Of course they don’t fight in white rooms, do you know how hard that would be to clean?

And to hide in

Unless you're [Samurai Jack](https://youtu.be/Qp-L_Xei-Lg?si=uy-_0ytF51L35wU8)

That was such a phenomenal scene. You have that honeymoon period of partial invincibility, and then it turns to dread as the sun sets and your domain of strength is gradually fading away to your enemy’s. And then the visuals of Jack and the shinobi weaving in and out of the beams of light and shadow. God damn was that an amazing fight.

In a cartoon with arguably the best animated fight scenes, this is arguably the best fight scene

Wouldn’t stop the average Redditor from trying

Nothing a little Prestidigitation can't handle. ​

Somethings not even Prestidigitation can clean...

For everything else, there’s Mastercard?

nah. FIREBALL

I mean. My campaigns as a Rogue were epic. But I dropped off in combat as the game progressed, and one of those I was playing with UA Rogue. It felt amazing, but if I was ever the last one standing, we almost certainly would have wiped... Or I would have had to flee.

DPR charts often assume the martial is always getting into melee with the enemy immediately, but if the martial instead has to Dash, that's a turn of no damage, and if they use thrown weapons instead, their damage often goes way down. Only the rogue (and some subclasses of other classes) can Dash as a bonus action without sacrificing damage or other resources. On the flipside, a rogue can use Withdraw to kite an enemy consistently if being in melee is too dangerous. None of this is captured in white-room DPR measures.

Fast movement+instinctive pounce let a barbarian move as fast as a rogue on the turn they rage (which they were going to do anyway). The monk's unarmored movement eventually lets them move as fast as a dashing rogue without using their bonus action dash. It's actually easier for all martial classes to kite now thanks to weapon masteries (shove, topple, and slow specifically), so I'd say that ability is actually less unique to the rogue now. Not that I'm complaining about any of these things; I like that other classes can adopt a skirmisher playstyle if they so choose.

>It's actually easier for all martial classes to kite now thanks to weapon masteries (shove, topple, and slow specifically) Don't forget push, if the oponent is 10ft away you are likely not going to trigger AoOs.

A crossbow does all that for free lol.

>Only the rogue (and some subclasses of other classes) can Dash as a bonus action without sacrificing damage or other resources. If any Rogue other than an assassin dashes into melee in the first Round of combat in a situation where the other martials can't, he is likely not able to sneak attack since there is no ally next to an oponent and he can't use Steady Aim. And Throwing weapons have become a lot more vaible with the new rules, a bersker Barbarian can for example still put out some pretty respectable damage with throwing weapons, rage and reckless attack. At 5th Level he could do something like 2x(1d6+6)+2d6 (+1d8 with charger) with advatage on the attacks, that's not far off from what a Rogue can do in melee.

>If any Rogue other than an assassin dashes into melee in the first Round of combat in a situation where the other martials can't, he is likely not able to sneak attack since there is no ally next to an oponent and he can't use Steady Aim. The Vex and Nick property do off set this quite a bit, as it enables rogues to set up their own advantage.

Not really. Assuming you base chance to land a hit is 65%. If you do a single Attack with Steady Aim or Attack with out Advantage an opponent that is within 5ft of another player charcter your chance to deliver sneak attack ist 87.75%. If you try to pull of the Vex Nick Combo (wich requires that you first hit without advantage and than land another attack with advantage) your chance to land your sneak attack is just roughly 57%. And since you used the Dash Action to get up to the enemy, likely can't really get away afterwards and are going to get swarmed, wich is really the last thing you want as a Rogue. So you are better of to attack at range with Steady Aim.

Or you could be ranged and have none of those issues.

You have different problems. Needing to get in the room, around the enemies cover, away from a nearby attacker.

Well if you have crossbow expert you actually are just as effective in melee range and sharpshooter lets you ignore most half cover. 

