Rogue's been a really awkward position right now. They're having a quite tough time, especially for many players who might pay more attention to balancing and numbers in the game. I know many players who play Rogue aren't looking for DPR, but their advantage of out-of-combat uitility has been way too low to compensate their bad combat powers, while other classes are getting much boosts in skills, utilities, and combat features.
Especially Ranger and Bard, these classes also exist as Experts, same as Rogue, but with powerful combat-powers.
Sneak Attack has scaled too little compared to any other classes that isn't a full-caster after lv.5. Their DPR has been left too far away, even some combat-wise optimized full-casters can catch up with Rogue in DPR, with all that crazy utilities. Especially after UA8, Cunning Strike is not that special anymore. Barbs, Fighters, Monks, all getting their Skills, Utilities and Mobility boosted. Maybe it's finally a good time for Rogue to get a little boost. But this survey might be our last chance to tell these things to WotC.
Edit: And To everyone who'd like to see the numbers, here's a chart about numbers. Sure Rogue could to a basic DPR, but the promblem doesn't lie in unoptimized characters. The problem lies in characters with any sort of optimizations. Their floor is similar, but their ceiling has been far beyond than a Rogue could do. The gap has been way too big.
There's been a problem about the role of "Skill-Monkey" since 5e, IMO. The problem lies in skills are meant to be something that "Everyone can do it". In 5e, Skills doesn't allow you to do something beyond "mundane", and there're also no exclusive skills to Rogue like it was in elder editions. Skills alone can't make a class, and it shouldn't be the only thing that make Rogue stands out as an individual class.
Actually, in 5e, Rogue has already been suffering from "skills are for mundane affairs, and Rogues are only better than others in mundane affairs". But in OneD&D, now everyone has become good at those mundane affairs by getting boosted in skills, which turns Rogue into a position of "Only a bit better than others in mundane affairs", and this just make the situation even worse for Rogue. The Skill System needs a rework, or Rogue needs a boost in skills that allowing them to achive something that others can't replicate easily.
Pure Martials
After a series of playtests, Rogues don't shine on skills so much any longer. Despite Bard, Fighter has been able to use Second-Wind to Disengage and move half more of the speed. And they are able to add 5.5(1d10) to every skill checks that has failed, and not costing when it's still a failed check.
In my recent playtest with my friends, the new Fighter with Second-Wind and without any intentionally leaning into skills, had outpaced my Thief Rogue in skill checks before level7, which was a really surprising result to me. There aren't so many failed skill checks between short-rests at all, let alone it costs nothing if that D10 isn't making you pass. But before level 7, all I've got was a few more +2/3 to skills. Nothing could compared to +D10 to skills that you've failed. The only Rogue I can think of to compete this is Soulknife Rogue.
Barbarian has been able to use Str for five useful skills (Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, and Survival) while raging for 10-minutes, and both these Features could be recovered by short-rest.
In UA8, Barbarian and Monk has also got their own Strikes. Monks getting better mobility, free BA Dash, free BA Disengage, and Deflect Attack, a better version of Uncanny Dodge, as someone mathed out that a level 5 Monk can reduce 5.5(d10)+4+5=14.5 damage every turn, while Uncanny Dodge is only better when a Rogue takes a 30+ damage from one hit at level 5. For most monsters that players would be facing at level 5, that's been really rare to meet.
About Casters
Beyond that, except Bards, Wizard is also gaining one Expertise in Int skills. Ranger already has Expertise since Tasha, and still getting Expertise in the latest UAs. Cleric an Druid are getting boosted in skills either, and the most important thing has been Guidance. It can be used as a Reaction now, a D4 to every skill with a Reacion.
Don't get me wrong, these are great boosts and adjustents to these Martials and Casters, but they're leaving Rogue in an awkard place. All these classes are dealing a doubled DPR than Rogue in the playtests, or they're simply being the "Full-Casters". But, these features that were once the advantage of Rogue, has been too common in 5e2024, which these features can no longer compensate its low combat-power any longer. Bard and Ranger are also Experts, but they don't sacrifice their combat-power to trade for out-of-combat utilities at all. Rogue really could use a boost while others are getting lots.
Rogue Was Meant to Be a Good Damage-Dealer
This might be different from many players' impression of Rogue being the "supportive class", but there's been an interesting fact that people forgets after ten-years of playing with Feats—Sneak Attack was designed under the balacing of pure PHB with No Feats.
In 5e, Feats were optional, and classes, subclasses, including Monsters were all balanced in a way without considering Feats at first, and you can see they care so much about those players who play without Feats in JC's recent interviews.
In that environment, a Level 5 Fighter does a 4d6+8/3d6+12≈22/22.5 DPR total without considering subclasses and hit-chance, while a Rogue would be doing a 1d8+3d6+4/5d6+4≈21.5/19.5 DPR. They were designed very alike in DPR, even higher than a Fighter when they reach Level 9 (28.5/26.5), and that's why they have so many restrictions of landing a proper strike in that environment.
But after years of playing, with more and more players play the game with Feats, and with WotC publishing New Feats, Spells, Subclasses, even Backgrounds, Rogues just can't keep up with the environment changed. The environment went up, more and more features boost the power of Multi-Attacks, but almost nothing interact with Sneak Attack. Rogue's role was broken at that time.
Conclusion
With everything above, I think the whole environment, after Ten Years of progression, has changed dramastically. But Rogue's core features, such as Skills and Sneak Attacks, can't benefit from these changes like others do at all, thus making Rogue being left behind.
In this new environment of 5e2024, Rogue's power creep shouldn't stay as it was in 5e2014 anymore, they really need boosts at Level 5 to meet the change. I think this might be the last chance for us to tell these things to WotC, and I wish we could grasp this last chance, before it was too late.
Rogues get 4 proficiencies, not counting the +2/+3 that they might get from their background/race (you might say all classes can get that, but there's a reason why I think it's different, explained later below). Out of those, 2 are Expertise. They also get many options to choose those 4 proficiencies out of.
Now, you say that skill checks are mundane things, but that's really... DM dependant. Some DMs ask for checks often - even in combat - while others don't. It also depends on the player. The more a player tries to do things that aren't exactly covered by the rules (in general, but in combat that might include jumping/climbing/using items/utilising your surroundings/generally being creative), the more some checks will be needed; probably. Similarly, a Fighter playing in a game with very little to no combat - whether it was intended or the players just keep avoiding fights as much as they can - will probably feel their features are wasted. It also really matters whether your DM asks for a wide range of checks often, or sticks just to Perception/Stealth and a rare Athletics.
So, assuming skills aren't just mundane things that don't matter at all, more proficiencies mean a higher likelihood to succeed more often. Same as with Expertise. At level 7 already (which is low enough that most tables will see it at some point), you roll a minimum of 13 (with proficiency counted in, not counting AS or Expertise) for at least 6 skills. Based on Subclass/Race and a few other factors, maybe more. Four of those skills have Expertise (or 3 and Thieves' Tools), which means your minimum at level 7 for those skills - without counting AS - is 16.
One last thing in the Rogue's favour is the lack of dependency on Ability Scores. Most other classes need their primary stat - which for most isn't Dex - and Dex and Con to survive (arguably you could dump them on certain cases, but even then most people won't). For classes whose primary stat is Dex, which other than Rogue means Ranger/Monk/Fighter (if chosen), they usually still need to invest in a secondary stat (Wis for Monk/Ranger, nothing really for Fighter) and Con to survive. Especially the Monk. But Rogue doesn't need anything specific, so you can choose to invest your points (or arrange your array or whatever) however you'd like. Even Con isn't that important - if you play optimally. A Rogue optimally uses ranged weapons to stay out of danger, but also has the ability to use several features to protect itself should it need. Cunning Action/Uncanny Dodge/Evasion/Slippery Mind/Elusive and (maybe) Stroke of Luck. Not taking into account any Feats/Subclass abilities. Even if you choose to play a Melee Rogue, those features will still help you get by on Con 12 or so. Even 10 if you're confident. All that means you can invest more in other stats to boost your skills further, while a typical Monk/Barbarian/Ranger/Fighter probably has Str/Dex high, Dex/Wis mid, Con mid and Int/Cha dumped. That's why you don't see many Barbarians trying to recall the History of the kingdom.
