the fighter is just as capable as putting abilities in other scores as rogue. They both onrly need one stat, and fighter has more ASi/Feats. If the fighter wants to be a str/chr/con character he will still do 100% damage. Con is not the most important stat for fighter since they have recovery, and can choose high AC. fighter is purposefully designed to be one of the most adaptable classes in the game.
If we're talking optimisation then only a Dexterity based Fighter can realistically dip heavily into more scores by aiming to fight at range so they don't need the added durability, either that or they need to give up extra feat choices to do so.
Even melee Rogues theoretically don't need Constitution if they're able to hide and Disengage effectively, though my main criticism of playtest Rogue is this still isn't as feasible as it should be (there's not enough reward for taking on the extra risk of going up close and personal). Plus Rogue too gets an extra feat, so Fighter is only ahead by one (though I tend to think of it more as a class feature you choose, as it's not like the Rogue gets nothing instead).
Rogues also have full access to all Dexterity and Charisma skills as standard, Fighters don't, so they have to get them some other way or limit themselves only to those they can choose from. Rogues get Expertise as standard, Fighters don't etc.
reliable talent has zero effect on any check that needs more than 9 on a roll to succeed. so if the check is a difficult one, the fighter is a better bet. Essentially if the party doesnt believe its an autowin for the rogue, the fighter is a better bet for the majority of the game.
Tactical Mind is just as useless in such a case unless you roll high enough (and even then, Expertise can still outpace it), and at 5th-level and 9th-level Tactical Mind is giving less and less benefit compared to Expertise.
And I'm not sure how I'm incorrect here? What I said was that Reliable Talent improves the Rogue's average.
to your other point, fighter isn't giving up resources, they are making decisions, about who the character is.
Tactical Mind literally costs uses of Second Wind, a limited resource. A character with Reliable Talent and Expertise gives up nothing for using them.
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.
Now if we can just get WotC to give the monk a skill boosting feature they can outdo Rogues too! Just kidding (on them outdoing rogue not monks getting a skill boost)
yeah its a lil weird to me they are probably the only class at all now without some type of skill niche, or general strong OoC potential.
cleric can dominate religion checks (+wis) and various OoC spells
Ranger got expertise, deft explorer and spells
barb got primal+rage+lvl 18
bard got spells+BI+expertise
druid can dominate nature checks (+wis)(spells, pets, wildshape)
paladin got divine sense, various support spells/abilities, various control people spells,
warlock got spells, and invocations
wiz access to arcane spells, expertise.
sorc got spells.
fighter tactical mind
only monk really got nothing. in fact they reduced it. used to have access to Astral plane and ability to talk to all creatures. Now they can only go with out food or water.
only monk really got nothing. in fact they reduced it. used to have access to Astral plane and ability to talk to all creatures. Now they can only go with out food or water.
Going to the Astral Plane by yourself, and being able to talk to anyone with bad Charisma, are not really benefits. They're just as likely to cause even more trouble for the group as a whole. They were also unlikely to show up in the vast majority of campaigns anyway.
the fighter is just as capable as putting abilities in other scores as rogue. They both onrly need one stat, and fighter has more ASi/Feats. If the fighter wants to be a str/chr/con character he will still do 100% damage. Con is not the most important stat for fighter since they have recovery, and can choose high AC. fighter is purposefully designed to be one of the most adaptable classes in the game.
If we're talking optimisation then only a Dexterity based Fighter can realistically dip heavily into more scores by aiming to fight at range so they don't need the added durability, either that or they need to give up extra feat choices to do so.
Even melee Rogues theoretically don't need it if they're able to hide and Disengage effectively, though my main criticism of playtest Rogue is that this still isn't as feasible as it should be (there's not enough reward for taking on the extra risk of going up close and personal). Plus Rogue too gets an extra feat, so Fighter is only ahead by one extra feat (though I tend to think of it more as a class feature you choose, as it's not like the Rogue gets nothing instead).
Rogues also have full access to all Dexterity and Charisma skills as standard, Fighters don't, so they have to get them some other way or limit themselves only to those they can choose from. Rogues get Expertise as standard, Fighters don't etc.
reliable talent has zero effect on any check that needs more than 9 on a roll to succeed. so if the check is a difficult one, the fighter is a better bet. Essentially if the party doesnt believe its an autowin for the rogue, the fighter is a better bet for the majority of the game.
Tactical Mind is just as useless in such a case unless you roll high enough (and even then, Expertise can still outpace it), and at the level that a Rogue has Tactical Mind is giving less and less benefit compared to Expertise.
And I'm not sure how I'm incorrect here? What I said was that Reliable Talent improves the Rogue's average.
to your other point, fighter isn't giving up resources, they are making decisions, about who the character is.
Tactical Mind literally costs uses of Second Wind, a limited resource. A character with Reliable Talent and Expertise gives up nothing for using them.
fighter doesnt need high con to survive. most fighters never go past 16 con and its hardly necessary. Fighters mitigation is primarily AC, and recovery based. And they have a d10 die They have thrown and reach weapons, and masteries if they want to. They can go dexterity if they want to extend their range but its very easy to survive with middling con, I know, I ve tested it. Rogue actually probably needs con more than fighter tbh. Fighter can have 18-20+AC, has more base HP, second wind and indomitable. Going in on con for fighter is just if you want to go even further on defense. its totally a choice.
the point about reliable talent is the way in which it increases the average. IE it doesnt increase the average on difficult checks, the entire design of tactical mind is to make less checks, but more important checks. Its not helping at all in that usecase, its not increasing the average in a way that matters. You have a 14 chr rogue 14 chr fighter, trying to convince the king to give up his resources. (high DC check) reliable talent does nothing at all. its effect is binary. expertise doesnt beat tactical mind until 17. thats not going to be the case very often as it stands.
to be clear I am not undervaluing reliable talents its actually great and powerful, its just not going to have an effect at all on hard checks, which is the primary thing tactical mind will be used on, and maybe checks where no one has investment, but are important.
