue is reliable, it can do its think all day, every round, for hours and hours, and be fine - a Rogue's sneak attack can deal as much damage as a Wizard's fireball but that rogue can sneak attack every turn of every combat and even sometimes as a reaction, whereas a Wizard has a finite number of fireballs they can cast a day. A wizard using the Invisible spell is doomed if a random trap breaks their concentration, whereas if a Rogue gets spotted they can dash around a corner and hide again, or lie their way out of it.
Rogues are not high DPR. Full stop. Even if Rogue were perma-Invisible, their DPR would be mediocre.
That's bullshit. It's nonsense.
Equivalency lies in quantifiable measures, not in "I can do this all day," statements. Even at 7th level, a Wizard has functionally NINE spell slots of 2nd level or higher with which they can perform their feats throughout the day. Are you running 18 encounters in a day? Surely not.
The numbers matter. We're not gully dwarves here. We can count above two.
Oh yes, by 7th level they're at a measly 4d6 for 14 extra points of damage on average from Sneak Attack. Of course, that's applied nearly every. Single. Turn. They. Hit. Kindly do the math on a long adventuring day with multiple encounters and compare it to the three 3rd and one 4th level spell full casters will have at that point. Casters look good on paper with 8d6 AoE burst damage. Interestingly enough, you'll note that two Sneak Attacks matches that on a per target basis. The AoE force multiplies their effectiveness when they can get in a good opening shot, but purely by the dice rolled per day they can easily fall behind martials if there's more than one or two serious encounters.
A Fireball's 8d6 damage applies to multiple targets. A Fireball applied to a single target is an extremely bad use of a Fireball. Conservatively, a Fireball should have something like 3 targets. Generously, all the enemies in an encounter area. Let's say 4, just to be fair.
Most combats should last about 4 rounds. That means Rogues need two encounters of turn after turn favorable combat to match a single Fireball. I don't run more than 6 encounters in a day, usually. Two Fireballs will match the Rogue's damage output easily.
For single targets, the Wizard is best when applying CC. They can insta-end an encounter with effective CC. Wizards are notably also mediocre at single target DPR. If the Rogue is just barely matching the Wizard, it's also mediocre DPR.
Barbarians and Paladins have good single target DPR. And they don't need to Hide to do it.
I'm not saying the Rogue should outperform every metric on every party member. I'm just saying their damage output is mediocre. Which it is.
And if rogues (and for that matter, all martial classes) got more significant features at mid to late level (linear fighter/quadratic wizard isn't as bad in 5e as it was in prior editions, but it's still there) that would be fine, but they shouldn't be getting it at level 1. For example, the supreme sneak ability at thief level 9 is extremely underwhelming (why bother when you can just use a bonus action to hide?), replace it with something that makes you actually supremely stealthy.
Rogues don't get truly broken Stealth until level 7 - mid level - which is when they get Reliable Talent. I think that scales well to Polymorph, presuming we interpret the Hide rules generously.
A level 2 rogue with expertise is already at 65% to hide as a bonus action, which is absolutely broken at level 2 if you interpret stealth generously.
Alright. What generous interpretation of Stealth is broken here? Not rhetorical. What's the broken thing Rogues can accomplish here?
Turn invisible at will with no counters that aren't completely nonviable from an action economy standpoint.
In fact, they can't do that. Even with the most generous interpretation, Rogues can only Hide under certain conditions. Not at will. Even if they could turn Invisible at will, they can't leverage that in any way that's superior to, say, Find Familiar.
At best, this only means they can't be attacked effectively. Given that Rogues have middling DPR and no truly effective CC, what's broken about it?
Rogues in tier 1 have excellent DPR, it just doesn't scale well into higher tiers.
Assuming he gets Sneak Attack all the time, a 2nd level Rogue gets 2d6 + attribute damage once per turn.
A 2nd level TWF Ranger gets two attacks per turn with that damage, and that's without any notable cheesy optimization.
The Sneak Attack reqs are an ally next to the target or advantage- something half of the weapons they're likely to use can generate, and they have a 3rd level feature to produce as well. If you aren't getting Sneak Attack more turns than not, you're either not picking targets well or the DM is very actively screwing with you.
Also, you're ignoring the obvious point that there's nothing stopping a Rogue from TWF for only slightly less DPR independent of the Sneak Attack.