Those classes did get buffed in that regard, though, so the gap isn't as big now, I admit. And yet, I don't think it's that big of a change. Other than Survival and Intimidation, none of the Barbarian's Strength-based skills can help you out of combat much (maybe Stealth, but that's probably done to avoid the combat if you're popping Rage for it), and I doubt many will use a Rage charge just to scare an NPC. At least not often. Fighter gets a D10 which is nice, but not reliable. It really depends on the DM, but if passing the skill is actually important to the players, most would rather pass the check, rather than fail but at least they can still heal later. So, in those kinds of checks, nobody will be happy rolling a 1 if they still fail. Also, while it does recharge on a SR, Second Wind is still needed to heal. 1d10+Level is quite a lot of healing for very few resources used. Especially if you had nothing else to spend the BA for. So, this feature - in a campaign with a good mix of combat/exploration/social every day - will probably be saved mostly for critical checks you must pass, rather than breaking a random door.
I won't really get into casters because I personally believe the power gap between casters and non-casters is ridiculous once you get to level 3, and it only keeps expanding.
As for damage, landing a SA is relatively reliable with many ways to get an advantage (hide/Steady Aim) so comparing damage while assuming all attacks hit with no crits works against the Rogue. Especially when fighting a target with higher AC. It falls when fighting multiple weak enemies, but the same can be said for Paladin and I think it's completely fine that not all classes will excel at everything.
So let's look at numbers. Pure Rogue vs Pure Fighter at level 5, there are many build options so I'll assume both just have a +4 in their primary stat against target AC x {10<=x<=20 for the matter}. So to hit, they must roll at least x-7 (x-9 for archers). So the chance to hit is 100%*0.05*(20-(x-7)) (for AC 16, that equals 55%). With an advantage, the chance to hit is 100%*(1-[0.05*(x-7)]^2). On a hit, Fighter deals (per hit) 1d8+4 or 1d8+6 or 1d12+4 or 1d6+4 (normal - could be archery, Duelling, Heavy weapon (ignoring 1d10 options because their increased versatility doesn't translate to damage), TWF). On a hit, Rogue deals 1d8+3d6+4.
If it interests you, I tried to code the comparison for Fighter with (longbow+archery/longsword+duelling/heavy weapon+non-damage related/shortsword+TWF) vs Rogue with and without advantage on every attack (using rapier). I did take crits into account but did not take subclasses into account. Level 5, no feats so +4 in attacking stat. Target AC ranges 10-20, which can be changed but might cause problems. 10000 iterations (can be changed). (You could claim it's unfair that the Rogue gets an advantage and the Fighter doesn't, but it's simply because it's that much easier for Rogues to get an advantage.)
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt import numpy as np import random as rand
def fighter(no_att, att_bon, dam_die, dam_bon, target): dam_sum = 0 for i in range(no_att): roll = rand.randint(1, 20) if roll == 1 or (roll+att_bon)<=target: continue elif roll+att_bon >=target and roll != 20: dam_sum += rand.randint(1,dam_die)+dam_bon else: dam_sum += rand.randint(1, dam_die)+rand.randint(1, dam_die)+dam_bon return dam_sum
def rogue(target, advantage): dam_sum = 0 if advantage: roll = max(rand.randint(1,20), rand.randint(1,20)) else: roll = rand.randint(1,20) if roll == 20: dam_sum = 4+rand.randint(1,8)+rand.randint(1,8)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6) elif roll+7>=target: dam_sum = 4+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,8) return dam_sum
target_min = 10 target_max = 20 iterations = 10000 x = [i for i in range(target_min, 1+target_max)] for j in x: figh_bow = 0 figh_heavy = 0 figh_light = 0 figh_duel = 0 rogue_ad = 0 rogue_dis = 0 #Without advantage, not with disadvantage for i in range(iterations): figh_bow += fighter(2,9,8,4,j) figh_heavy += fighter(2,7,12,4,j) figh_light += fighter(3,7,6,4,j) figh_duel += fighter(2,7,8,6,j) rogue_ad += rogue(j,True) rogue_dis += rogue(j,False) print(f"Target = {j}, Fighter with bow = {figh_bow/iterations}, Fighter with heavy = {figh_heavy/iterations}, fighter dual-wield = {figh_light/iterations}, fighter duelling = {figh_duel/iterations} \n Rogue with advantage = {rogue_ad/iterations}, Rogue without = {rogue_dis/iterations}")
Tried to get a link to it but IDE couldn't load for some reason, so I copy-pasted it above. Might need a few tweaks if you copy-paste back into IDE since I added some spaces here on the forums (also sorry if it's a bad code, but it should get the job done). You could also improve the code a little (I got lazy) to make it a general code that can handle more situations. (EDIT: Link at the end of the post.)
The results for my run of the code are here:
Target = 10, Fighter with bow = 16.5465, Fighter with heavy = 18.4588, fighter dual-wield = 19.5495, fighter duellilng = 18.3113
Rogue with advantage = 20.0758, Rogue without = 17.6503
Target = 11, Fighter with bow = 15.738, Fighter with heavy = 17.4721, fighter dual-wield = 18.5946, fighter duellilng = 17.1788
Rogue with advantage = 20.1416, Rogue without = 16.9438
Target = 12, Fighter with bow = 14.9059, Fighter with heavy = 16.4229, fighter dual-wield = 17.3845, fighter duellilng = 16.0615
Rogue with advantage = 19.7165, Rogue without = 15.9085
Target = 13, Fighter with bow = 14.0217, Fighter with heavy = 15.2192, fighter dual-wield = 16.2644, fighter duellilng = 15.1845
Rogue with advantage = 19.3272, Rogue without = 15.0461
Target = 14, Fighter with bow = 13.1966, Fighter with heavy = 14.334, fighter dual-wield = 15.1661, fighter duellilng = 14.1146
Rogue with advantage = 18.6659, Rogue without = 14.0422
Target = 15, Fighter with bow = 12.4425, Fighter with heavy = 13.3119, fighter dual-wield = 14.0554, fighter duellilng = 13.1533
Rogue with advantage = 18.1773, Rogue without = 13.2182
Target = 16, Fighter with bow = 11.4719, Fighter with heavy = 12.228, fighter dual-wield = 12.8795, fighter duellilng = 11.9508
Rogue with advantage = 17.4509, Rogue without = 12.2225
Target = 17, Fighter with bow = 10.5992, Fighter with heavy = 10.9656, fighter dual-wield = 11.7156, fighter duellilng = 10.9236
Rogue with advantage = 16.5981, Rogue without = 11.2458
Target = 18, Fighter with bow = 9.8578, Fighter with heavy = 10.044, fighter dual-wield = 10.6238, fighter duellilng = 9.8827
Rogue with advantage = 15.5558, Rogue without = 10.348
Target = 19, Fighter with bow = 8.966, Fighter with heavy = 9.0254, fighter dual-wield = 9.6142, fighter duellilng = 8.9663
Rogue with advantage = 14.6988, Rogue without = 9.2633
Target = 20, Fighter with bow = 7.9456, Fighter with heavy = 7.9906, fighter dual-wield = 8.3523, fighter duellilng = 7.7924
Rogue with advantage = 13.6898, Rogue without = 8.1753
It might come as no surprise that Rogue with advantage always has the best damage. Now, Rogues might not always have an advantage, but it's not too hard to get it as a Rogue with Hide as BA/Steady Aim. As for Rogue without advantage (but still triggering sneak attack), you can see that the damage is lower than the Fighter's for low AC targets, and about equal for higher AC targets. In fact, it surpasses some of the Fighter builds at some point, though not by a lot. In conclusion, I think the Rogue is in a good spot in this comparison, as they don't really need to deal that much more damage than the Fighter if you ask me.
Lastly, the Rogue also gets Cunning Strike. Although he loses some damage, he gets the option to inflict some seriously detrimental effects. Especially when reaching levels 14+. I also hope more of the revised subclasses will include more Cunning Strike options.
Edit: Here's the link to the IDE with the code in it, in case you're interested.
Rogue is in a great place now, it got 89% approval last time it was surveyed. And several of the things you're proposing (e.g. bringing back "Rogue-exclusive skills" and taking Expertise away from other classes) sound godawful to me. I have zero desire to regress to the bad old days when only rogues could disarm traps, listen at doors and climb walls.
I'm far, far more worried about Ranger and Warlock than I am about Rogue. I have no idea where they've landed on the favored terrain/enemy issue, and I have no idea whether they will allow Warlock to have a flexible casting stat or whether we'll get anything more than the Magical Cunning bandaid. I'm also unclear on whether Sorcerer subclasses without bonus spells will gain them, or vice-versa.