What I'm getting at here is that fighter's skill niche is a different tool than rogues skill use, (not that its better) which is good, but also it wasn't the case before. the answer used to be rogue should make that check.
But this is a bit of a digression because implies I think tactical mind is too powerful, or other classes should be bad at skills to give rogues value. That is the opposite of what I think. The democratization of skill use should always have been the case. This is a way better base, the rogue just needs some adjustments because the old balance was based on that assumption AND rogue damage has not improved though other martials have a better floor
ok, we debated math for pages, my conclusion imo are still valid, that rogue does significantly less damage than other martials and its a problem.
but you don't believe me, or the other exhaustive analysis out there. Fine.
let me ask this instead, at what ratio of damage would you say rogue has a problem that needs to be corrected.
lets say(hypothetical) the average of monk/fighter/barbarian damage is 100dpr (to make the math easy) at what dpr does the rogue have a problem that needs correcting. Assuming all the other factors are as they are in one dnd (access to skills, survivability, support etc)
is 50dpr ok? 75dpr?
just so we can get an understanding of what each of us would theoretically find acceptable.
80dpr, would be my drawline and Rogue is comfortably within that range, as I and others have shown time and time again. Rogue is fine damage-wise. It's unique quirk is its reliability. Rogue gets constant damage day in and day out, and gets constant good OOC skills day in and day out. Even with Tactical Mind Fighter isn't close to Rogue in OOC utility because is it a STR-focused class probably wearing Heavy armour so will have lousy stealth checks regardless, meaning the entire "infiltration" OOC role is completely inaccessible to them. Similarly Figther doesn't get either Persuasion nor Deception as class proficiencies making "face" also inaccessible as a OOC role. And since Fighter has to be a melee they can't dump CON so their skill-stat is at best going to be their 3rd stat and probably only going to be a +1 ability score bonus. Compare to Rogue who can fight equally effectively at range, and has multitude defensive abilities & strategies (thus can easily have a +1 or +2 CON), who is all but certain to take expertise in stealth & max out their Dex - making "infiltrator" a natural fit - and who gets Persuasion and Deception as class skill - making "face" an easy choice.
You're white box theory crafting with a ton of assumptions in order to make your point. We are simply pointing out that removing those assumption, you're entire argument falls apart thus there is no fundamental problem with the classes. Sure, if you play in a game where a character only make 2 skill checks in an adventuring day then sure Fighter is better than Rogue at skill checks, but that is a situation that never ever actually happens at the table - geez I've had characters make more skill checks than that in a single room of a dungeon. Similarly if your Fighter magically has constant advantage on every single attack, then sure they do more damage than a Rogue, but again that never ever actually happens at the table.
Please explain... your Fighters have always used weapons in both hands and taken offensive Fighting Styles, meaning their AC maxes out at 18, meanwhile a Rogue maxes out at 17 (unless they take a 1-level dip into Fighter at which point their AC maxes out at 19).
You're not supposed to feel good at something with proficiency alone; you need a decent ability score too* to represent having both training and talent. If you have both of those things and you still don't feel good at something, your GM is probably setting the DCs too high, and/or you're in the sort of campaign where the two other inputs (magic and luck) are necessary too.
*or a middling ability score + expertise
I don't consider having a 50-60% chance at something to be proficient. A locksmith is not good at locks if they can't open it 50% of the time. I am not a good tracker if I get lost 40% of the time.
a kid who is good at math doesnt get 65 on his test.
doesn't make sense to try to jump a 15 foot gap if you only don't fall into the pit 60% of the time.
consider the reccomended minimum DC is really a 10, you shouldn't really even ask for skill checks below that. you will rarely find modules asking for rolls lower than that.
note, a DC 10 mathematically means a person with no talent, no training, succeeds a little more than half the time.
from 1-3 proficency+high stat only gives you +5. this means if something is slightly difficult (DC15+) you have a 55% chance of success. Thats not being good at something. Thats not going to RP wise, represent talent/training.
and this is why most players found skills to be basically ignorable in 5e and magic to be way better. (or you had special skill related features) Because their skill design made the people who were 'good' at something actually not good at it, Just less bad it.
only classes with expertise, or other special skill features could realistically incorporate it into their character concept.
this mattered more for martials, because their proficiencies were actually supposed to represent how they do everything outside of battle. And the answer was basically, you are pretty bad at everything outside battle
the whole skill/class design was pretty bad.
And almost all games where I have watched new people play, or been involved in. you always have those moments where they think/say, oh, I put points into this, my character should be good at it. only to realize, not really, as its much more dominated by random chance than proficiency/ability score.
You're not supposed to feel good at something with proficiency alone; you need a decent ability score too* to represent having both training and talent. If you have both of those things and you still don't feel good at something, your GM is probably setting the DCs too high, and/or you're in the sort of campaign where the two other inputs (magic and luck) are necessary too.
*or a middling ability score + expertise
I don't consider having a 50-60% chance at something to be proficient. A locksmith is not good at locks if they can't open it 50% of the time. I am not a good tracker if I get lost 40% of the time.
a kid who is good at math doesnt get 65 on his test.
doesn't make sense to try to jump a 15 foot gap if you only don't fall into the pit 60% of the time.
consider the reccomended minimum DC is really a 10, you shouldn't really even ask for skill checks below that. you will rarely find modules asking for rolls lower than that.