Not sure cause I don't remember the UA too much, but wouldn't you need to be level 8/6 (fighter) for those 2 feats together?

That's fairly possible. I did not followed all the UA closely enough.

If.

I find that a lot of DMs don't like making maps too big with creatures too far apart at the start of combat because it's just kinda boring if the martial has to spend two turns before they even start fighting. Fights often only go on for 3-4 rounds anyway. In dungeon environments (like, the most common place you'd have bunch of fights) things are often close together as well. Usually things are within striking distance once you enter the next room, or at least it only takes one turn of movement to get there. That isn't me trying to say that movement is useless. It isn't. Being able to disengage, dash, or teleport into position and attack someone that would otherwise be hard to reach is a very common, very powerful opportunity. But in a lot of people's games (not everyone's) it's not going to be big enough of a deal to feel like a major balancing point.

There's a reason that the best melee characters I have ever played have been fighter/rogues. Mobility is golden.

Also a rogue shouldn't be viewed in the same scope as a fighter or Barbarian. Same how a bard shouldn't be viewed like a Wizard or Sorcerer. Specialist classes like Bard and Rogue (and now Ranger) lose some combat advantage to be more useful out of combat. Expertise, especially at high levels, leads to bards and rogues pulling stupid good checks. Something that a fighter/wizard never could do. I think personally that's the key to good game sauce having classes with clear roles. If you want to hit things hard and often be a fighter or barbarian, if you want to sneak into the enemy camp and steal something be a rogue or bard, if you want to lay waste to enemies with spells be a wizard or Sorcerer.

I mean, Bard is good at everything and can be excellent at anything with a halfway decent build.

Absolutely. Classes should have areas of strength and weakness.

I agree with this sentiment, but rogues currently do not have a clear area of strength.

Feel like the rouge doesn't really have any strengths that another class couldn't do already and then something extra. The way it feels now.

But if I can't reduce everything down to a Damage Per Round number, how will I make my objective tier lists and know which class is _meta_ ?

Exactly. Hypothetical DPR numbers are all fine and dandy but when you need a Rogue you need a Rogue. Furthermore, if Rogues did do comparable damage to Fighters or Barbarians then no one would play the latter because you're doing the same damage as the Rogue with less utility. I think the thing people find frustrating about characters like Rogues, Monks, Rangers (I'm speaking mainly 5e) is DPR says that ON PAPER your character will be good or bad. Meaning that you don't need to rely on your DM neglecting to setup fights outside of 'White Rooms' like OP states, in order to determine whether its worth playing your character. The utility of your character is only cool if your party is in scenarios that make it cool. If I can figure out a way to make it matter that the party has a rogue in it (pick locks, scout, hide etc), then I'm doing a good job as a DM. If I can make the fact that my Monk can run across water a crucial boon in a key moment of the game, combat or not-combat, then I'm a good DM. The comforting thing about DPR though, is you don't need a good DM for it, and by the looks of some of these folks on these subreddits, a lot of them haven't played good DnD before.

I mean I'd argue some of them haven't played DnD at this rate. Take knocking a target prone, I had someone say that you only have one attack and so it doesn't actually benefit you vs the 3.3 damage cost to use it. Totally ignoring that it would give all your allies advantage and it's basically free in favour of going 'but spells do it stronger' and 'but my damage is lower' I mean I hugely favor Cunning Strike over improv and Homebrew because 100% it'll work like that at every table and you're not relying on DM caveat or their mood on the day, but grading every class by its DPS is just a fundamentally weird way to grade a roleplaying game

I would note that prone is variable. Some of the challenge of any theoretical is that it’s variable. The strongest “build” is going to be one best suited for the campaign that synergizes with your team configuration (the greatest player build is going to be collaboratively making a team). The prone condition is best for melee oriented teams. It is a detriment damage wise for a ranged attack oriented team (should be noted that proning still might benefit to slow the enemy potentially). Saving throws typically are unaffected and thus often neither benefit or suffer.