Not a big fan of the specific cunning strike options with clearly goto and goskip options, especially with forced flavour (nogo). My concern is more that in combat the rogue actually needs allies, which is somehow not the way I could envision any rogue archetype. It certainly can benefit from allies, but the needs is kinda too much. Sure an archetype such as swash can leviate this, but the fact that with the core abilities u need allies in fight to have efficiency is kinda dissonant.
As to skill abundance making polyvalence as a class feature not that valuable anymore, well opinion shared.
They don't need allies though, they have Steady Aim and Cunning Action Hide. You can get sneak attacks on your own just fine with either of those, much less both.
They don't need allies though, they have Steady Aim and Cunning Action Hide. You can get sneak attacks on your own just fine with either of those, much less both.
Also weapon mastery, Vex weapons, use two shortswords or take crossbow expert and two hand crossbows. Rogue is definitely not as ally dependent for their damage as they are in 5E.
rogue is in a good place gameplay wise, not number wise.
number wise rogue needs to be landing off turn sneak attacks to compete with other classes, which is not how non optimizers usually play.
its also not as dominant in skills, but thats good, every class should be able to use some skills effectively, or use spells to achieve similar effects.
I didn't realize this was a competition for most DPR; I thought it was a cooperative game for having fun.
people tend to have less fun once they realize they are really bad at helping the team.
rogue doesnt need to be the best, it can even be the worst, but it can't be the same as now.
and this isn't another type of medium, decisions made now might last another 5 years of the life of the game. Is there a good reason the rogue with normal play should do like 50 to 60% the damage of other classes.
What is the design benefit of that? How would the game be worst if rogue did OK damage?
rogue is in a good place gameplay wise, not number wise.
number wise rogue needs to be landing off turn sneak attacks to compete with other classes, which is not how non optimizers usually play.
its also not as dominant in skills, but thats good, every class should be able to use some skills effectively, or use spells to achieve similar effects.
What do you base this claim on? We can all claim "class X does very badly compared to classes Y and Z" but you need to show something for it.
I know my previous post was longso maybe you missed it. In there, I did a calculation that showed that a Rogue could, on average, surpass the DPS of a Fighter with pretty much any standard build at level 5 for any target AC 10-20, as long as they have an advantage on the attack. And getting an advantage as a Rogue is really simple. Hide/Steady Aim/Cunning Attack with the trip option/Vex...
The Rogue doesn't deal 50%-60% of other classes, it surpasses it. Even without advantage at all (while still triggering SA), the damage of the Rogue falls by only about two points for AC=10, and the difference only gets smaller for higher AC.
Here's a graph to show the comparison:
(And yes, I know it should have been barred since it's not continuous, but I couldn't make it show them all simultaneously.)
As you can see, past AC 15 Rogue without advantage starts dealing more damage per round on average than most of these Fighter builds. Past AC16 only the TWF is more consistent at dealing more damage, and even that is nearly equal for AC19.
Of course, weapon Masteries were not taken into account here both because it's hard to decide on what might be optimal (and I'm not going to compute all of them). Subclasses weren't either, pretty much for the same reason.
And for anyone wondering why Archery scores so low, I believe it's because for such low AC +7 and +9 make a relatively low difference, but the damage is just 1d8+4 per hit which is lower (per hit) than all but the dual-wielding one, which attacks more often (which you can see completely makes up for having a -1 average damage per hit).
They don't need allies though, they have Steady Aim and Cunning Action Hide. You can get sneak attacks on your own just fine with either of those, much less both.
Also weapon mastery, Vex weapons, use two shortswords or take crossbow expert and two hand crossbows. Rogue is definitely not as ally dependent for their damage as they are in 5E.
Congratz for finding out the ranged options that exists to do your rogue stuff. In melee you still need allies, unless like I said that archetype condition which is really opening options. I'm personnaly not talking about damage, I'm talking about abilities usage. And I'm not against conditions wheter thematics or mechanics for abilities. The mechanicaly melee/allies dependancy is boring and unflavoured. I envision more the rogue like a skirmisher than a bloodhungry packdog. With Hide you can skirmish once which is basically the whole concept of cunning action, but then
people tend to have less fun once they realize they are really bad at helping the team.
And that too. There are many ways to help a team but being framed to steady aim (which is ok sometimes) or to be the shadow of any melee allies (tell me why thats ok), just to add dices to the mix (if not others mix and decisions) isn't really fun. Thats why they're adding cunning options cause they realised dash is good hide is good but not working as intended, so more options and decisions and fun for yourself. But now the options like I said are kinda mandatory or fully skippable if not forcing flavour. An archetype should not be specified, its a support it must be open, it should not be the end of the bottle.
If you want dammage, at least sneaking or aiming should do more dmg than just being with allies. Rewarding decision more than just being passive. (And I find swash active by being taunty, why no other options ?)
That would be an easy flavoured and mechanics upgrade.
In melee you still need allies, unless like I said that archetype condition which is really opening options. I'm personnaly not talking about damage, I'm talking about abilities usage. And I'm not against conditions wheter thematics or mechanics for abilities. The mechanicaly melee/allies dependancy is boring and unflavoured. I envision more the rogue like a skirmisher than a bloodhungry packdog. With Hide you can skirmish once which is basically the whole concept of cunning action, but then
You can still use Steady Aim in melee, and you wouldn't need to move too much anyway. Unless, of course, you kill your target or wish to disengage. In the former, it might suck a little but it's not like you're attacking in the same round again anyway (and if you could, it wouldn't be with SA so it doesn't matter), and in the latter, it's kinda a matter of you can't eat the cake and leave it whole.
As for Cunning Strikes, Withdraw and Disarm can be situational but powerful when used right, and also very thematic if you ask me (you can disagree of course, but that's just a matter of taste). Trip might not fit everyone's flavour, but it's also not so much mandatory, sometimes even useless. Poison suffers from the same problem most poison features do, but if your enemy is not immune to the condition (notice that damage doesn't matter here), it's a pretty powerful effect that you apply pretty much for free. But if that doesn't suit your taste, you can just not use it and still not lose much (especially because that immunity to this effect is, in the end, quite abundant). I won't get into the 14th-level options but I don't think any of them is particularly stronger or weaker than the others, nor mandatory or useless.
But as for the independence of the rogue, I think it's clear why a class would be stronger when fighting with allies - especially in a team-based game. Nonetheless, they're not quite as dependable. You can land SA without allies using various tactics, even if not as reliably as with teammates. All in all, I think teammates who swing swords at someone provide a better distraction (and an opening) than most things you could think of, other than surprising the enemy entirely.
As for envisioning a Rogue archetype one way or another, that's kinda... your taste. Even though I totally understand it, as I'm also prone to that thinking, but it's not like there are no other options. Thieves often work together, and your typical thief would rather have someone else risk their lives while they find a chance to land a fatal blow, rather than rely on skills with a knife. Assassins tend to work alone, but they also don't tend to face the target in fair combat. In case that happens, I don't see any justification for one to fight alone if they can have allies. The many other archetypes can also be explained, mostly.
Rogue's in a pretty good place IMO; the main outstanding problem it has is that in its last playtest it went back to being dependent upon reaction attacks to maximise its damage, which is something I really wanted them to fix, because a Rogue should do maximum damage by being sneaky, not via specific combos like Commander's Strike.
Basically what I want is for them to get more scope for dealing double damage (or auto-critting or such) once per round, but with more set-up or risk, for example having to attack after starting your turn hidden (so it takes a turn to set up, ideal for an opening round) or similar. It should probably be melee only as well, as ranged Rogue has always had too much dominance and is already good.
Essentially I want all Rogues to have access to the same damage without having to build the Rogue and party around guaranteeing a reaction attack most rounds, as it's such a weird way for Rogues to play in practice. I want Rogues to be high risk, high reward combatants who can mess up a target but get into trouble fast if they can't escape afterwards.
Otherwise for combat cunning strikes give them a tonne of flexibility and at not that high a cost since it only trades for sneak attack dice (3.5 damage on average per dice), which they can use every turn they can get sneak attack. Rogues have got a lot of good stuff so far.
As for their out of combat utility, Rogue has never had a problem with this; Reliable Talent is one of the best skill check boosts in the entire game, as you can end up basically unable to fail most skill checks, but well before this they have a lot of skills plus expertise. They also only really need Dexterity as an ability score, meaning they have freedom to focus on Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma so they can build to be the party face, an academic etc., whereas Bards are usually going to favour Charisma skills.
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.
They don't need allies though, they have Steady Aim and Cunning Action Hide. You can get sneak attacks on your own just fine with either of those, much less both.