The minimum DC is 5, not 10 - DMG 238. So a good typical DC at low levels is 10. That gives you a 80% chance of success on most things if you have both talent and training (proficiency and a 16-17 ability score). If instead your DM is putting 15 on everything at level one then of course you're going to feel like skills are a coin flip, because they literally are.
Baldur's Gate uses 5-10 DCs at the start of the game pretty regularly; show that to your DM. Or just tell them you're not having fun with them putting 15 on everything. If they dismiss you, what you have is a table problem, not a system problem.
You're white box theory crafting with a ton of assumptions in order to make your point. We are simply pointing out that removing those assumption, you're entire argument falls apart thus there is no fundamental problem with the classes. Sure, if you play in a game where a character only make 2 skill checks in an adventuring day then sure Fighter is better than Rogue at skill checks, but that is a situation that never ever actually happens at the table - geez I've had characters make more skill checks than that in a single room of a dungeon. Similarly if your Fighter magically has constant advantage on every single attack, then sure they do more damage than a Rogue, but again that never ever actually happens at the table.
Agreed, his assumptions seem entirely divorced from reality.
ok, we debated math for pages, my conclusion imo are still valid, that rogue does significantly less damage than other martials and its a problem.
but you don't believe me, or the other exhaustive analysis out there. Fine.
let me ask this instead, at what ratio of damage would you say rogue has a problem that needs to be corrected.
lets say(hypothetical) the average of monk/fighter/barbarian damage is 100dpr (to make the math easy) at what dpr does the rogue have a problem that needs correcting. Assuming all the other factors are as they are in one dnd (access to skills, survivability, support etc)
is 50dpr ok? 75dpr?
just so we can get an understanding of what each of us would theoretically find acceptable.
80dpr, would be my drawline and Rogue is comfortably within that range, as I and others have shown time and time again. Rogue is fine damage-wise. It's unique quirk is its reliability. Rogue gets constant damage day in and day out, and gets constant good OOC skills day in and day out. Even with Tactical Mind Fighter isn't close to Rogue in OOC utility because is it a STR-focused class probably wearing Heavy armour so will have lousy stealth checks regardless, meaning the entire "infiltration" OOC role is completely inaccessible to them. Similarly Figther doesn't get either Persuasion nor Deception as class proficiencies making "face" also inaccessible as a OOC role. And since Fighter has to be a melee they can't dump CON so their skill-stat is at best going to be their 3rd stat and probably only going to be a +1 ability score bonus. Compare to Rogue who can fight equally effectively at range, and has multitude defensive abilities & strategies (thus can easily have a +1 or +2 CON), who is all but certain to take expertise in stealth & max out their Dex - making "infiltrator" a natural fit - and who gets Persuasion and Deception as class skill - making "face" an easy choice.
You're white box theory crafting with a ton of assumptions in order to make your point. We are simply pointing out that removing those assumption, you're entire argument falls apart thus there is no fundamental problem with the classes. Sure, if you play in a game where a character only make 2 skill checks in an adventuring day then sure Fighter is better than Rogue at skill checks, but that is a situation that never ever actually happens at the table - geez I've had characters make more skill checks than that in a single room of a dungeon. Similarly if your Fighter magically has constant advantage on every single attack, then sure they do more damage than a Rogue, but again that never ever actually happens at the table.
1) I don't find your math an accurate representation of the optimal dpr of classes or the non optimal dpr of classes. I trust my own math, and the other estimations with different considerations are more representive than what you presented, we have already discussed why.
but thats fine, people can do/trust whatever data dpr analysis they want.
2)you aren't actually listening to what I'm saying.
the point was not that tactical mind makes fighters as good as rogues at skills overall, its that the relative difference has changed. That has never been my point, I have never made that claim. To add to this, its not even about just fighters. Most classes have gained various methods for improving skills in some fashion. They are purposefully, and rightfully increasing the skill floor.
so stop any argument with me that is trying to prove that rogues are overall better at skills than fighter, that has never been my contention. If you thought that, you misunderstood me.
there are 4 points I'm making in this thread
1) rogue is relatively less dominant in skills than they were in 2014. (relatively less means the ratio has gotten lower. if skill power was 200:100, in 2024 its less than that aka 200:120 or 200:150 or 200/110) they are still better at skills overall.
2)rogue has roughly the same or worse dpr potential as they had in 2014 whereas the average (in terms of optimized vs non optomized) damage of martials has increased
3)rogue is dependent on off turn damage which doesnt currently generally meld with its class design for competitive damage.
4)rogue needs some numerical/design changes in order to keep the same rough design that is well liked in last UA survey of it while still being balanced, unless you believe they were previously overpowered. And I don't believe that.
smaller disagreements/digressions aside if it isnt impacting one of those 4 things, its fine to debate/discuss it, but it isnt really effecting my overall point/contention
You're not supposed to feel good at something with proficiency alone; you need a decent ability score too* to represent having both training and talent. If you have both of those things and you still don't feel good at something, your GM is probably setting the DCs too high, and/or you're in the sort of campaign where the two other inputs (magic and luck) are necessary too.
*or a middling ability score + expertise
I don't consider having a 50-60% chance at something to be proficient. A locksmith is not good at locks if they can't open it 50% of the time. I am not a good tracker if I get lost 40% of the time.
a kid who is good at math doesnt get 65 on his test.
doesn't make sense to try to jump a 15 foot gap if you only don't fall into the pit 60% of the time.
consider the reccomended minimum DC is really a 10, you shouldn't really even ask for skill checks below that. you will rarely find modules asking for rolls lower than that.
