Just after 3.5 landed a thread went up entitled Bards Do Suck and it was a rather popular thread and went on for months and it had over 1000 replies debating the merits of the Bard. Personally I thought the 3.5 Bard was one of the most powerful classes in 3.5 that did not have CoDzilla or the word Wizard attached to them. Now however I am not convinced the 5E Rogue is that good and where I am sitting the Rogue may actually be worse than both the 3.5 Rogue and the Pathfinder Rogue. In Pathfinder the Rogue is generally considered the worst class apart from the monk mostly because of the power creep that occurred on the other classes from 3.5 to PF. The 5E fighter may also be worse all things considered than the 3.5 fighter as well at the lower levels.
First things first the game has changed from 3.5 so it is a little harder to evaluate things as the 3.5 Rogue had to contend with things like CoDzilla and the spell casters which the 5E Rogue does not so they are operating in different environments. Most of my argument will be comparing the Rogue to 5E things but I will point out some of the key differences between the 3.5/PF Rogue and the 5E Rogue. The Rogue has both editions tends to have a list of interesting abilities however but some of the key differences are outlined below.
Sneak attack. The 3.5, PF, and 5E Rogues all have sneak attack that scales at the same rate. The 3.5 Rogue cannot sneak attack certain creatures, the PF can sneak attack undead and other creature and is less restricted in that regard, the 5E Rogue seems to be able to sneak attack anything. The 3.5 and PF Rogues can sneak attack multiple times in a round however and can sneak attack with any weapon they are proficient in. The 2E Thief can also backstab with any weapon, the 1st ed thief cannot. 5E Rogues can however score critical hits with their sneak attack and get dexterity to hit and damage while it is harder for 3.5 and PF Rogues to get that (splat book material/limited options).
The way one is able to sneak attack has been changed. The assassin ability for the 5E Rogue about being able to sneak attack when they win initiative is a universal Rogue ability in 3.5/PF. It is also easier to out right kill a target in 3.5/5E if you catch them sleeping or helpless due to coup de grace mechanics.
To summarize the key Rogue ability overall has been nerfed in 5E with a couple of buffs however such as dex to hit and damage for free and you can critical hit with it and effect more creatures. More or less even overall with 3.5 probably weaker than PF in general. Somewhat bizarre you cannot sneak attack with any weapon I suppose that is for balance purposes. With dex to hit and damage for free though and no more triple dipping with larger weapon dice++50% strength bonuses on two handed wepaons+ power attack abuse you can’t really abuse that like 3.x type games could. For example my Barbarian 1/Rogue3 character in Pathfinder- 4d6 damage+15 with power attack, sneak attack rage etc. Those changes from the earlier editions may however have contributed to the Rogues do suck of my argument.
So what should Rogues be good at? Traditionally they have been a skill monkey class with the ability to get large situational spikes in damage via backstab/sneak attack damage. For the most part this is still true and it even looks good on paper. There are a few problems with this however.
1. The spike damage is not really that impressive. There is no X2,3,4 or X5 multiplier like AD&D and you can’t sneak attack multiple times. Your damage does not compare that well to a high dex fighter dual wielding let alone one of the strength based builds and that is assuming you can sneak attack 100% of the time.
2. The skill monkey part of the class has been eroded. This is due to things like the Bard class, dex to hit and damage for everyone, and the criminal and urchin back grounds giving access to proficiency in thieves tools. A high dex fighter (or anyone really) is not that much worse than a Rogue using expertise and skill DCs are not that high in any event- see the lost mines of Phandelver for example. Technically the Rogue will be better via expertise but the Bard gets that ability as well and if anyone cares that much a single level dip in the Rogue class can give that ability to anyone including expertise in thieves’ tools which the bard cannot do.
3. Traps do not seem to matter as much anyway. The lethality of some AD&D/BECMI traps does not exist in 5E so even if you lack a dedicated trap finder just heal them up after setting the trap off is now a worst case scenario assuming they even get reduced to 0hp. Which won’t kill anyone anyway.
Put simply any high dex character can be an easy sub for a Rogue and depending on the class can probably out damage the Rogue as well or at least be in the same ball park. It makes a Rogue very easy to replace as a class. I would argue spells are also better than sneak attack as well.
To be fair however the Rogue does get some other abilities such as cunning action which makes the Rogue very good at mobility but to make full use of that you probably want to use a grid. This lets the Rogue be a good skirmisher I suppose via bonus disengage and run actions. Once again an easy dip though as the Rogue gets it at level 2 and I keep on looking at a high dexterity Fighter/Rogue and thinking hmmmnn. Personally I would like the Rogue to be more than a dip class. One can also compare cunning action to other class abilities of the classes where you might consider using them to replace a Rogue outright. Most likely this means high dexterity Fighters, Rangers, Paladins, and our skill monkey has been a Bard and Warlock.