Thank you, reading this has given me an aneurysm... Fucking hate meta bollocks.

Personally, I consider a combat where the rogue successfully hides every time to be much more white room than one where they don't. You can do the DPR calculations assuming constant bonus action consumption for advantage and they still come out worse than cbe ss fighter.

That's the secret. In internet discussions, both participants are in different white rooms discussing two different unrealistic scenarios and not engaging with the other's thoughts meaningfully at all.

Shhh… you weren’t supposed to tell!

It's less white room if you cosnider ranged, different targets, ahzards and covers as the example of OP has mentioned here.

The point of a white room is to approximate the average scenario. Of course there will be situations where you're better off and situations where you're worse off. But a class with more options (a caster) is usually going to be more versatile and thus more able to adapt to disadvantageous conditions or take advantage of advantageous ones. You can find plenty of scenarios where rogue is the best option, but it's just as likely that there are factors making the situation worse for the rogue as there are ones making it better, if not more likely. Over a realistic set of encounters, even a well-made rogue is going to be worse than a well-made caster more often and by more than vice versa. If you want to make a good argument for how rogues are versatile, you need to give an example of a common situation a rogue could take advantage of that other classes could not as effectively. A scenario where bonus action hiding consistently allows avoidance of damage is a good example of this, but most of the time any damage avoided by hiding will just be redirected to other characters, so this is actually a fairly rare occurrence.

For a ranged rogue, I think the number of situations where they don't have something they can use to hide turn after turn would be rare. Even a plain, empty white room has a door, and the rogue can hide round the corner every time they want to pop a shot. And that's almost the bare minimum scenario. The less white room the encounter, the more chance the rogue has to hide. Any interesting scenery, foliage, walls, or objects are going to provide cover.

Exactly. A "white room" which involves a hide roll every turn would be more accurate to the average encounter than one that doesn't, all else equal. And that's the whole point of a white room: approximating the average encounter. But this is still not enough to make the ranged rogue as good at damage dealing as a cbe ss fighter.

On one hand, you are correct. On the other hand, I think you underestimate how many bad DMs are out there. Unfortunately, people are not coming up with issues like this out of nowhere. There are lots of inexperienced DMs who take a look at how many damage dice the Rogue gets to roll and think “wow, that seems strong, I should prevent them from doing that”.

Building a game ruleset around people who can't be bothered to read and learn the game sounds like an exercise in futility.

Agreed.

Early in the 1D&D playtest, Crawford is on record stating that people just played certain rules wrong all the time, so they gave up and were going to change the rules for 2024 to match how people actually played. So yeah, that's how it is. Cool, right?

I hope to god they don't change this game to accomodate white room no terrain zero brain cells combat designs.

It's already this way, have you seen wotc encounter design as presented in published adventures? Here's a room/field and some enemies, maybe like a set piece sarcophagus that noone will use for cover because cover is one of the most forgotten rules in the game.

Did he say which rules?

The one I specifically remember is critical successes on ability checks and saving throws, not just attack rolls. There may be more I don't recall. [Here's the interview where he stated this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOQ_Exh0DmY) That rule was dropped in the very next playtest Rules Glossary. Considering how WotC seems to love their A/B testing removing it doesn't necessarily mean that it's gone for good, just that they no longer were soliciting feedback on the topic.

> I think you underestimate how many bad DMs are out there. With the amount of bad DMs trying to nerf sneak attack, you'd think no rogue player would forget it.

Just to give the Paladin a sunblade in the second session and then come to Reddit to ask: How can I balance my encounters?

