Rogues are certainly problematic in the playtest, not only because they got their offensive possibilities slightly nerfed, also because other expert classes (and spellcasters, as is being discussed) got their skill abilities buffed (more expertise added to Ranger and Bard, advantage on intelligence search checks for Wizards). I feel like this has left the Rogue with almost no niche in the game. Of course, on the other hand, even if a spellcaster is the one that might be finding the traps due to their superior perception or investigation skills, the Rogue will still usually be the one using thieves' tools to disarm traps and open locks, making the challenge more of a team effort.
Either martials have to be buffed with superhuman abilities that let them be as powerful and versatile in and out of combat as casters. Or casters have to be dragged down to where martials are now, where they have to specialize in 1 thing that they can do kinda well (but still worse than current state casters).
At this point, I don't even have a preference anymore. I'll take superhuman martials or crappy casters if it means every class is actually useful.
Rogues are certainly problematic in the playtest, not only because they got their offensive possibilities slightly nerfed, also because other expert classes (and spellcasters, as is being discussed) got their skill abilities buffed (more expertise added to Ranger and Bard, advantage on intelligence search checks for Wizards). I feel like this has left the Rogue with almost no niche in the game. Of course, on the other hand, even if a spellcaster is the one that might be finding the traps due to their superior perception or investigation skills, the Rogue will still usually be the one using thieves' tools to disarm traps and open locks, making the challenge more of a team effort.
Well, let's be real. Rogues don't have much of a place in the Player's Handbook either, so that problem has been a thing since 2014. Even when they were the only class with Expertise, that mechanic is just not strong enough to compete with spellcasting. And they've always been on the underwhelming side of damage dealing.
Well, let's be real. Rogues don't have much of a place in the Player's Handbook either, so that problem has been a thing since 2014. Even when they were the only class with Expertise, that mechanic is just not strong enough to compete with spellcasting. And they've always been on the underwhelming side of damage dealing.
I'd disagree with this sentiment, although it does have a grain of truth (and I will admit that the group I play with is not particularly focused on optimization). Yes, spellcasters can choose and cast spells that mostly make a Rogue redundant, but they rarely do so in my experience, and if they do, they are essentially limiting their own capabilities in other areas by needlessly expending their resources when a Rogue can do things without opportunity cost. From a damage standpoint, sure there will usually be characters that can (possibly significantly) out-damage the Rogue, but Rogues can usually put out decent damage. This of course depends on one's view of decent damage, as I'd guess when a group really gets into optimization, they possibly would not consider the Rogue's damage contribution "decent".
Whatever the case, since most other classes got buffs to utility skills or features and Rogues got a certain nerf on their damage potential, this situation has certainly become exacerbated.
If I take two levels of Rogue, for the skill proficiencies, two expertise, and cunning action, then go Warlock, even with the new "half-caster"* version, the total is almost always better than going straight Rogue, even Arcane Trickster.
Having access to magic makes any class better. The only reason that Battle Master comes out better than Eldritch Knight is because BM offers "magic-like effects" that key off a primary Fighter stat rather than intelligence which will probably be a tertiary stat for Fighter at best.
The Ranger is just a better Rogue. Especially now Rogue doesn't have the option of expertise on thieves' tools.
If I take two levels of Rogue, for the skill proficiencies, two expertise, and cunning action, then go Warlock, even with the new "half-caster"* version, the total is almost always better than going straight Rogue, even Arcane Trickster.
Having access to magic makes any class better. The only reason that Battle Master comes out better than Eldritch Knight is because BM offers "magic-like effects" that key off a primary Fighter stat rather than intelligence which will probably be a tertiary stat for Fighter at best.
The Ranger is just a better Rogue. Especially now Rogue doesn't have the option of expertise on thieves' tools.
*some terms and conditions may apply
I can definitely agree with your point that unfortunately, a Ranger in this playtest can do everything that the Rogue can do and more. Since they have stressed that it is the concept that they are working on first and will attune power levels as needed, hopefully the Rogue will regain some of its meaningfulness as a class.
Finding traps has been moved to the Study action. Yes it use to be spot check back in the day and thus in 5e was a perception check, but many players have argued for investigation rolls, so I guess WotC accepted and as of this playtest are using that rule.
I mean, setting aside the fact that almost no one is actually going to stop using Perception to spot traps, the wording on Perception for Search is to detect "concealed objects or creatures", so there's still a decent case to be made for it under the new system.
But Because of academic a wizard would have advantage on that investigation roll, and more likely to succeed than a rogue. Honestly this debate is pointless since the argument is that a Druid or Cleric with a perception check is better, and thus still a spellcaster better than the rogue at a skill check. This only continues to paint the pictures that spellcasters might be too strong in comparison and other classes need buffs to catch.