Is cunning action better than action surge? Is it better than spells or super eldritch blasts? After level 3 or so the Rogues abilities seem to become a little lacklustre hence the Rogue4/Fighter4 comparisons and the Rogue 4 part is really only there for the stat buff/bonus feat. The fighter dip level can also let you use a shield and rapier+duelist or let you add dex to damage to your off had dual wielding. Consider
Level 5 (assuming 18 dex for each class)
Rogue
1d6+dex+3d6 sneak attack (at best) 18 avg damage
Fighter (Dual wielder)
3 attacks 1d6+dexterity on each attack (22.5 avg damage)
The Rogues spike damage is less than the fighters every day attacks. The Rogue will be better at skills of course but you can get the important ones via the criminal back ground and at level 5 the bonus from expertise is +3. Unless the DC is high a guidance spell can buff the fighter’s skill check to about the same although the rogue can get this as well. That does raise the question though when does close enough become good enough? The Rogue does get better at skills at the higher levels but a 2 level Rogue dip can erase this advantage as well for the most part along with Rogues knowing more skills and give another class cunning action.
Overall it seems to be harder to replace for example a cleric or wizard in a party as they are clearly the best at what they do. You might get close with a Sorcerer subbing for a wizard or a combination of classes replacing a cleric but clerics can double as a fighter, secondary blaster, healbot etc depending on how you build them. The Rogues main advantages seem to be easily mitigated if not outright replaced and in a worst case scenario you can get around it in other ways.
Now do not get me wrong I like the class and an assassin is on my short list of things to try when I get the chance to play. I do not always pick the most powerful class and my last 3 classes I have designed for myself have been a Halfling dual wielder and non-variant human archer in 5E and the Rogue/Barbarian for Pathfinder. The few times I got to play 3.x as a player I think I took a wizard once circa 2002. I prefer to power game a weaker class than turn up with a campaign wrecking CoDzilla or whatever. Assuming I want to power game anything hence my current 5E human archer who is not a variant human as I liked the idea of good saves, no dump stats and being a bit of an all-rounder at skills.
Cunning Action and Assassinate are both good. If you can get two sneak attacks off in a turn with OAs or a warlord magically controlling your arm on their turn then damage is respectable.
FFSAA wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
I will take 5E sneak attack versus any other editions sneak attack or backstab
Skill monkey. Wow Skill monkey with stealth is freaking outstanding.
Traps may not be save or die, but avoiding the consequences of those effects is still a boon. And if you are playing homebrew adventures, the lethality of traps may be higher, plus
their has not been many 5E adventures made yet so we don't quite know how badass the traps will be in future adventures.
Rogue's aren't suppose to be the damage kings like a Fighter or Barbarian. But their mobility in combat is sweet. A Rogue can disengage, move to a critter another allie is fighting and sneak attack,
very nice.
Hasted paladins and bards are the kings of mobility. Then eagle totem barbarians and monks. Rogues are third but at least they beat out most everyone else.
I like my rogue's mage hand legerdemain and spell ambush. Relieving laughing monsters of their weapons while you are hidden is beyond amazing.
Zardnaar wrote:
Dracones wrote:
h347h50 wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
I'd play a rogue in a heartbeat. "Cunning Action"/bonus action every turn is that cool. Plus with duel wielding it gives an interesting choice. Duel attack or save the bonus action for cunning action. Interesting choices and feel go a long way.
Besides, I don't think I've ever played in a game (or DMd one) where someone decided how to make the party. When I play or DM, we just play what we feel like playing. I bet an all rogue game would actually be really interesting too.
Gray Mouser, out!
Rhenny wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
arderkrag wrote:
To me, it feels like a Rogue is mandatory for a party, purely based on their Mastery with thieves' tools. That might just be me, though.
I feel the same way about Pathfinder, as well. The Rogue is the only class which can reliably remove a trap which might otherwise slay the entire party.
I think the rogue is srong. you only need to land one attack to get your SA damage, not lots of attacks, and getting adv on attack is not difficult when you're a stealthy bastard like the rogue. Fast hands is amazing (bonus action drink potion, throw acid pot, activate wand of magic missiles... hello auto damage), uncanny dodge is amazing, and the 13th level abilitiy that lets you cast spell scrolls and use any other magic item is freakin' amazing. And do not forget - critically - that rogues abilities are always on. They dont care about short rests or long rests (hp aside). This makes them extremely versatile, good in dungeons, wilderness treks, city adventures.... you name it, the rogue is there with all bells and whistles firing.
The rogue is very strong imo. I would be glad to play one.