Also weapon mastery, Vex weapons, use two shortswords or take crossbow expert and two hand crossbows. Rogue is definitely not as ally dependent for their damage as they are in 5E.
Congratz for finding out the ranged options that exists to do your rogue stuff. In melee you still need allies, unless like I said that archetype condition which is really opening options. I'm personnaly not talking about damage, I'm talking about abilities usage. And I'm not against conditions wheter thematics or mechanics for abilities. The mechanicaly melee/allies dependancy is boring and unflavoured. I envision more the rogue like a skirmisher than a bloodhungry packdog. With Hide you can skirmish once which is basically the whole concept of cunning action, but then
No more gracе, it's over
What? Literally have the melee version in what I said, it's right there.
Should a rogue be rushing in alone to melee on the frontline? heck no. If you're going a melee build, you can still use a ranged weapon and stand behind tank until enemies come into range. But if we are talking 1-on-1 situations, Rogue has the option to use two shortswords, you can't use your BA to disengage or dash afterwards, sure, two scimitars and standing behind the tank is the better option but D&D is a party based game, you want rogue to be a lone wolf but this is a party game for the party. Sure some might argue that Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin can lone wolf to some degree but all three of these fold in a one vs. group situation, which a rogue utilizing ranged weapons and hiding places might be able to win, because rogues are not noble fighters in one-on-one fights, they are usually dirtier fighters that will do anything to win or escape safely.
But for rogue to do what you want it to do, it has to be able to do everything and if it does everything, what is the point in other classes? literally pointless. Rogues are scouts, they sneak around, gather information, find safe paths, lay traps, there is a lot a rogue can do before a combat even starts in many cases. Rogue is one of the best classes for attacking from surprise since that can often be two sneak attacks before the enemy has had a chance to even take an action. Every class needs to have reliance on the party, it is just that in rogue's case, it's more obvious what that reliance is but in terms of DPR, Rogue is not lacking.
I didn't realize this was a competition for most DPR; I thought it was a cooperative game for having fun.
people tend to have less fun once they realize they are really bad at helping the team.
rogue doesnt need to be the best, it can even be the worst, but it can't be the same as now.
and this isn't another type of medium, decisions made now might last another 5 years of the life of the game. Is there a good reason the rogue with normal play should do like 50 to 60% the damage of other classes.
What is the design benefit of that? How would the game be worst if rogue did OK damage?
Bad at helping the team? So is bard unplayable? because their DPR tends to be the lowest in the game until they pick up some form of powerful AoE from magical secrets but I don't see people saying Bard does not help the team. There is clearly more than just DPR at play and rogue often serves quiet important tasks for the team, from scouting/stealth to picking locks, disarming traps, etc, and while it is possible for some other classes to do those same things, they usually need to give something else up to do them while Rogue is just naturally good at them.
There is literally nothing wrong with rogue right now, the game is pretty well split on what classes do and making rogue a requirement for any adventuring party would make the game less enjoyable, if somebody wants to play a Ranger or a Bard instead to fulfil that stealth/scout type of stuff then the game should allow that. As it stands, Rogue has been one of the most popular classes (behind fighter) for a long time, it's more popular than all of the full casters for most of 5E, Rogue is almost seen (incorrectly) as a necessity by many groups in 5E. All OneD&D has done is open up more groups to not having to think they can't function without a rogue.
As far as damage goes, Rogue does have the same issue that literally every non-full caster has, lacking any decent AoE but in terms of DPR, Rogue is pretty good, beats most classes and beats fighter despite what the original post said. Fighter can out nova Rogue but for sustained DPR, Rogue is winning since sneak attack is that powerful and is the best scaling feature in the game for DPR. Rogue is not a front-liner, it usually pops in to do an attack and pops back behind to safety. This is what Rogue is designed too do, you can also do it with hand crossbows, you'd still be near the tank in most combats but you still have more survivability than most Gish builds which operate in a similar fashion, and arguably even being better than monk in 5E.
rogue is in a good place gameplay wise, not number wise.
number wise rogue needs to be landing off turn sneak attacks to compete with other classes, which is not how non optimizers usually play.
its also not as dominant in skills, but thats good, every class should be able to use some skills effectively, or use spells to achieve similar effects.
What do you base this claim on? We can all claim "class X does very badly compared to classes Y and Z" but you need to show something for it.
I know my previous post was longso maybe you missed it. In there, I did a calculation that showed that a Rogue could, on average, surpass the DPS of a Fighter with pretty much any standard build at level 5 for any target AC 10-20, as long as they have an advantage on the attack. And getting an advantage as a Rogue is really simple. Hide/Steady Aim/Cunning Attack with the trip option/Vex...
The Rogue doesn't deal 50%-60% of other classes, it surpasses it. Even without advantage at all (while still triggering SA), the damage of the Rogue falls by only about two points for AC=10, and the difference only gets smaller for higher AC.
Here's a graph to show the comparison:
(And yes, I know it should have been barred since it's not continuous, but I couldn't make it show them all simultaneously.)
As you can see, past AC 15 Rogue without advantage starts dealing more damage per round on average than most of these Fighter builds. Past AC16 only the TWF is more consistent at dealing more damage, and even that is nearly equal for AC19.
Of course, weapon Masteries were not taken into account here both because it's hard to decide on what might be optimal (and I'm not going to compute all of them). Subclasses weren't either, pretty much for the same reason.
And for anyone wondering why Archery scores so low, I believe it's because for such low AC +7 and +9 make a relatively low difference, but the damage is just 1d8+4 per hit which is lower (per hit) than all but the dual-wielding one, which attacks more often (which you can see completely makes up for having a -1 average damage per hit).
fighter's progression needs to show 6, because they designed it get its extra feat late.
you don't need to figure 10 AC, thats rare, most people assume 65% hit rate based on AC.
at level 6, basic fighter with graze. PAM and GWM gs then glaive then haft.
graze = .35*4*3(number of swings)=4.2. total 26.2 at level 6. No action surge just fighting styles, feats, and graze.
thief 1 hit style steady aim, 3d6 Sneak 1d6+4 Shortbow 4*3.5+4 = 18 *.875(acc with adv) 15.75. yikes
but I think they can do better.
lets assume dual wield, hiding sneak attacks with charger.
(d6+d8+4+3d6)*.875 +d6*.65 =21.9. better, but still struggling.
and fighter get DPS from sub classes. maneuver dice, extra attack, better magic weapon scaling, and I didnt even go for the 4 attack round with throwing weapons and PAM.
the thief is getting helped by charger, but fighter can also grab that later, thief doesnt have great damage feat options.
lets say you look at 11
fighter same as before, but with an extra GS attack, 5 mod, and charger added from feats. 43.76
rogue with a 6d6=32.0
level 20, fighter 60-64 per round depending on graze, or topple.
level 20 rogue 43 per round.
no action surge, no subs, no cleave no magic items, this is just regular resourceless basic damage. rogue goes from being 20% behind at 6, to 40-48% behind by 20.
barbarian is in the same world as fighter, it was higher at playtest 7, haven't tested 8. Monk is little lower than fighter. Rogue needs a boost, the other classes shouldn't be more than 20% ahead of them. Level 5 difference is OK, level 11 and 20, nah too low.
and action surge should be factored in really, but I don't want to make rest assumptions.
They don't need allies though, they have Steady Aim and Cunning Action Hide. You can get sneak attacks on your own just fine with either of those, much less both.
Also weapon mastery, Vex weapons, use two shortswords or take crossbow expert and two hand crossbows. Rogue is definitely not as ally dependent for their damage as they are in 5E.
Congratz for finding out the ranged options that exists to do your rogue stuff. In melee you still need allies, unless like I said that archetype condition which is really opening options. I'm personnaly not talking about damage, I'm talking about abilities usage. And I'm not against conditions wheter thematics or mechanics for abilities. The mechanicaly melee/allies dependancy is boring and unflavoured. I envision more the rogue like a skirmisher than a bloodhungry packdog. With Hide you can skirmish once which is basically the whole concept of cunning action, but then
No more gracе, it's over
What? Literally have the melee version in what I said, it's right there.