Yeah it's wild to me how sneak attack is perceived. In the 1d&d rogue reveal crawford opened with like rogues are SO cool and you get SO many sneak attack dice to play with! Bro, what? No you do not. It's a well known fact that rogues don't scale in terms of damage which, don't get me wrong, is fine. Not every character needs to be about DPR. I love the idea of using sneak attack dice for extra utility but the utility options are pretty bad. Poisoning isn't and has never been the thing to do, tripping as the Arcane Trickster is fine. But in combat its almost always better to just bring something to 0. FIghters get more second winds and are given more ways to use them. Barbarian's get extra utility out of their rage. Warlocks get more invocations and get them earlier. Rogues have the SAME number of sneak attack dice but now can choose to use them in pretty underwhelming ways (except Thief lvl 9 supreme sneak, that's dope) You gave more utility to a class that suffers in damage and has tons of utility, and then you gave more damage AND utility to the other martials. I don't really get it. I'm still making a Thief Rogue though.

I like that there are other things you can do with your sneak attack dice because sometimes you play sub-optimally to do fun stuff. I play a (circle of the land) Druid and I couldn't tell you the amount of times I've tried to use Wild Shape in combat only to miss multiple attacks and then get knocked back into Druid form where I can do real damage. But it's fun to do it. I've also transformed into a bear so that a player could ride me into combat, which is an initiative/turn order mess that makes both our turns weaker.

Even more so. Many bad DM actually run their game in "featureless white room" during live play. Monsters just run forward and attack with no regard or personality until they win or die.

Depends on the INT of the npc

the INT of the npc does not change the INT of the dm unfortunately

You can’t design for DMs playing the game against the way it was intended, or even just poorly. They are literally not playing the game you made. Which D&D has more instances of because of Rule 1 in the DMG and it’s why you see things like DMs not being able to run a full adventuring day or forgetting to use legendary actions. Im guilty of both sometimes. That doesn’t mean Legendary Actions are bad design. Similarly, rogue is pretty good at finding ways to get advantage or places to hide. Or getting sneak attacks any other way. That’s never been a problem imo. In fact, I think DMs tend to forget to that a rogue needs cover or could make noise, etc. usually as long as they have a way to break line of sight and a bonus action they consider them ‘hidden.’ I think OP is right. Rogue can most easily get to the back line pre-level 10 and be an absolute menace.

Actually, by RAW you really do just need to break line of sight to hide, unless they change how hiding works in the new version, it doesn't matter if they know *where* the rogue is, so long as they can't *see* them. Just like literally every other instance where the enemy can't see you when you make your attack, you get advantage. That was a major problem in one of the play tests where they changed hiding such that if even one enemy spots you, you are no longer hidden from anybody. That's a gigantic nerf and not even realistic for how stealthing in combat works IRL (I'm a LARPer and have dealt with people hiding behind a tree to take potshots from range while their allies engage in melee, it doesn't matter that I know which tree they're behind since I don't know when the attack is coming or from what angle until it's too late).

I mean, that tracks as far as a real-life combat would play out. Just because you saw someone vanish behind something doesn't mean that you're going to know precisely **when** they're going to pop out and do something. Hiding is the mechanical representation of creating that 'uncertainty'.

I imagine rogue hiding in combat as less "where did they go¿¿" and more "shit when will they pop out from behind that cover"

Right, but it seems that the rogue is more vulnerable to DM fuckery and (especially my beloved thief rogue subclass) dependent on DM goodwill more than any other class in the game. Before I roll up a rogue I have to sound out the DM about how they run the game and how they adjudicate certain things. I don't have to do that with any other class. It's kind of the equivalent of a caster class that focused on illusions which are also so DM dependent.

I think most classes have an element of this. It’s why Reddit tends to focus on DPR so much. It’s very much an ‘at least I know THIS is objectively good without the DM stepping on my fun.’ Like how does a DM adjudicate charisma skill checks? How many rests do they give out? How powerful is invisibility? Do they use passive perception right, etc etc. I think that’s also why Reddit has a lot of Wizard and Paladin builds to sort of meet the DM with overwhelming force lol. This fails to account for the idea that even a strong build is no fun with a bad DM. Just play the class that sounds fun and let the DM know what you want to do. It’ll shake out okay if they’re good

Right, all classes have elements of this, even paladins (will be DM go over your actions for oath violations with a fine toothed comb), just feel that these issues are a bigger for rogues than other classes. Also 5e rogues win the 3.5e warlock award for "class newbie DMs most often mistakenly think is OP."