I don't know. The rogue is my favorite class. I loved the concept in 2e, but thought the mechanics left it as being second fiddle to pretty much everyone else. 3e made the rogue more desirable, but it also boosted all the magic users to the point where I saw no point to ever play anything but a magic user. Additionally, many of its nicest abilities could be obviated with far too much ease, which meant that you really had to ask a DM if his campaign was going to be rogue (read: sneak attack) friendly. 4e watered down the concept and left us with a swashbuckler. The rogue's big shtick, out of combat capability, was so watered down in 4e (for all classes) that it didn't really feel like playing the class I remembered from my 2e days (though it was fun to dungeon crawl with a rogue/skulker style character). The Essentials rogue started to feel more like what I actually wanted to play. I actually think 5th got it just about perfect. So long as a campaign makes regular use of skill checks, which I think any game really should, the class seems great to me...
My problem with Rogues is the dependency on others in order to use their sneak attack. E.g., if solo, it's virtually impossible to use sneak attack in melee, but they need that damage consistently to keep up with the other classes. It seems that they should be able to do something like use a bonus action to feint (perhaps with some sort of opposed Dex check, flat check like Dex DC 15, acrobatics or deception check, etc.), and if successful, get use of sneak attack against that foe.
You picked level 5. That's the biggest damage boost a fighter get's. Rogues scale more gradually.
Level 7 and 8 they will be tied.
Level 9 and 10 the rogue will be ahead.
With 2e, each skill could be modified individually via skill points, race, ability scores, armor, NWPs, tools and a kit.
Pick Pockets, Open Locks, Find / RemoveTraps, Move Silently,Hide In Shadows, Read Languages, Climb, Detect Noise are the core rogue skills IMO.
With 5e. I'm not seeing the same level of variance that previously helped differentiate rogues from each other. Even other classes can have the same level of proficiency.
Part of the problem is that 5e uses a skill system that is plagued with complexity. The rules for the skill system are found scattered all over the PHB and that makes it difficult fully understand. We can only hope that a more comprehensive system will be presented in the DMG.
Saelorn wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Guest703856308 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Dracones wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
All I see in the original post is a list of ways the Rogue has been "nerfed" from 3.5, and the hypothesis that it is "bad" if you assume that it plays the exact same role in a game that is near identical to 3.5 and Pathfinder. I don't see that as a real arguement. If you're benchmarking the current rogue against other editions, why only go so hard on 3.5/3.75, with a passing mention of 2E? Why not compare it to how it played in the most recent edition (4th)? Why not go back to AD&D in depth and see how it's changed since then? All I see is a post that says "A 5E Rogue cannot do the things I expect a 3.5 Rogue to do as well as a 3.5 Rogue does them". The whole critique comes down to the fact that a 5E Rogue cannot:
1) Deal extreme (some might say excessive) spike damage
2) Be the best skill monkey
3) Be a trapmaster (though this criticism seems to be leveled at the impact of traps, not the Rogue)
What was never adressed was "What is the intention for the Rogue in this edition, and does it fulful that role in a way that makes it an asset to the party? Is a 5E edition Rogue a good choice for a 5E campaign?" If you want to discuss whether or not a Rogue 'sucks', fine. But you should look at it within the context of the game it is presented in. Can a Barbarian in 5E RAGELANCEPOUNCE like they can in Pathfinder? No. Does that make the Barbarian suck? No. Likewise, the fact that a 5E Rogue cannot do something a 3.5 Rogue did (or even just not do it as well) is not inheriently a bad thing as long as the class is still effective within the edition it exists.
Lawolf wrote:
Guest703856308 wrote:
Some issues with Zardnaar's overview:
1. Rogues don't just get more skills than all other classes. They're also way better at skills than anyone else, thanks to expertise and reliable talent.
2. Sneak attack isn't burst damage. An assassin's assassinate ability is burst damage. Rogues should be getting sneak attack pretty much every time they spend their action to attack.
3. I don't know why people talk about spells like Haste and Guidance like they negate rogue advantages. You can cast those spells ON THE ROGUE, and they're more effective than if you cast them on a bard or cleric.
ClockworkNecktie wrote:
Alternately, if your GM bothers to take the party composition into effect maybe he/she will make sure there are challenges where the rogue can shine.
If he/she doesn't and it's just all combat, all the time, and keeping up with the Joneses on DPR is important to you, play a different class. Or, better yet, find a better DM.
dmgorgon wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
BW0222 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
GhostStepper wrote:
BW0222 wrote:
Could the next printing of the PHB please be reorganized. Thank You.
Mistwell wrote:
I don't think there is such a problem here. If you manage to hide your rogue every turn it will be more than deadly.
Round one: Rogue hidden behind a wall corner or anything big enough to cover him in the wilderness, with rapier in hand, rushes out of hiding position and move with stealth to attacks a distracted opponent (meleeing one of your allies for instance): a hit is a critical with assasinate as you have advantage on a suprised opponent.