The minimum DC is 5, not 10 - DMG 238. So a good typical DC at low levels is 10. That gives you a 80% chance of success on most things if you have both talent and training (proficiency and a 16-17 ability score). If instead your DM is putting 15 on everything at level one then of course you're going to feel like skills are a coin flip, because they literally are.
Baldur's Gate uses 5-10 DCs at the start of the game pretty regularly; show that to your DM. Or just tell them you're not having fun with them putting 15 on everything. If they dismiss you, what you have is a table problem, not a system problem.
You're white box theory crafting with a ton of assumptions in order to make your point. We are simply pointing out that removing those assumption, you're entire argument falls apart thus there is no fundamental problem with the classes. Sure, if you play in a game where a character only make 2 skill checks in an adventuring day then sure Fighter is better than Rogue at skill checks, but that is a situation that never ever actually happens at the table - geez I've had characters make more skill checks than that in a single room of a dungeon. Similarly if your Fighter magically has constant advantage on every single attack, then sure they do more damage than a Rogue, but again that never ever actually happens at the table.
Agreed, his assumptions seem entirely divorced from reality.
its not 15 on everything, its 15 on the things that are hard Someone who is good at things should be more than a coinflip at hard things. Look in a module find a 5DC I know it represents "easy". no one uses it because its mostly a pointless check, waste of time. Advice is generally just tell players they succeed if its that low.
You may think the skill design and class skill design was fine in 5e. I don't.
also, try to avoid the pointless snark in your comments, re 'divorced from reality' it adds nothing
It means that people often overemphasize the number of rolls you are making for the checks, which makes resources-based bonuses less valuable. The same people also underemphasize the variety of rolls that you make, which makes applicable-to-any-roll bonuses less valuable than Expertise. Also, that resource the fighter expends for this bonus to the roll is in most cases the best use, as the primary is kinda ~eh, to be perfectly honest.
only monk really got nothing. in fact they reduced it. used to have access to Astral plane and ability to talk to all creatures. Now they can only go with out food or water.
Going to the Astral Plane by yourself, and being able to talk to anyone with bad Charisma, are not really benefits. They're just as likely to cause even more trouble for the group as a whole. They were also unlikely to show up in the vast majority of campaigns anyway.
I wouldn't mind if Monk got a bonus ASI.
being able to understand people is of value even if you can manipulate people. those are two different skill sets. understanding ties into wisdom (insight/perception)
regardless, even if they weren't always useful, they were still more OoC than now.
1) rogue is relatively less dominant in skills than they were in 2014. (relatively less means the ratio has gotten lower. if skill power was 200:100 in 2024 its less than that aka 200:120 or 200:150 or 200/110) they are still better at skills overall.
One thing you guys keep talking past each other:
Based on playtest material, the above quote is factually true: "everyone" got better performance in the "OOC skill department", except for rogue.
Now, assuming that NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED, do the "rogue is fine" people here, who claim that rogue is now "on par" with, say, fighters, rangers, paladins, realize that their position *must* hold that, before these playtests, the 2014 rogue was, in fact, overpowered, and far stronger than fighters, rangers, paladins, etc.?
1) rogue is relatively less dominant in skills than they were in 2014. (relatively less means the ratio has gotten lower. if skill power was 200:100 in 2024 its less than that aka 200:120 or 200:150 or 200/110) they are still better at skills overall.
2)rogue has roughly the same or worse dpr potential as they had in 2014 whereas the average (in terms of optimized vs non optomized) damage of martials has increased
3)rogue is dependent on off turn damage which doesnt currently generally meld with its class design for competitive damage.
4)rogue needs some numerical/design changes in order to keep the same rough design that is well liked in last UA survey of it while still being balanced, unless you believe they were previously overpowered. And I don't believe that.
smaller disagreements/digressions aside if it isnt impacting one of those 4 things, its fine to debate/discuss it, but it isnt really effecting my overall point/contention
#1 is not an issue. Rogues are still on top skillwise, even if the top is not as far from the others as it was it's still the top, that's all that matters.
#2 is just wrong. They never had Steady Aim in 2014, and even if you say 2020 instead for Tasha's, they never had Weapon Mastery (for Nick/Vex) or Cunning Strike either. Cunning Strike costs you some individual DPR to activate, but will often result in more damage from the party - disarm someone's shield, or trip someone so all the melee in the party have advantage (a Dex save is much better to target than Topple's Con), or knock them Unconscious on round 1 for a guaranteed sneak-crit on your off-turn attack or round 2. And all that is just the base class, it's not counting the improvements the subclasses have gotten either.
#3 off-turn sneak attack is easy to get, even on a straight rogue Sentinel is a half-feat now so you can grab it right at 4. If you dip another class like Fighter or someone in the party has Haste or can make enemies move away from you under their own power (e.g. Dissonant Whispers or Fear) it's even easier.
#4 The last UA for rogue was awful, literally all they got for damage boosts was Subtle Strikes at 13. Both Steady Aim and WM trump it easily. I won't even bring up the 1/round SA.
Someone who is good at things should be more than a coinflip at hard things.
I think that's reasonable for something hard. If it's hard, a low level character who wants to guarantee success should augment their talent and training with magic, such as the Guidance cantrip, bard song, enhance ability etc. Or at the very least get Help.
1) rogue is relatively less dominant in skills than they were in 2014. (relatively less means the ratio has gotten lower. if skill power was 200:100 in 2024 its less than that aka 200:120 or 200:150 or 200/110) they are still better at skills overall.
2)rogue has roughly the same or worse dpr potential as they had in 2014 whereas the average (in terms of optimized vs non optomized) damage of martials has increased
3)rogue is dependent on off turn damage which doesnt currently generally meld with its class design for competitive damage.