Should a rogue be rushing in alone to melee on the frontline? heck no. If you're going a melee build, you can still use a ranged weapon and stand behind tank until enemies come into range. But if we are talking 1-on-1 situations, Rogue has the option to use two shortswords, you can't use your BA to disengage or dash afterwards, sure, two scimitars and standing behind the tank is the better option but D&D is a party based game, you want rogue to be a lone wolf but this is a party game for the party. Sure some might argue that Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin can lone wolf to some degree but all three of these fold in a one vs. group situation, which a rogue utilizing ranged weapons and hiding places might be able to win, because rogues are not noble fighters in one-on-one fights, they are usually dirtier fighters that will do anything to win or escape safely.
But for rogue to do what you want it to do, it has to be able to do everything and if it does everything, what is the point in other classes? literally pointless. Rogues are scouts, they sneak around, gather information, find safe paths, lay traps, there is a lot a rogue can do before a combat even starts in many cases. Rogue is one of the best classes for attacking from surprise since that can often be two sneak attacks before the enemy has had a chance to even take an action. Every class needs to have reliance on the party, it is just that in rogue's case, it's more obvious what that reliance is but in terms of DPR, Rogue is not lacking.
I didn't realize this was a competition for most DPR; I thought it was a cooperative game for having fun.
people tend to have less fun once they realize they are really bad at helping the team.
rogue doesnt need to be the best, it can even be the worst, but it can't be the same as now.
and this isn't another type of medium, decisions made now might last another 5 years of the life of the game. Is there a good reason the rogue with normal play should do like 50 to 60% the damage of other classes.
What is the design benefit of that? How would the game be worst if rogue did OK damage?
Bad at helping the team? So is bard unplayable? because their DPR tends to be the lowest in the game until they pick up some form of powerful AoE from magical secrets but I don't see people saying Bard does not help the team. There is clearly more than just DPR at play and rogue often serves quiet important tasks for the team, from scouting/stealth to picking locks, disarming traps, etc, and while it is possible for some other classes to do those same things, they usually need to give something else up to do them while Rogue is just naturally good at them.
There is literally nothing wrong with rogue right now, the game is pretty well split on what classes do and making rogue a requirement for any adventuring party would make the game less enjoyable, if somebody wants to play a Ranger or a Bard instead to fulfil that stealth/scout type of stuff then the game should allow that. As it stands, Rogue has been one of the most popular classes (behind fighter) for a long time, it's more popular than all of the full casters for most of 5E, Rogue is almost seen (incorrectly) as a necessity by many groups in 5E. All OneD&D has done is open up more groups to not having to think they can't function without a rogue.
As far as damage goes, Rogue does have the same issue that literally every non-full caster has, lacking any decent AoE but in terms of DPR, Rogue is pretty good, beats most classes and beats fighter despite what the original post said. Fighter can out nova Rogue but for sustained DPR, Rogue is winning since sneak attack is that powerful and is the best scaling feature in the game for DPR. Rogue is not a front-liner, it usually pops in to do an attack and pops back behind to safety. This is what Rogue is designed too do, you can also do it with hand crossbows, you'd still be near the tank in most combats but you still have more survivability than most Gish builds which operate in a similar fashion, and arguably even being better than monk in 5E.
bard has way more utility than rogue, its a full caster, with magic secrets. It can also do better than rogue damage if it actually cares to.
Essentially I want all Rogues to have access to the same damage without having to build the Rogue and party around guaranteeing a reaction attack most rounds, as it's such a weird way for Rogues to play in practice. I want Rogues to be high risk, high reward combatants who can mess up a target but get into trouble fast if they can't escape afterwards.
One thing I'd consider is adding yet-another Cunning Action option, where the rogue can Ready an off-turn attack (technically a delayed "extra" attack). That way they could proc a second sneak attack per round without needing an AoO or party member's feature, but have to burn their bonus action to do it (giving up Steady Aim or the other Cunning Actions, etc).
Such a thing might want some other restriction, probably on exactly what the trigger can be. But I'd be fine with letting it be melee or ranged.
But as for the independence of the rogue, I think it's clear why a class would be stronger when fighting with allies - especially in a team-based game. Nonetheless, they're not quite as dependable. You can land SA without allies using various tactics, even if not as reliably as with teammates. All in all, I think teammates who swing swords at someone provide a better distraction (and an opening) than most things you could think of, other than surprising the enemy entirely.
As for envisioning a Rogue archetype one way or another, that's kinda... your taste. Even though I totally understand it, as I'm also prone to that thinking, but it's not like there are no other options. Thieves often work together, and your typical thief would rather have someone else risk their lives while they find a chance to land a fatal blow, rather than rely on skills with a knife. Assassins tend to work alone, but they also don't tend to face the target in fair combat. In case that happens, I don't see any justification for one to fight alone if they can have allies. The many other archetypes can also be explained, mostly.
Well first thanks for your proper reading and reply. I just feel the need for that comment : how long do you think "your typical thief" can risk someone else life to land a fatal blow, and have that same someone accepting them in a group, decently speaking, without being mad at it. This is not too extreme to consider that by working with a group u at least try to not risk someone else life. But if you're survival/fighting style requires surprise/opportunity, how do you compose. Thus for me the so called independance of the rogue concept.
Basically what I want is for them to get more scope for dealing double damage (or auto-critting or such) but with more set-up or risk, for example having to attack after starting your turn hidden (so it takes a turn to set up, ideal for an opening round) or similar. It should probably be melee only as well as ranged Rogue has always had too much dominance and is already good.
Essentially I want all Rogues to have access to the same damage without having to build the Rogue and party around guaranteeing a reaction attack most rounds, as it's such a weird way for Rogues to play in practice. I want Rogues to be high risk, high reward combatants who can mess up a target but get into trouble fast if they can't escape afterwards.
Otherwise for combat cunning strikes give them a tonne of flexibility and at not that high a cost since it only trades for sneak attack dice (3.5 damage on average per dice), which they can use every turn they can get sneak attack. Rogues have got a lot of good stuff so far.
I spelled it differently but yes same concern. As of the ranged damage boost if u boost melee, risk and reward strategy, it is kinda the same problem as magic whine. As the dm should deplete magic like any other ressources to bring challenge, they have to make their minions at cover and wary after a first successfull ranged hit.
Rogue's been a really awkward position right now. They're having a quite tough time, especially for many players who might pay more attention to balancing and numbers in the game. I know many players who play Rogue aren't looking for DPR, but their advantage of out-of-combat uitility has been way too low to compensate their bad combat powers, while other classes are getting much boosts in skills, utilities, and combat features.
Especially Ranger and Bard, these classes also exist as Experts, same as Rogue, but with powerful combat-powers.
Sneak Attack has scaled too little compared to any other classes that isn't a full-caster after lv.5. Their DPR has been left too far away, even some combat-wise optimized full-casters can catch up with Rogue in DPR, with all that crazy utilities. Especially after UA8, Cunning Strike is not that special anymore. Barbs, Fighters, Monks, all getting their Skills, Utilities and Mobility boosted. Maybe it's finally a good time for Rogue to get a little boost. But this survey might be our last chance to tell these things to WotC.
Edit: And To everyone who'd like to see the numbers, here's a chart about numbers. Sure Rogue could to a basic DPR, but the promblem doesn't lie in unoptimized characters. The problem lies in characters with any sort of optimizations. Their floor is similar, but their ceiling has been far beyond than a Rogue could do. The gap has been way too big.
Chrat: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1swPiGeFYu6kSXr5vlPXqYYHJQ7JpFfZH/htmlview#gid=1686024488
Skills
There's been a problem about the role of "Skill-Monkey" since 5e, IMO. The problem lies in skills are meant to be something that "Everyone can do it". In 5e, Skills doesn't allow you to do something beyond "mundane", and there're also no exclusive skills to Rogue like it was in elder editions. Skills alone can't make a class, and it shouldn't be the only thing that make Rogue stands out as an individual class.
Actually, in 5e, Rogue has already been suffering from "skills are for mundane affairs, and Rogues are only better than others in mundane affairs". But in OneD&D, now everyone has become good at those mundane affairs by getting boosted in skills, which turns Rogue into a position of "Only a bit better than others in mundane affairs", and this just make the situation even worse for Rogue. The Skill System needs a rework, or Rogue needs a boost in skills that allowing them to achive something that others can't replicate easily.
Pure Martials
After a series of playtests, Rogues don't shine on skills so much any longer. Despite Bard, Fighter has been able to use Second-Wind to Disengage and move half more of the speed. And they are able to add 5.5(1d10) to every skill checks that has failed, and not costing when it's still a failed check.