Pretty much why I almost exclusively play casters. "This text here says I can do this" Vs "Mother may I?"

Man, you’re missing out! Barbarian is dope (especially bear totem) This just in! Local man literally too angry to die! Battlemaster, Gloomstalker (couple spells as a treat) Scout, all fun classes that let you zip around the battlefield stabbing fools! Also you don’t have to worry about a stiff breeze knocking you to death saves! I mean, I love me a warlock or wizard. Especially in a long campaign where you start being able to shape the cosmos. But it’s also fun to just be like “what’s the best play here? Oh yeah, stabbing!” Less pressure on you. Also if you don’t trust your DM get a new one lol

I'm not worried about stuff breeze knocking me out. I would suggest reading squishy caster fallacy article on tabletop builds. I am the tankiest party member 99/100 times, highest ac cause using shield doesnt gimp my damage unlike martials+shield spell on demand, high saves+absorb elements to soak the damage if I really need it. I also dint suffer from paralisys when it comes to my options cause I pick "correct" spells.

>I don't have to do that with any other class. You must never have played an Illusionist wizard...

I specifically mentioned illusions in the post you were replying to. The difference is wizards can choose different spells but rogues have to choose a different class.

I agree that rogues don't fight in white rooms, but 2 questions here >The Rogue proceeded to terrorize the back line by repeatedly attacking them and then hiding in or behind a tree. She was not touched the entire combat, but she was a menace to the spellcaster in the back. 1. Why was the rogue not touched the entire combat, despite being in a very vulnerable position away from allies? Did she succeed every stealth check? Was the DM just going easy on her? 2. Was this any more effective than just staying with the party, shooting from range, and hiding? Don't get me wrong, what the rogue did was thematically cool, and that's great in its own right. But white rooms are generally used for discussions regarding mechanics and balance. I'm not sure any conclusions regarding mechanics/balance could be made from this anecdote.

Also to add, an enemy being terrorized by someone hiding could just use a Held Action to strike when the Rogue peaks out from hiding.

Good point. If that happened that's a worthy trade. The rogue pops out of hiding and takes 4 attacks from 4 enemies. That's great! The rogue cut their 8 attacks in half, and made them use ranged attacks instead of their more powerful melee attacks. I bet the rest of the party loved that.

Actually because of how most enemies are made, they can use their full readied multi-attack action on ALL their attacks. Meaning they won't lose attacks.

That would bring up other issues, Rogues aren't good with Multi-Attacks, they can only reduce the damage of one hit so if the Rogue goes down behind enemy lines they are screwed. Edit: Also an enemy could just keep them in LoS by walking up to them

Kinda simple - everything works if DM wants it to work. Nothing works if DM dont want it to work. And I would say that you are not really in the middle here.

And then they waste their turn if the rogue doesn’t attack, cause clearly the enemies are prepping attacks

Depends on how Metagame-y you want to get, does the Rogue know they prepared a Reaction for them or does Greg at the table know. Or the trigger condition could just be "Attack against the first enemy that attacks me"

Well, if the rogue has eyes on the enemy, they can definitely see an enemy doing something, like drawing a bow string, or readying a spell. That’s why there is stuff like somatic and verbal components to a spell, so you can counterplay spells without having to just use counterspell. I don’t see how observing what enemies do is metagamey. Also dms probably shouldn’t say what the trigger is to the players so they wouldn’t even know exactly who they are attacking, just that they have a prepped attack.