4)rogue needs some numerical/design changes in order to keep the same rough design that is well liked in last UA survey of it while still being balanced, unless you believe they were previously overpowered. And I don't believe that.
smaller disagreements/digressions aside if it isnt impacting one of those 4 things, its fine to debate/discuss it, but it isnt really effecting my overall point/contention
#1 is not an issue. Rogues are still on top skillwise, even if the top is not as far from the others as it was it's still the top, that's all that matters.
#2 is just wrong. They never had Steady Aim in 2014, and even if you say 2020 instead for Tasha's, they never had Weapon Mastery (for Nick/Vex) or Cunning Strike either. Cunning Strike costs you some individual DPR to activate, but will often result in more damage from the party - disarm someone's shield, or trip someone so all the melee in the party have advantage (a Dex save is much better to target than Topple's Con), or knock them Unconscious on round 1 for a guaranteed sneak-crit on your off-turn attack or round 2. And all that is just the base class, it's not counting the improvements the subclasses have gotten either.
#3 off-turn sneak attack is easy to get, even on a straight rogue Sentinel is a half-feat now so you can grab it right at 4. If you dip another class like Fighter or someone in the party has Haste or can make enemies move away from you under their own power (e.g. Dissonant Whispers or Fear) it's even easier.
#4 The last UA for rogue was awful, literally all they got for damage boosts was Subtle Strikes at 13. Both Steady Aim and WM trump it easily. I won't even bring up the 1/round SA.
1)when it comes to game balance top is not all that matters at all. the ratios matter a lot. if top was all that matters then there is no problem with me saying rogues DPS should increase, because I'm not asking for it to be top. I'm asking for it to be 85%
2)2014 is just my method of saying current dnd, and drawing parallel to the 2024 proposed dnd. Tasha's has decent optional rules, some of which have become official, weapon mastery doesnt actually drastically effect rogue dps. They only get 1-2 attacks, the weapons they have access to is limited. They already are designed such that they are expected to get advantage fairly often. nick opens up BA, but the BA isnt a damage option for rogue. Rogue has lost the ability to take fighting styles,lost access to hand crossbows, and sharpshooter no longer effects damage. Far as number's I have seen, their optimal is slightly lower. their normal build is about the same.
3)Sentinel goes against the overall class design of rogue, yes they can and will use it, but it means they won't be escaping melee, or hiding in battle. Sentinel is also designed to make you a primary target. The answer to a guy who will hit you if you attack anyone else, is to hit/kill him first. (sentinel is essentially a taunt) the rogue is literally the worst equipped class to handle sustained pressure. (low hp, average ac, no recovery, no defensive spells)Personally I think its OK if rogues are expected to do off turn damage, but the current methods are either limited, involve MC, or go against the class design.
4) if you think the last UA rogue's design is bad, then I guess you just think they need something other than damage/skills?. People's premise in this thread is that they think more changes are needed in the context of everything else presented, and the idea that WOTC thinks rogue's UA design is mostly great and fairly ready for release.
Based on playtest material, the above quote is factually true: "everyone" got better performance in the "OOC skill department", except for rogue.
"Except for rogue" is stretching it. At the very least, Reliable Talent got moved from level 11 to 7; this is pretty huge --- many-if-not-most campaigns fizzle after level 10, and Reliable Talent is extra valuable at lower levels.
Now, assuming that NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED, do the "rogue is fine" people here, who claim that rogue is now "on par" with, say, fighters, rangers, paladins, realize that their position *must* hold that, before these playtests, the 2014 rogue was, in fact, overpowered, and far stronger than fighters, rangers, paladins, etc.?
1) see above, that assumption is false
2) Rogue is getting bumps in combat control/utility, in the form the new Cunning Strike mechanic.
3) 2014 Rogue really was, compared to other 2014 classes, kinda-the-best. It's always been very popular, despite never really "winning" the DPR optimization game, and it's the SADest of the SAD. Rogue's biggest weakness (in terms of what people want, not game balance) has been its lack of proper tactical options, and OneDnD is doing good work to fix that.
"2)rogue has roughly the same or worse dpr potential as they had in 2014 whereas the average (in terms of optimized vs non optomized) damage of martials has increased"
This is absolutely untrue for optimized damage. The nerfing of GWM and especially Sharpshooter, means that optimized martial damage is significantly lower in UA8 compared to 5e, whereas Rogue optimized damage hasn't changed at all (assuming GFB & BB are still allowed) or only slightly decreased if NuTrueStrike must replace GFB/BB.
PS Sharpshooter was always a poor choice of feat for Rogues, 90% of the time using SS would reduce their DPR.
"Now, assuming that NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED, do the "rogue is fine" people here, who claim that rogue is now "on par" with, say, fighters, rangers, paladins, realize that their position *must* hold that, before these playtests, the 2014 rogue was, in fact, overpowered, and far stronger than fighters, rangers, paladins, etc.?"
Yes, absolutely. One could easily build a Rogue that utterly overshadowed the other martials in the party. Last time I played a Rogue I deliberately made suboptimal build choices because the Paladin player was frustrated that I did more danage than them even when they smited. By end game the Paladin had two legendary magic items and a HB feat in order to feel powerful next to my rogue with only one measely Very Rare item.
Now if we can just get WotC to give the monk a skill boosting feature they can outdo Rogues too! Just kidding (on them outdoing rogue not monks getting a skill boost)
yeah its a lil weird to me they are probably the only class at all now without some type of skill niche, or general strong OoC potential.
cleric can dominate religion checks (+wis) and various OoC spells
Ranger got expertise, deft explorer and spells
barb got primal+rage+lvl 18
bard got spells+BI+expertise
druid can dominate nature checks (+wis)(spells, pets, wildshape)
paladin got divine sense, various support spells/abilities, various control people spells,
warlock got spells, and invocations
wiz access to arcane spells, expertise.
sorc got spells.
fighter tactical mind
only monk really got nothing. in fact they reduced it. used to have access to Astral plane and ability to talk to all creatures. Now they can only go with out food or water.