In my recent playtest with my friends, the new Fighter with Second-Wind and without any intentionally leaning into skills, had outpaced my Thief Rogue in skill checks before level7, which was a really surprising result to me. There aren't so many failed skill checks between short-rests at all, let alone it costs nothing if that D10 isn't making you pass. But before level 7, all I've got was a few more +2/3 to skills. Nothing could compared to +D10 to skills that you've failed. The only Rogue I can think of to compete this is Soulknife Rogue.
Barbarian has been able to use Str for five useful skills (Acrobatics, Intimidation, Perception, Stealth, and Survival) while raging for 10-minutes, and both these Features could be recovered by short-rest.
In UA8, Barbarian and Monk has also got their own Strikes. Monks getting better mobility, free BA Dash, free BA Disengage, and Deflect Attack, a better version of Uncanny Dodge, as someone mathed out that a level 5 Monk can reduce 5.5(d10)+4+5=14.5 damage every turn, while Uncanny Dodge is only better when a Rogue takes a 30+ damage from one hit at level 5. For most monsters that players would be facing at level 5, that's been really rare to meet.
About Casters
Beyond that, except Bards, Wizard is also gaining one Expertise in Int skills. Ranger already has Expertise since Tasha, and still getting Expertise in the latest UAs. Cleric an Druid are getting boosted in skills either, and the most important thing has been Guidance. It can be used as a Reaction now, a D4 to every skill with a Reacion.
Don't get me wrong, these are great boosts and adjustents to these Martials and Casters, but they're leaving Rogue in an awkard place. All these classes are dealing a doubled DPR than Rogue in the playtests, or they're simply being the "Full-Casters". But, these features that were once the advantage of Rogue, has been too common in 5e2024, which these features can no longer compensate its low combat-power any longer. Bard and Ranger are also Experts, but they don't sacrifice their combat-power to trade for out-of-combat utilities at all. Rogue really could use a boost while others are getting lots.
Rogue Was Meant to Be a Good Damage-Dealer
This might be different from many players' impression of Rogue being the "supportive class", but there's been an interesting fact that people forgets after ten-years of playing with Feats—Sneak Attack was designed under the balacing of pure PHB with No Feats.
In 5e, Feats were optional, and classes, subclasses, including Monsters were all balanced in a way without considering Feats at first, and you can see they care so much about those players who play without Feats in JC's recent interviews.
In that environment, a Level 5 Fighter does a 4d6+8/3d6+12≈22/22.5 DPR total without considering subclasses and hit-chance, while a Rogue would be doing a 1d8+3d6+4/5d6+4≈21.5/19.5 DPR. They were designed very alike in DPR, even higher than a Fighter when they reach Level 9 (28.5/26.5), and that's why they have so many restrictions of landing a proper strike in that environment.
But after years of playing, with more and more players play the game with Feats, and with WotC publishing New Feats, Spells, Subclasses, even Backgrounds, Rogues just can't keep up with the environment changed. The environment went up, more and more features boost the power of Multi-Attacks, but almost nothing interact with Sneak Attack. Rogue's role was broken at that time.
Conclusion
With everything above, I think the whole environment, after Ten Years of progression, has changed dramastically. But Rogue's core features, such as Skills and Sneak Attacks, can't benefit from these changes like others do at all, thus making Rogue being left behind.
In this new environment of 5e2024, Rogue's power creep shouldn't stay as it was in 5e2014 anymore, they really need boosts at Level 5 to meet the change. I think this might be the last chance for us to tell these things to WotC, and I wish we could grasp this last chance, before it was too late.
Rogues get 4 proficiencies, not counting the +2/+3 that they might get from their background/race (you might say all classes can get that, but there's a reason why I think it's different, explained later below). Out of those, 2 are Expertise. They also get many options to choose those 4 proficiencies out of.
Now, you say that skill checks are mundane things, but that's really... DM dependant. Some DMs ask for checks often - even in combat - while others don't. It also depends on the player. The more a player tries to do things that aren't exactly covered by the rules (in general, but in combat that might include jumping/climbing/using items/utilising your surroundings/generally being creative), the more some checks will be needed; probably. Similarly, a Fighter playing in a game with very little to no combat - whether it was intended or the players just keep avoiding fights as much as they can - will probably feel their features are wasted. It also really matters whether your DM asks for a wide range of checks often, or sticks just to Perception/Stealth and a rare Athletics.
So, assuming skills aren't just mundane things that don't matter at all, more proficiencies mean a higher likelihood to succeed more often. Same as with Expertise. At level 7 already (which is low enough that most tables will see it at some point), you roll a minimum of 13 (with proficiency counted in, not counting AS or Expertise) for at least 6 skills. Based on Subclass/Race and a few other factors, maybe more. Four of those skills have Expertise (or 3 and Thieves' Tools), which means your minimum at level 7 for those skills - without counting AS - is 16.
One last thing in the Rogue's favour is the lack of dependency on Ability Scores. Most other classes need their primary stat - which for most isn't Dex - and Dex and Con to survive (arguably you could dump them on certain cases, but even then most people won't). For classes whose primary stat is Dex, which other than Rogue means Ranger/Monk/Fighter (if chosen), they usually still need to invest in a secondary stat (Wis for Monk/Ranger, nothing really for Fighter) and Con to survive. Especially the Monk. But Rogue doesn't need anything specific, so you can choose to invest your points (or arrange your array or whatever) however you'd like. Even Con isn't that important - if you play optimally. A Rogue optimally uses ranged weapons to stay out of danger, but also has the ability to use several features to protect itself should it need. Cunning Action/Uncanny Dodge/Evasion/Slippery Mind/Elusive and (maybe) Stroke of Luck. Not taking into account any Feats/Subclass abilities. Even if you choose to play a Melee Rogue, those features will still help you get by on Con 12 or so. Even 10 if you're confident. All that means you can invest more in other stats to boost your skills further, while a typical Monk/Barbarian/Ranger/Fighter probably has Str/Dex high, Dex/Wis mid, Con mid and Int/Cha dumped. That's why you don't see many Barbarians trying to recall the History of the kingdom.
Those classes did get buffed in that regard, though, so the gap isn't as big now, I admit. And yet, I don't think it's that big of a change. Other than Survival and Intimidation, none of the Barbarian's Strength-based skills can help you out of combat much (maybe Stealth, but that's probably done to avoid the combat if you're popping Rage for it), and I doubt many will use a Rage charge just to scare an NPC. At least not often. Fighter gets a D10 which is nice, but not reliable. It really depends on the DM, but if passing the skill is actually important to the players, most would rather pass the check, rather than fail but at least they can still heal later. So, in those kinds of checks, nobody will be happy rolling a 1 if they still fail. Also, while it does recharge on a SR, Second Wind is still needed to heal. 1d10+Level is quite a lot of healing for very few resources used. Especially if you had nothing else to spend the BA for. So, this feature - in a campaign with a good mix of combat/exploration/social every day - will probably be saved mostly for critical checks you must pass, rather than breaking a random door.
I won't really get into casters because I personally believe the power gap between casters and non-casters is ridiculous once you get to level 3, and it only keeps expanding.
As for damage, landing a SA is relatively reliable with many ways to get an advantage (hide/Steady Aim) so comparing damage while assuming all attacks hit with no crits works against the Rogue. Especially when fighting a target with higher AC. It falls when fighting multiple weak enemies, but the same can be said for Paladin and I think it's completely fine that not all classes will excel at everything.
So let's look at numbers. Pure Rogue vs Pure Fighter at level 5, there are many build options so I'll assume both just have a +4 in their primary stat against target AC x {10<=x<=20 for the matter}. So to hit, they must roll at least x-7 (x-9 for archers). So the chance to hit is 100%*0.05*(20-(x-7)) (for AC 16, that equals 55%). With an advantage, the chance to hit is 100%*(1-[0.05*(x-7)]^2). On a hit, Fighter deals (per hit) 1d8+4 or 1d8+6 or 1d12+4 or 1d6+4 (normal - could be archery, Duelling, Heavy weapon (ignoring 1d10 options because their increased versatility doesn't translate to damage), TWF). On a hit, Rogue deals 1d8+3d6+4.
If it interests you, I tried to code the comparison for Fighter with (longbow+archery/longsword+duelling/heavy weapon+non-damage related/shortsword+TWF) vs Rogue with and without advantage on every attack (using rapier). I did take crits into account but did not take subclasses into account. Level 5, no feats so +4 in attacking stat. Target AC ranges 10-20, which can be changed but might cause problems. 10000 iterations (can be changed). (You could claim it's unfair that the Rogue gets an advantage and the Fighter doesn't, but it's simply because it's that much easier for Rogues to get an advantage.)