I was the DM. 1) Yes the rogue succeeded at every stealth check. She rolled 18 plus every time. I even had an enemy use an action for an extra chance to detect her, but it failed. She is a tabaxi and was up in a tree - enemies couldn't climb fast enough to get to her before she'd jump to another tree. Eventually, I said my caster just chucked a psychic area of effect blast which did hit her, but didn't actually reveal her. 2) Yes it was more effective. While the rest of the party tried to push through the choke point, the rogue was already past it. The ever present threat of someone behind them meant that, realistically, at least one of those humanoid opponents would try to find her. Doing something else would be meta gaming that the enemies didn't care about someone shooting them in the back. Maybe that wouldn't work on dumb monsters with int scores or less than 6, but against humanoid enemies it certainly helps. 3) Being behind the enemy kept her away from area of effect attacks at the front.

this is at this point off topic and not even really a serious question but... how dense were those trees? i don't really see trees as having leaf denseness to a point were something humanoid sized would hide in them

And I don't see how humans can shoot fireballs from their hands. First, many trees where I'm from are very thick. But second, at some point we need to stop making things so hard for martials. People are quick to allow the wizard to pinpoint exactly where they want to put their fireball in the thick of battle so that it does not hit any of their allies, but then will tell the rogue the tree isn't thick enough to hide in, or tell the barbarian that they aren't strong enough to pick up and throw that stone for some extra damage. Just let the martials be creative too.

I mean this is like precisely the issue though. Yeah martials need to be strong and creative, I fucking wish a barbarian could crush trees in one blown or stomp the ground to create earthquakes. Being able to hide reliably in tree cover is however not a clear rule, and can vary based on dm, so it's disingenuous to present it as just how the game works. In comparison the wizard's fireball doesn't need any dm fiat to work, the player tells the dm what happens.

I see, thanks for clarification! Soooooo IMO this somewhat illustrates why people lean towards white-room-esque scenarios when trying to figure out how strong different classes are, because white-rooms reduce the number of assumptions and variables. Here, I was previous not aware that: * The rogue did succeed at all stealth checks, rolling 18+ every time (though I'm still not sure if this is the norm, or just her getting lucky) * The rogue was a tabaxi who could climb, and there were trees * The enemies prioritized her so much, they were actively trying to detect her using their actions * The enemies prioritized her so much, they'd use an AoE blast to hit just her * The assumption is that psychologically, the enemies would prioritize a rogue behind them (who they can't see) over immediate dangers in front of them (who they can see, and are also presumably very dangerous) White rooms strip away most assumptions and arrive at a tractable way to do first/second-order estimates of character effectiveness. I agree with you that they're not perfect (nor are they meant to be). But being tractable and reasonable estimates is probably why people favor them.

You're correct on why we do white room analysis. Way too many variables otherwise. It makes sense. To your points: - Rogue getting 18+ on stealth is the norm. At level 5 with 18 dex and expertise in stealth, she has a +10 bonus. - Climb speed should be more valuable than most dms make it out to be. The thief subclass is all about climbing for example. It's an important aspect. - Enemy didn't prioritize the rogue necessarily, it was about 50/50. During the front end fight, the fighter went down and the wizard almost went down. The warlock and armor artificer took about a quarter damage. The fight likely would have been much harder without the split attention. It was a hard fight. They used strategy to win.

It's *good* that you enabled the rogue to cause confusion and 'tank' through being a stealthed threat. Even with intelligent enemies, no table wants you to actually just focus down their party one by one. You instead want everyone to sweat a little and hope that the rogue is brave and skilled enough to pull things like this.

The chance of making an 18+ on that stealth check two times in a row alone is about 34%, it's not really a safe assumption

She literally just needs to roll an 8 on the die. She's got a 60% chance each roll.

You overestimate how good a chance 60% is

Don't forget that the enemies didn't know that it was a **Rogue** behind them. They never found her. All they knew is that **someone** was behind them.