To be fair monk does have really good movement capabilities that can be OoC utility. Like being able to run/walk across water or up walls, as well as having insane movement speed and agility. A DM could design parkour-esque dungeons and traps that only a monk would be able to navigate with ease.
"2)rogue has roughly the same or worse dpr potential as they had in 2014 whereas the average (in terms of optimized vs non optomized) damage of martials has increased"
This is absolutely untrue for optimized damage. The nerfing of GWM and especially Sharpshooter, means that optimized martial damage is significantly lower in UA8 compared to 5e, whereas Rogue optimized damage hasn't changed at all (assuming GFB & BB are still allowed) or only slightly decreased if NuTrueStrike must replace GFB/BB.
PS Sharpshooter was always a poor choice of feat for Rogues, 90% of the time using SS would reduce their DPR.
People have done the math, optimized and non-optimized damage for martials in One Dnd has been increased. It's just that now feats are not as necessary for optimization as they used to be. Damage boosts come more from your subclass choice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If we're talking optimisation then only a Dexterity based Fighter can realistically dip heavily into more scores by aiming to fight at range so they don't need the added durability, either that or they need to give up extra feat choices to do so.
Even melee Rogues theoretically don't need Constitution if they're able to hide and Disengage effectively, though my main criticism of playtest Rogue is this still isn't as feasible as it should be (there's not enough reward for taking on the extra risk of going up close and personal). Plus Rogue too gets an extra feat, so Fighter is only ahead by one (though I tend to think of it more as a class feature you choose, as it's not like the Rogue gets nothing instead).
Rogues also have full access to all Dexterity and Charisma skills as standard, Fighters don't, so they have to get them some other way or limit themselves only to those they can choose from. Rogues get Expertise as standard, Fighters don't etc.
Tactical Mind is just as useless in such a case unless you roll high enough (and even then, Expertise can still outpace it), and at 5th-level and 9th-level Tactical Mind is giving less and less benefit compared to Expertise.
And I'm not sure how I'm incorrect here? What I said was that Reliable Talent improves the Rogue's average.
Tactical Mind literally costs uses of Second Wind, a limited resource. A character with Reliable Talent and Expertise gives up nothing for using them.
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.
yeah its a lil weird to me they are probably the only class at all now without some type of skill niche, or general strong OoC potential.
cleric can dominate religion checks (+wis) and various OoC spells
Ranger got expertise, deft explorer and spells
barb got primal+rage+lvl 18
bard got spells+BI+expertise
druid can dominate nature checks (+wis)(spells, pets, wildshape)
paladin got divine sense, various support spells/abilities, various control people spells,
warlock got spells, and invocations
wiz access to arcane spells, expertise.
sorc got spells.
fighter tactical mind
only monk really got nothing. in fact they reduced it. used to have access to Astral plane and ability to talk to all creatures. Now they can only go with out food or water.
Going to the Astral Plane by yourself, and being able to talk to anyone with bad Charisma, are not really benefits. They're just as likely to cause even more trouble for the group as a whole. They were also unlikely to show up in the vast majority of campaigns anyway.
I wouldn't mind if Monk got a bonus ASI.
fighter doesnt need high con to survive. most fighters never go past 16 con and its hardly necessary. Fighters mitigation is primarily AC, and recovery based. And they have a d10 die They have thrown and reach weapons, and masteries if they want to. They can go dexterity if they want to extend their range but its very easy to survive with middling con, I know, I ve tested it. Rogue actually probably needs con more than fighter tbh. Fighter can have 18-20+AC, has more base HP, second wind and indomitable. Going in on con for fighter is just if you want to go even further on defense. its totally a choice.
the point about reliable talent is the way in which it increases the average. IE it doesnt increase the average on difficult checks, the entire design of tactical mind is to make less checks, but more important checks. Its not helping at all in that usecase, its not increasing the average in a way that matters. You have a 14 chr rogue 14 chr fighter, trying to convince the king to give up his resources. (high DC check) reliable talent does nothing at all. its effect is binary. expertise doesnt beat tactical mind until 17. thats not going to be the case very often as it stands.
to be clear I am not undervaluing reliable talents its actually great and powerful, its just not going to have an effect at all on hard checks, which is the primary thing tactical mind will be used on, and maybe checks where no one has investment, but are important.
What I'm getting at here is that fighter's skill niche is a different tool than rogues skill use, (not that its better) which is good, but also it wasn't the case before. the answer used to be rogue should make that check.
But this is a bit of a digression because implies I think tactical mind is too powerful, or other classes should be bad at skills to give rogues value. That is the opposite of what I think. The democratization of skill use should always have been the case. This is a way better base, the rogue just needs some adjustments because the old balance was based on that assumption AND rogue damage has not improved though other martials have a better floor
80dpr, would be my drawline and Rogue is comfortably within that range, as I and others have shown time and time again. Rogue is fine damage-wise. It's unique quirk is its reliability. Rogue gets constant damage day in and day out, and gets constant good OOC skills day in and day out. Even with Tactical Mind Fighter isn't close to Rogue in OOC utility because is it a STR-focused class probably wearing Heavy armour so will have lousy stealth checks regardless, meaning the entire "infiltration" OOC role is completely inaccessible to them. Similarly Figther doesn't get either Persuasion nor Deception as class proficiencies making "face" also inaccessible as a OOC role. And since Fighter has to be a melee they can't dump CON so their skill-stat is at best going to be their 3rd stat and probably only going to be a +1 ability score bonus. Compare to Rogue who can fight equally effectively at range, and has multitude defensive abilities & strategies (thus can easily have a +1 or +2 CON), who is all but certain to take expertise in stealth & max out their Dex - making "infiltrator" a natural fit - and who gets Persuasion and Deception as class skill - making "face" an easy choice.