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import numpy as np
import random as rand
def fighter(no_att, att_bon, dam_die, dam_bon, target):
dam_sum = 0
for i in range(no_att):
roll = rand.randint(1, 20)
if roll == 1 or (roll+att_bon)<=target:
continue
elif roll+att_bon >=target and roll != 20:
dam_sum += rand.randint(1,dam_die)+dam_bon
else:
dam_sum += rand.randint(1, dam_die)+rand.randint(1, dam_die)+dam_bon
return dam_sum
def rogue(target, advantage):
dam_sum = 0
if advantage:
roll = max(rand.randint(1,20), rand.randint(1,20))
else:
roll = rand.randint(1,20)
if roll == 20:
dam_sum = 4+rand.randint(1,8)+rand.randint(1,8)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)
elif roll+7>=target:
dam_sum = 4+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,6)+rand.randint(1,8)
return dam_sum
target_min = 10
target_max = 20
iterations = 10000
x = [i for i in range(target_min, 1+target_max)]
for j in x:
figh_bow = 0
figh_heavy = 0
figh_light = 0
figh_duel = 0
rogue_ad = 0
rogue_dis = 0 #Without advantage, not with disadvantage
for i in range(iterations):
figh_bow += fighter(2,9,8,4,j)
figh_heavy += fighter(2,7,12,4,j)
figh_light += fighter(3,7,6,4,j)
figh_duel += fighter(2,7,8,6,j)
rogue_ad += rogue(j,True)
rogue_dis += rogue(j,False)
print(f"Target = {j}, Fighter with bow = {figh_bow/iterations}, Fighter with heavy = {figh_heavy/iterations}, fighter dual-wield = {figh_light/iterations}, fighter duelling = {figh_duel/iterations} \n Rogue with advantage = {rogue_ad/iterations}, Rogue without = {rogue_dis/iterations}")
Tried to get a link to it but IDE couldn't load for some reason, so I copy-pasted it above. Might need a few tweaks if you copy-paste back into IDE since I added some spaces here on the forums (also sorry if it's a bad code, but it should get the job done). You could also improve the code a little (I got lazy) to make it a general code that can handle more situations. (EDIT: Link at the end of the post.)
The results for my run of the code are here:
It might come as no surprise that Rogue with advantage always has the best damage. Now, Rogues might not always have an advantage, but it's not too hard to get it as a Rogue with Hide as BA/Steady Aim. As for Rogue without advantage (but still triggering sneak attack), you can see that the damage is lower than the Fighter's for low AC targets, and about equal for higher AC targets. In fact, it surpasses some of the Fighter builds at some point, though not by a lot. In conclusion, I think the Rogue is in a good spot in this comparison, as they don't really need to deal that much more damage than the Fighter if you ask me.
Lastly, the Rogue also gets Cunning Strike. Although he loses some damage, he gets the option to inflict some seriously detrimental effects. Especially when reaching levels 14+. I also hope more of the revised subclasses will include more Cunning Strike options.
Edit: Here's the link to the IDE with the code in it, in case you're interested.
Varielky
Rogue is in a great place now, it got 89% approval last time it was surveyed. And several of the things you're proposing (e.g. bringing back "Rogue-exclusive skills" and taking Expertise away from other classes) sound godawful to me. I have zero desire to regress to the bad old days when only rogues could disarm traps, listen at doors and climb walls.
I'm far, far more worried about Ranger and Warlock than I am about Rogue. I have no idea where they've landed on the favored terrain/enemy issue, and I have no idea whether they will allow Warlock to have a flexible casting stat or whether we'll get anything more than the Magical Cunning bandaid. I'm also unclear on whether Sorcerer subclasses without bonus spells will gain them, or vice-versa.
Not a big fan of the specific cunning strike options with clearly goto and goskip options, especially with forced flavour (nogo).
My concern is more that in combat the rogue actually needs allies, which is somehow not the way I could envision any rogue archetype.
It certainly can benefit from allies, but the needs is kinda too much.
Sure an archetype such as swash can leviate this, but the fact that with the core abilities u need allies in fight to have efficiency is kinda dissonant.
As to skill abundance making polyvalence as a class feature not that valuable anymore, well opinion shared.
They don't need allies though, they have Steady Aim and Cunning Action Hide. You can get sneak attacks on your own just fine with either of those, much less both.
Also weapon mastery, Vex weapons, use two shortswords or take crossbow expert and two hand crossbows. Rogue is definitely not as ally dependent for their damage as they are in 5E.
rogue is in a good place gameplay wise, not number wise.
number wise rogue needs to be landing off turn sneak attacks to compete with other classes, which is not how non optimizers usually play.
its also not as dominant in skills, but thats good, every class should be able to use some skills effectively, or use spells to achieve similar effects.
"Compete"
I didn't realize this was a competition for most DPR; I thought it was a cooperative game for having fun.
people tend to have less fun once they realize they are really bad at helping the team.
rogue doesnt need to be the best, it can even be the worst, but it can't be the same as now.
and this isn't another type of medium, decisions made now might last another 5 years of the life of the game. Is there a good reason the rogue with normal play should do like 50 to 60% the damage of other classes.
What is the design benefit of that? How would the game be worst if rogue did OK damage?
What do you base this claim on? We can all claim "class X does very badly compared to classes Y and Z" but you need to show something for it.
I know my previous post was longso maybe you missed it. In there, I did a calculation that showed that a Rogue could, on average, surpass the DPS of a Fighter with pretty much any standard build at level 5 for any target AC 10-20, as long as they have an advantage on the attack. And getting an advantage as a Rogue is really simple. Hide/Steady Aim/Cunning Attack with the trip option/Vex...
The Rogue doesn't deal 50%-60% of other classes, it surpasses it. Even without advantage at all (while still triggering SA), the damage of the Rogue falls by only about two points for AC=10, and the difference only gets smaller for higher AC.
Here's a graph to show the comparison:
(And yes, I know it should have been barred since it's not continuous, but I couldn't make it show them all simultaneously.)
As you can see, past AC 15 Rogue without advantage starts dealing more damage per round on average than most of these Fighter builds. Past AC16 only the TWF is more consistent at dealing more damage, and even that is nearly equal for AC19.
Of course, weapon Masteries were not taken into account here both because it's hard to decide on what might be optimal (and I'm not going to compute all of them). Subclasses weren't either, pretty much for the same reason.
And for anyone wondering why Archery scores so low, I believe it's because for such low AC +7 and +9 make a relatively low difference, but the damage is just 1d8+4 per hit which is lower (per hit) than all but the dual-wielding one, which attacks more often (which you can see completely makes up for having a -1 average damage per hit).
Varielky
Congratz for finding out the ranged options that exists to do your rogue stuff.
In melee you still need allies, unless like I said that archetype condition which is really opening options.
I'm personnaly not talking about damage, I'm talking about abilities usage. And I'm not against conditions wheter thematics or mechanics for abilities.
The mechanicaly melee/allies dependancy is boring and unflavoured. I envision more the rogue like a skirmisher than a bloodhungry packdog.
With Hide you can skirmish once which is basically the whole concept of cunning action, but then
No more gracе, it's over
And that too.
There are many ways to help a team but
being framed to steady aim (which is ok sometimes) or to be the shadow of any melee allies (tell me why thats ok), just to add dices to the mix (if not others mix and decisions) isn't really fun.
Thats why they're adding cunning options cause they realised dash is good hide is good but not working as intended, so more options and decisions and fun for yourself.
But now the options like I said are kinda mandatory or fully skippable if not forcing flavour.
An archetype should not be specified, its a support it must be open, it should not be the end of the bottle.
If you want dammage, at least sneaking or aiming should do more dmg than just being with allies.
Rewarding decision more than just being passive.
(And I find swash active by being taunty, why no other options ?)
That would be an easy flavoured and mechanics upgrade.
You can still use Steady Aim in melee, and you wouldn't need to move too much anyway. Unless, of course, you kill your target or wish to disengage. In the former, it might suck a little but it's not like you're attacking in the same round again anyway (and if you could, it wouldn't be with SA so it doesn't matter), and in the latter, it's kinda a matter of you can't eat the cake and leave it whole.