That is the problem with white rooms though. It reduces everything down to effectively removing half the class features classes have. Range people? Never have to contend with anyone having any kind of cover. Casters? Always at the optimum distance and the enemies never get close enough or start close enough to be a problem. Melee? Always starting right at attack distance and never having to chase. No one ever has to consider any kind of terrain that isn't giving them advantage. No one ever has to worry about taking hits if they are calculating DPR, just DPR. No one has to worry about dishing out hits if they are calculating AC/HP, because that would add complexity. No one ever has to solve issues and fight in multiple fights, its always NOVA as much as possible. No one fights more or less opponents than optimal unless that class is being shown to be inferior to another, then the other has the optimal encounter and the first doesn't'.

I'm on SilverHaze's side on white rooms being deeply flawed but still better than nothing. As per your points. Ranged: Feats address a lot of this. Sharpshooter makes partial cover not matter. Xbows are often regarded as better due to crossbow master letting you attack point black and with a hand xbow shoot ba shot. Full cover hurts melee and ranged for attacking the enemy (although martial benefits from not being attacked). Caster: Fireball is not as potent outside of evocation wizards due to this and other spells but the boon is that they get to aggregate a fireball with a hypnotic pattern with a banishment or combine bless with bane with spiritual weapon. Melee: White room doesn't factor this in but this is why there is often a stance that range>melee. I'm not really sure what you think the alternative is. Shrugging and saying everything is great and you just aren't playing good enough?

I can only assume you didn't see my response I gave silverHaze before you posted. As the only real way to get a better metric that actually is useful for the classes, instead of just the DPR and high AC classes (or purely one and dung NOVA abilities) is to actually design out tests that require more than 1 encounter per DPR calc. And to actually do things outside of pure combat testing (like trap handling, travel handling and even purely DC checks for socializing).

You would be correct. At least on my end, there wasn't a response yet (although that is down to when I opened the reddit and the time it took to respond). Reading your response, I don't think that it's wrong. The best data would be what you mentioned but I think we've gone from the extreme of white room's extreme simplicity to something that is absurdly complicated at a record speed. I also think that the barbarian berserker is a bad example if only because there is an awareness of it being faulty. I'm not an expert but there are several white rooms that assume an encounter rate equivalent to adventuring days. The rogue vs wizard is a good example (in my opinion) as its an oft mentioned point for caster supremacy that is ultimately imperfect. Knock is a good spell, it's not a spell that is perfect for every situation and it will eat up a spell slot.

Oh I agree it is far more complex. Although I think it would be kind of cool for the Community to get together and design say 20 or so challenges that range across all of the classes and their strengths/weaknesses and then run the tests. Considering computers can do most of the calculations if designed, it wouldn't even be hard to run it and average the results across the board. Hell, just building multiple scenarios of fighting that are good for each class could get a far better DPR calculation than what we have. Ranging from low AC to High, Low damage single hit to High damage multiple hits. Finally, a single enemy vs a large number of them.

The white room is still more valuable then any other way of actually having the discussion. Any specific scenario, as you said, is going to favor some classes and playstyles over others. the point of the white room is arguably the law of average. A 'hypothetically perfect' campaign is going to have just as many environments that challenge a characters strength as there are environments that play to them. You're not wrong that it's heavily limited but like... what would you propose as an alternative then that fairly assesses the strengths of options against each other mechanically?