Expertise is about equivalent to Advantage and more consistent, so you're looking at a margin of maybe 2-4 points effective difference on the mod, and with a stronger swing factor. Plus Rogues are very SAD, so it's easy for a player who wants to lean into their mental skills to get a +3 or +4 Ability Score mod in their chosen stat. And Wizards have fewer skill profs, so they could just as easily pass on Investigation if the party already has a Rogue or Ranger with a high Perception mod.
That’s not a strong argument since Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are SAD. Clerics and Druids will almost always take perception, and every Wizard I’ve played with had investigation, but that’s not a fair scale. Let’s say 50% take investigation. Are we assuming all Rogues take expertise investigation with there first level? At second level all wizards get advantage with all the intelligence skills. So for any rogue that doesn’t take expertise investigation at levels 2 until they take it any wizard is the superior investigator. Even if they take it and have lower Int score than their Wizard it’s a 50% chance (assuming 50% of wizards take investigation) their wizard is the better investigator. The rogue is suppose to be the guy who says I handle skills the best. And that’s true at 11th level, but before that the spell casters are simply better, and they have spells.
They are better at int skills and outside investigation most are more background based. Don't get me wrong knowing the fire breathing dragon is resistant to fire is a huge plus as well.
Skills overall a rogue will in general be better. Which isn't to say rogues don't have a issue. They are a bad class. Maybe give rogues expertise in every skill they are trained in and a bonus equal to every skill equal to their proficiency bonus at level 7 or something. Unless they change mutliclassing so some abilities don't work unless you have more levels in the class than other classes. Then slap that in at level 1.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Rogues are certainly problematic in the playtest, not only because they got their offensive possibilities slightly nerfed, also because other expert classes (and spellcasters, as is being discussed) got their skill abilities buffed (more expertise added to Ranger and Bard, advantage on intelligence search checks for Wizards). I feel like this has left the Rogue with almost no niche in the game. Of course, on the other hand, even if a spellcaster is the one that might be finding the traps due to their superior perception or investigation skills, the Rogue will still usually be the one using thieves' tools to disarm traps and open locks, making the challenge more of a team effort.
Either martials have to be buffed with superhuman abilities that let them be as powerful and versatile in and out of combat as casters. Or casters have to be dragged down to where martials are now, where they have to specialize in 1 thing that they can do kinda well (but still worse than current state casters).
At this point, I don't even have a preference anymore. I'll take superhuman martials or crappy casters if it means every class is actually useful.
Well, let's be real. Rogues don't have much of a place in the Player's Handbook either, so that problem has been a thing since 2014. Even when they were the only class with Expertise, that mechanic is just not strong enough to compete with spellcasting. And they've always been on the underwhelming side of damage dealing.
I'd disagree with this sentiment, although it does have a grain of truth (and I will admit that the group I play with is not particularly focused on optimization). Yes, spellcasters can choose and cast spells that mostly make a Rogue redundant, but they rarely do so in my experience, and if they do, they are essentially limiting their own capabilities in other areas by needlessly expending their resources when a Rogue can do things without opportunity cost. From a damage standpoint, sure there will usually be characters that can (possibly significantly) out-damage the Rogue, but Rogues can usually put out decent damage. This of course depends on one's view of decent damage, as I'd guess when a group really gets into optimization, they possibly would not consider the Rogue's damage contribution "decent".
Whatever the case, since most other classes got buffs to utility skills or features and Rogues got a certain nerf on their damage potential, this situation has certainly become exacerbated.
The problem with Rogue could be expressed thus.
If I take two levels of Rogue, for the skill proficiencies, two expertise, and cunning action, then go Warlock, even with the new "half-caster"* version, the total is almost always better than going straight Rogue, even Arcane Trickster.
Having access to magic makes any class better. The only reason that Battle Master comes out better than Eldritch Knight is because BM offers "magic-like effects" that key off a primary Fighter stat rather than intelligence which will probably be a tertiary stat for Fighter at best.
The Ranger is just a better Rogue. Especially now Rogue doesn't have the option of expertise on thieves' tools.
*some terms and conditions may apply
I can definitely agree with your point that unfortunately, a Ranger in this playtest can do everything that the Rogue can do and more. Since they have stressed that it is the concept that they are working on first and will attune power levels as needed, hopefully the Rogue will regain some of its meaningfulness as a class.
They are better at int skills and outside investigation most are more background based. Don't get me wrong knowing the fire breathing dragon is resistant to fire is a huge plus as well.
Skills overall a rogue will in general be better. Which isn't to say rogues don't have a issue. They are a bad class. Maybe give rogues expertise in every skill they are trained in and a bonus equal to every skill equal to their proficiency bonus at level 7 or something. Unless they change mutliclassing so some abilities don't work unless you have more levels in the class than other classes. Then slap that in at level 1.