As for Cunning Strikes, Withdraw and Disarm can be situational but powerful when used right, and also very thematic if you ask me (you can disagree of course, but that's just a matter of taste). Trip might not fit everyone's flavour, but it's also not so much mandatory, sometimes even useless. Poison suffers from the same problem most poison features do, but if your enemy is not immune to the condition (notice that damage doesn't matter here), it's a pretty powerful effect that you apply pretty much for free. But if that doesn't suit your taste, you can just not use it and still not lose much (especially because that immunity to this effect is, in the end, quite abundant). I won't get into the 14th-level options but I don't think any of them is particularly stronger or weaker than the others, nor mandatory or useless.
But as for the independence of the rogue, I think it's clear why a class would be stronger when fighting with allies - especially in a team-based game. Nonetheless, they're not quite as dependable. You can land SA without allies using various tactics, even if not as reliably as with teammates. All in all, I think teammates who swing swords at someone provide a better distraction (and an opening) than most things you could think of, other than surprising the enemy entirely.
As for envisioning a Rogue archetype one way or another, that's kinda... your taste. Even though I totally understand it, as I'm also prone to that thinking, but it's not like there are no other options. Thieves often work together, and your typical thief would rather have someone else risk their lives while they find a chance to land a fatal blow, rather than rely on skills with a knife. Assassins tend to work alone, but they also don't tend to face the target in fair combat. In case that happens, I don't see any justification for one to fight alone if they can have allies. The many other archetypes can also be explained, mostly.
Varielky
Rogue's in a pretty good place IMO; the main outstanding problem it has is that in its last playtest it went back to being dependent upon reaction attacks to maximise its damage, which is something I really wanted them to fix, because a Rogue should do maximum damage by being sneaky, not via specific combos like Commander's Strike.
Basically what I want is for them to get more scope for dealing double damage (or auto-critting or such) once per round, but with more set-up or risk, for example having to attack after starting your turn hidden (so it takes a turn to set up, ideal for an opening round) or similar. It should probably be melee only as well, as ranged Rogue has always had too much dominance and is already good.
Essentially I want all Rogues to have access to the same damage without having to build the Rogue and party around guaranteeing a reaction attack most rounds, as it's such a weird way for Rogues to play in practice. I want Rogues to be high risk, high reward combatants who can mess up a target but get into trouble fast if they can't escape afterwards.
Otherwise for combat cunning strikes give them a tonne of flexibility and at not that high a cost since it only trades for sneak attack dice (3.5 damage on average per dice), which they can use every turn they can get sneak attack. Rogues have got a lot of good stuff so far.
As for their out of combat utility, Rogue has never had a problem with this; Reliable Talent is one of the best skill check boosts in the entire game, as you can end up basically unable to fail most skill checks, but well before this they have a lot of skills plus expertise. They also only really need Dexterity as an ability score, meaning they have freedom to focus on Intelligence, Wisdom or Charisma so they can build to be the party face, an academic etc., whereas Bards are usually going to favour Charisma skills.
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.
What? Literally have the melee version in what I said, it's right there.
Should a rogue be rushing in alone to melee on the frontline? heck no. If you're going a melee build, you can still use a ranged weapon and stand behind tank until enemies come into range. But if we are talking 1-on-1 situations, Rogue has the option to use two shortswords, you can't use your BA to disengage or dash afterwards, sure, two scimitars and standing behind the tank is the better option but D&D is a party based game, you want rogue to be a lone wolf but this is a party game for the party. Sure some might argue that Barbarian, Fighter or Paladin can lone wolf to some degree but all three of these fold in a one vs. group situation, which a rogue utilizing ranged weapons and hiding places might be able to win, because rogues are not noble fighters in one-on-one fights, they are usually dirtier fighters that will do anything to win or escape safely.
But for rogue to do what you want it to do, it has to be able to do everything and if it does everything, what is the point in other classes? literally pointless. Rogues are scouts, they sneak around, gather information, find safe paths, lay traps, there is a lot a rogue can do before a combat even starts in many cases. Rogue is one of the best classes for attacking from surprise since that can often be two sneak attacks before the enemy has had a chance to even take an action. Every class needs to have reliance on the party, it is just that in rogue's case, it's more obvious what that reliance is but in terms of DPR, Rogue is not lacking.
Bad at helping the team? So is bard unplayable? because their DPR tends to be the lowest in the game until they pick up some form of powerful AoE from magical secrets but I don't see people saying Bard does not help the team. There is clearly more than just DPR at play and rogue often serves quiet important tasks for the team, from scouting/stealth to picking locks, disarming traps, etc, and while it is possible for some other classes to do those same things, they usually need to give something else up to do them while Rogue is just naturally good at them.
There is literally nothing wrong with rogue right now, the game is pretty well split on what classes do and making rogue a requirement for any adventuring party would make the game less enjoyable, if somebody wants to play a Ranger or a Bard instead to fulfil that stealth/scout type of stuff then the game should allow that. As it stands, Rogue has been one of the most popular classes (behind fighter) for a long time, it's more popular than all of the full casters for most of 5E, Rogue is almost seen (incorrectly) as a necessity by many groups in 5E. All OneD&D has done is open up more groups to not having to think they can't function without a rogue.
As far as damage goes, Rogue does have the same issue that literally every non-full caster has, lacking any decent AoE but in terms of DPR, Rogue is pretty good, beats most classes and beats fighter despite what the original post said. Fighter can out nova Rogue but for sustained DPR, Rogue is winning since sneak attack is that powerful and is the best scaling feature in the game for DPR. Rogue is not a front-liner, it usually pops in to do an attack and pops back behind to safety. This is what Rogue is designed too do, you can also do it with hand crossbows, you'd still be near the tank in most combats but you still have more survivability than most Gish builds which operate in a similar fashion, and arguably even being better than monk in 5E.
fighter's progression needs to show 6, because they designed it get its extra feat late.
you don't need to figure 10 AC, thats rare, most people assume 65% hit rate based on AC.
at level 6, basic fighter with graze. PAM and GWM gs then glaive then haft.
((2*3.5)+1.3(gwf)+4)+(5.5+.8(gwf)+4)+(2.5+.5(gwf)+4) *.65(accuracy)+3(PB)=22.4
graze = .35*4*3(number of swings)=4.2. total 26.2 at level 6. No action surge just fighting styles, feats, and graze.
thief 1 hit style steady aim, 3d6 Sneak 1d6+4 Shortbow 4*3.5+4 = 18 *.875(acc with adv) 15.75. yikes
but I think they can do better.
lets assume dual wield, hiding sneak attacks with charger.
(d6+d8+4+3d6)*.875 +d6*.65 =21.9. better, but still struggling.
and fighter get DPS from sub classes. maneuver dice, extra attack, better magic weapon scaling, and I didnt even go for the 4 attack round with throwing weapons and PAM.
the thief is getting helped by charger, but fighter can also grab that later, thief doesnt have great damage feat options.
lets say you look at 11
fighter same as before, but with an extra GS attack, 5 mod, and charger added from feats. 43.76
rogue with a 6d6=32.0
level 20, fighter 60-64 per round depending on graze, or topple.
level 20 rogue 43 per round.
no action surge, no subs, no cleave no magic items, this is just regular resourceless basic damage. rogue goes from being 20% behind at 6, to 40-48% behind by 20.
barbarian is in the same world as fighter, it was higher at playtest 7, haven't tested 8. Monk is little lower than fighter. Rogue needs a boost, the other classes shouldn't be more than 20% ahead of them. Level 5 difference is OK, level 11 and 20, nah too low.
and action surge should be factored in really, but I don't want to make rest assumptions.
bard has way more utility than rogue, its a full caster, with magic secrets. It can also do better than rogue damage if it actually cares to.
One thing I'd consider is adding yet-another Cunning Action option, where the rogue can Ready an off-turn attack (technically a delayed "extra" attack). That way they could proc a second sneak attack per round without needing an AoO or party member's feature, but have to burn their bonus action to do it (giving up Steady Aim or the other Cunning Actions, etc).
Such a thing might want some other restriction, probably on exactly what the trigger can be. But I'd be fine with letting it be melee or ranged.
Well first thanks for your proper reading and reply.
I just feel the need for that comment : how long do you think "your typical thief" can risk someone else life to land a fatal blow, and have that same someone accepting them in a group, decently speaking, without being mad at it. This is not too extreme to consider that by working with a group u at least try to not risk someone else life. But if you're survival/fighting style requires surprise/opportunity, how do you compose. Thus for me the so called independance of the rogue concept.
I spelled it differently but yes same concern.
As of the ranged damage boost if u boost melee, risk and reward strategy, it is kinda the same problem as magic whine.
As the dm should deplete magic like any other ressources to bring challenge, they have to make their minions at cover and wary after a first successfull ranged hit.