You're white box theory crafting with a ton of assumptions in order to make your point. We are simply pointing out that removing those assumption, you're entire argument falls apart thus there is no fundamental problem with the classes. Sure, if you play in a game where a character only make 2 skill checks in an adventuring day then sure Fighter is better than Rogue at skill checks, but that is a situation that never ever actually happens at the table - geez I've had characters make more skill checks than that in a single room of a dungeon. Similarly if your Fighter magically has constant advantage on every single attack, then sure they do more damage than a Rogue, but again that never ever actually happens at the table.
Please explain... your Fighters have always used weapons in both hands and taken offensive Fighting Styles, meaning their AC maxes out at 18, meanwhile a Rogue maxes out at 17 (unless they take a 1-level dip into Fighter at which point their AC maxes out at 19).
I don't consider having a 50-60% chance at something to be proficient. A locksmith is not good at locks if they can't open it 50% of the time. I am not a good tracker if I get lost 40% of the time.
a kid who is good at math doesnt get 65 on his test.
doesn't make sense to try to jump a 15 foot gap if you only don't fall into the pit 60% of the time.
consider the reccomended minimum DC is really a 10, you shouldn't really even ask for skill checks below that. you will rarely find modules asking for rolls lower than that.
note, a DC 10 mathematically means a person with no talent, no training, succeeds a little more than half the time.
from 1-3 proficency+high stat only gives you +5. this means if something is slightly difficult (DC15+) you have a 55% chance of success. Thats not being good at something. Thats not going to RP wise, represent talent/training.
and this is why most players found skills to be basically ignorable in 5e and magic to be way better. (or you had special skill related features) Because their skill design made the people who were 'good' at something actually not good at it, Just less bad it.
only classes with expertise, or other special skill features could realistically incorporate it into their character concept.
this mattered more for martials, because their proficiencies were actually supposed to represent how they do everything outside of battle. And the answer was basically, you are pretty bad at everything outside battle
the whole skill/class design was pretty bad.
And almost all games where I have watched new people play, or been involved in. you always have those moments where they think/say, oh, I put points into this, my character should be good at it. only to realize, not really, as its much more dominated by random chance than proficiency/ability score.
The minimum DC is 5, not 10 - DMG 238. So a good typical DC at low levels is 10. That gives you a 80% chance of success on most things if you have both talent and training (proficiency and a 16-17 ability score). If instead your DM is putting 15 on everything at level one then of course you're going to feel like skills are a coin flip, because they literally are.
Baldur's Gate uses 5-10 DCs at the start of the game pretty regularly; show that to your DM. Or just tell them you're not having fun with them putting 15 on everything. If they dismiss you, what you have is a table problem, not a system problem.
Agreed, his assumptions seem entirely divorced from reality.
1) I don't find your math an accurate representation of the optimal dpr of classes or the non optimal dpr of classes. I trust my own math, and the other estimations with different considerations are more representive than what you presented, we have already discussed why.
but thats fine, people can do/trust whatever data dpr analysis they want.
2)you aren't actually listening to what I'm saying.
the point was not that tactical mind makes fighters as good as rogues at skills overall, its that the relative difference has changed. That has never been my point, I have never made that claim. To add to this, its not even about just fighters. Most classes have gained various methods for improving skills in some fashion. They are purposefully, and rightfully increasing the skill floor.
so stop any argument with me that is trying to prove that rogues are overall better at skills than fighter, that has never been my contention. If you thought that, you misunderstood me.
there are 4 points I'm making in this thread
1) rogue is relatively less dominant in skills than they were in 2014. (relatively less means the ratio has gotten lower. if skill power was 200:100, in 2024 its less than that aka 200:120 or 200:150 or 200/110) they are still better at skills overall.
2)rogue has roughly the same or worse dpr potential as they had in 2014 whereas the average (in terms of optimized vs non optomized) damage of martials has increased
3)rogue is dependent on off turn damage which doesnt currently generally meld with its class design for competitive damage.
4)rogue needs some numerical/design changes in order to keep the same rough design that is well liked in last UA survey of it while still being balanced, unless you believe they were previously overpowered. And I don't believe that.
smaller disagreements/digressions aside if it isnt impacting one of those 4 things, its fine to debate/discuss it, but it isnt really effecting my overall point/contention
its not 15 on everything, its 15 on the things that are hard Someone who is good at things should be more than a coinflip at hard things. Look in a module find a 5DC I know it represents "easy". no one uses it because its mostly a pointless check, waste of time. Advice is generally just tell players they succeed if its that low.
You may think the skill design and class skill design was fine in 5e. I don't.
also, try to avoid the pointless snark in your comments, re 'divorced from reality' it adds nothing
It means that people often overemphasize the number of rolls you are making for the checks, which makes resources-based bonuses less valuable.
The same people also underemphasize the variety of rolls that you make, which makes applicable-to-any-roll bonuses less valuable than Expertise.
Also, that resource the fighter expends for this bonus to the roll is in most cases the best use, as the primary is kinda ~eh, to be perfectly honest.
being able to understand people is of value even if you can manipulate people. those are two different skill sets. understanding ties into wisdom (insight/perception)
regardless, even if they weren't always useful, they were still more OoC than now.