So damage will be 2D8 (rapier) 6D6 (sneak attack) 4 (dex 18) for an average of 34 damage. With cunning action disengage and go back into cover.
Now be a half-orc and you had one D8 on your rapier for an average of 38.5.
Round two: Sneak out using stealth, picking another distracted opponent, and strike. And so on.
I am well aware that the rule for Hiding state that most creature stay alert for signs of danger all around and that they would usually see someone coming out of hiding. But if the said target is already fighting for its life in a fierce melee combat I don't see why a rogue cannot take advantage of that and sneak it, especially if it is unaware that a rogue is nearby. I would give a passive Perception check for any target not aware of the presence of the rogue and a Perception check for any distracted target aware that the rogue is hiding somewhere. So I would give it a Perception check.
Now if that feels too extreme to some people, just do the same with a hand crossbow, hiding behind a wall or huge rock or tree. You hide, pop out 10 feet and shoot and go back into cover. I don't think that a target busy in melee will qualify as "usually sees you" in this situation. It has something else to do than actively looking for that corner while meleeing someone.
And wait until poison gets more developped and you are in business !
Soltar wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
The only thing I don't like about rogues is their weapon proficiencies don't match up with SA. They should of taken the monk example and made up 'rogue weapons' on the fly.
Like:
..."the attack must use a ranged weapon thay you have proficiency with, a finesse weapon that you have proficiency with, a longsword, or rogue weapons, which are any simple weapons that don't have the heavy or two-handed property..."
That would be my request anyway.
Zardnaar wrote:
Miladoon wrote:
Soltar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Soltar wrote:
Soltar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Nothing wrong with 1e morals. Personally I have not met a Wandering Murder Hobo that I did not like.
arnwolf666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
1. If a fighter fights better than a rogue, I think that's a good thing.
2. yes, I agree skills are a probllem in 5e.
3. I think we don't have good trap rules yet to reach a veredict.
I agree with you that spellcasters can be better substitutes for any class if you dip from 0 to 3 levels in them.
example: a ranger 3/bard 10 is a better ranger than ranger 13
MechaPilot wrote:
arnwolf666 wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Guest703856308 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Saelorn wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
I don't think it is a design flaw that Rogue's can't sneak attack with Long Swords or wield Great Swords. I think it is a deliberate design to emphasize their abilities around finesse. Why even have short swords and daggers in the game if everyone can use Great Swords. Maybe it is because not too many thieves on the street corner wield great swords, but use daggers and easily carried short swords. I don't even know why a wizard would even carry a weapon in this edition. Old faithful cantrip beats them all. Maybe at the first few levels a dagger or short sword is useful if you are two-weapon fighting.
arnwolf666 wrote:
This thread is above my paygrade; and I haven't dealt much with the rogue (the one in our group quite rocks though), but, I guess I would have liked too see it be able to get SA easier, without having to rely on allies or hiding, given that the latter seems highly subject to dm adjudication (e.g., everytime I read an official response that has to do with hiding and whether or not the character gets advantage or not, the reply is almost always, "dm's call.") Like, let it also do SA to a creature that has no creatures within 10 feet of it (perhaps that's a feature, or a feat? I derno), or like a feint action, as a option for Cunning Action, or something. In all, I've heard a bunch of complaints about this and that class, but this is the first I heard there might be a problem with the rogue.
Zardnaar wrote:
I don't think rogue's suck. I enjoy them alot. I would like to see them set up like the Battlemaster with Dirty Tricks, stuff like taunting and causing chaos and confusion to opponents in combat. A trickster does not have to be an arcane trickster.
I like rogues. I play them almost exclusively. I have one bard and a rogue/wizard. The rest are staight rogues. I would like to see more options for the rogue other than, rapier, shortsword, and dagger when it comes to melee, without having to create a work around, like multiclass or feat taking. of course, there are a few more weapons a rogue can use without proficiency and still get their SA. But that seems to me that its more of a design issue.
I think that the miniscule amount of finesse in the rogues weapon selection makes the idea of a finesse archetype less likely. It seems that they wanted a sneaky opportunist when they formed this rogue. But then if a rogue sneaks up behind a mook and whacks him on the head with a club, sorry no SA. I guess he should of used a dagger. Or better yet, a scimitar. A weapon that he apparently has no proficiency with.
Miladoon wrote:
Maybe so. But they are going to have a tough time getting me away from my arcane trickster. 
The more I think about it, maybe I don't want them to fix anything. Never know what they might do.
Miladoon wrote:
Yeah, I already looked at the weapon chart and started coming up with ideas. I DM a lot more than play, so the weapons chart was the first place I started tinkering with. Then I looked at how they worded the monk weapons rule in the monk write up and it seemed easier than reskinning daggers.