One thing you guys keep talking past each other:
Based on playtest material, the above quote is factually true: "everyone" got better performance in the "OOC skill department", except for rogue.
Now, assuming that NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED, do the "rogue is fine" people here, who claim that rogue is now "on par" with, say, fighters, rangers, paladins, realize that their position *must* hold that, before these playtests, the 2014 rogue was, in fact, overpowered, and far stronger than fighters, rangers, paladins, etc.?
#1 is not an issue. Rogues are still on top skillwise, even if the top is not as far from the others as it was it's still the top, that's all that matters.
#2 is just wrong. They never had Steady Aim in 2014, and even if you say 2020 instead for Tasha's, they never had Weapon Mastery (for Nick/Vex) or Cunning Strike either. Cunning Strike costs you some individual DPR to activate, but will often result in more damage from the party - disarm someone's shield, or trip someone so all the melee in the party have advantage (a Dex save is much better to target than Topple's Con), or knock them Unconscious on round 1 for a guaranteed sneak-crit on your off-turn attack or round 2. And all that is just the base class, it's not counting the improvements the subclasses have gotten either.
#3 off-turn sneak attack is easy to get, even on a straight rogue Sentinel is a half-feat now so you can grab it right at 4. If you dip another class like Fighter or someone in the party has Haste or can make enemies move away from you under their own power (e.g. Dissonant Whispers or Fear) it's even easier.
#4 The last UA for rogue was awful, literally all they got for damage boosts was Subtle Strikes at 13. Both Steady Aim and WM trump it easily. I won't even bring up the 1/round SA.
I was referring to the assumptions you're choosing to make, not to you personally. They are unrealistic.
I think that's reasonable for something hard. If it's hard, a low level character who wants to guarantee success should augment their talent and training with magic, such as the Guidance cantrip, bard song, enhance ability etc. Or at the very least get Help.
1)when it comes to game balance top is not all that matters at all. the ratios matter a lot. if top was all that matters then there is no problem with me saying rogues DPS should increase, because I'm not asking for it to be top. I'm asking for it to be 85%
2)2014 is just my method of saying current dnd, and drawing parallel to the 2024 proposed dnd. Tasha's has decent optional rules, some of which have become official, weapon mastery doesnt actually drastically effect rogue dps. They only get 1-2 attacks, the weapons they have access to is limited. They already are designed such that they are expected to get advantage fairly often. nick opens up BA, but the BA isnt a damage option for rogue. Rogue has lost the ability to take fighting styles, lost access to hand crossbows, and sharpshooter no longer effects damage. Far as number's I have seen, their optimal is slightly lower. their normal build is about the same.
3)Sentinel goes against the overall class design of rogue, yes they can and will use it, but it means they won't be escaping melee, or hiding in battle. Sentinel is also designed to make you a primary target. The answer to a guy who will hit you if you attack anyone else, is to hit/kill him first. (sentinel is essentially a taunt) the rogue is literally the worst equipped class to handle sustained pressure. (low hp, average ac, no recovery, no defensive spells)Personally I think its OK if rogues are expected to do off turn damage, but the current methods are either limited, involve MC, or go against the class design.
4) if you think the last UA rogue's design is bad, then I guess you just think they need something other than damage/skills?. People's premise in this thread is that they think more changes are needed in the context of everything else presented, and the idea that WOTC thinks rogue's UA design is mostly great and fairly ready for release.
"Except for rogue" is stretching it. At the very least, Reliable Talent got moved from level 11 to 7; this is pretty huge --- many-if-not-most campaigns fizzle after level 10, and Reliable Talent is extra valuable at lower levels.
1) see above, that assumption is false
2) Rogue is getting bumps in combat control/utility, in the form the new Cunning Strike mechanic.
3) 2014 Rogue really was, compared to other 2014 classes, kinda-the-best. It's always been very popular, despite never really "winning" the DPR optimization game, and it's the SADest of the SAD. Rogue's biggest weakness (in terms of what people want, not game balance) has been its lack of proper tactical options, and OneDnD is doing good work to fix that.
"2)rogue has roughly the same or worse dpr potential as they had in 2014 whereas the average (in terms of optimized vs non optomized) damage of martials has increased"
This is absolutely untrue for optimized damage. The nerfing of GWM and especially Sharpshooter, means that optimized martial damage is significantly lower in UA8 compared to 5e, whereas Rogue optimized damage hasn't changed at all (assuming GFB & BB are still allowed) or only slightly decreased if NuTrueStrike must replace GFB/BB.
PS Sharpshooter was always a poor choice of feat for Rogues, 90% of the time using SS would reduce their DPR.
"Now, assuming that NOTHING ELSE HAS CHANGED, do the "rogue is fine" people here, who claim that rogue is now "on par" with, say, fighters, rangers, paladins, realize that their position *must* hold that, before these playtests, the 2014 rogue was, in fact, overpowered, and far stronger than fighters, rangers, paladins, etc.?"
Yes, absolutely. One could easily build a Rogue that utterly overshadowed the other martials in the party. Last time I played a Rogue I deliberately made suboptimal build choices because the Paladin player was frustrated that I did more danage than them even when they smited. By end game the Paladin had two legendary magic items and a HB feat in order to feel powerful next to my rogue with only one measely Very Rare item.
To be fair monk does have really good movement capabilities that can be OoC utility. Like being able to run/walk across water or up walls, as well as having insane movement speed and agility. A DM could design parkour-esque dungeons and traps that only a monk would be able to navigate with ease.
People have done the math, optimized and non-optimized damage for martials in One Dnd has been increased. It's just that now feats are not as necessary for optimization as they used to be. Damage boosts come more from your subclass choice.