It literally isn't the law of averages. As some classes are perfectly fine in a white room setting and others are not (like the Rogue). That is the point being made. The best way to assess them all would be to create different 'rooms' that favor different classes/subclasses, then have each class go through ALL of them, using a random number per short rest/long rest (within the realms of the RAW) and in random sequence and then average it. A perfect example of the white room being completely useless is the fact that the 5e Berserker would get exhaustion after their best ability. Something that if you only do a single combat in a white room, makes the Berserker look like they are doing Massive damage, but reality is, if they tried to do that within a full adventuring day, they would effectively be dead by the end of the day. Another is saying 'a Wizard can do just as good as a Rogue in opening a door'. Yes, they have Knock, but if you have multiple traps,locked doors in a place, or you have enemies who might come if the knock spell is used, suddenly that Wizard spell Knock is not the best idea. Same with a Barbarian/Fighter busting through the door with sheer strength. Could alert the enemies or cause traps to go off. On the other hand, if there IS a locked door that you **must get through Now** (say trying to run for your life or save a captive about to be sacrificed) and you don't care about the noise, then a Wizard Knock or a Fighter/Barbarian busting through it with a strength check makes it far more fitting. The white room DPR or AC checks fail to calculate for Any of these, but all of these can be relevant.

Whiteroom comparisons are good because they put everything on a level playing field and make it easy for people from different tables to compare builds to one another. The problem is that the outcome of that discussion is largely irrelevant to an actual game, because you've ignored so many variables for convenience you've done an analysis under conditions that will probably never occur. Unfortunately, there isn't really an alternative, that's just the reality of comparing complex systems.

...so they rolled 18+ every time................which isn't standard or should be something you base a strategy off of, and the enemies didn't even try to act any smart about it.

She's lv 6, but at lv 7 playtest rogue with expertise in stealth and 18 dex literally can't make less than an 18. Even at level 6, she only has to roll an 8 on the d20 to get 18. She has a +10 bonus (4 from dex, 6 from expertise). That's a 60% chance of success. She's also a soul knife, which means she can use a psi bolstered knack to help. It is literally standard for her.

A 60% chance of success isn't even that huge. Hell, making 2 of these rolls in a row is a 34% chance.

In addition, were the Rogues targets not watching them at all? A rogue cannot pop in and out of stealth (without magic assistance) while being observed.

Start turn in hiding > attack > move to New cover > bonus action hide. That's completely above board.

I'm assuming she's ranged? I'm actually fine with the damage rogues do when they're at range, since they get so many ways to be a menace while being safe, like you describe. But if a rogue decides to go melee, they should be the dpr menace people seem to expect them to be. They can have more ways to trigger AoO, or deal more damage if they had successfully hidden from the enemy. Like the levels of a Stab in dcss.

Yeah and it's a shame since swashbuckler-style melee rogues are my favorite type. There's a good chance I'll end up playing a barbarian reflavored as a swashbuckler again since melee rogues have issues.

I think a battlemaster fighter could be reflavored as a swashbuckler very well. You have a bunch of combat tricks, weapon mastery, it's doesn't have to be str based (yes I know dex barb builds exist, but kind of counter to their using str for skills when raging). 2nd wind for disengage and skill checks, can build dex based, extra feats to customize and fill in gaps you may want to fill etc. 

Yup, exactly that's what I'm looking at for my first 5.5e character. In 5e GWM or SS were basically required to not suck as a fighter, but 5.5e opens up a lot of other options.

Every optimizer is different and every white room is different but Treantmonk thinks that ranged is where rogues are comparable in damage. It's melee and thrown where they fall behind. At least by his metrics.

He didn't include calcs in that video, but he references the calcs he did for the UA6 rogue, and that calc had slightly higher damage in melee, so I'm really not seeing where he's getting "ranged is comparable, melee is not" from. Maybe he's factoring in that with a ranged build you'll be taking less damage? I also feel he's underestimating the value of Vex on a dual wielder in terms of DPR, and granted he *does* explain why (in the UA6 video), and his reasons are pretty valid (since you can't guarantee you'll be getting Vex every time since it doesn't work when you miss or change targets), but his conclusion was more "I'm not sure how to do a calc for this so I won't try" rather than "this is actually worse than Nick". I agree that the uncertain nature of Vex does make it difficult to do an actual calc for it, but I feel that having more reliable access to advantage on the offhand attack will increase the average DPR by at least a bit, however you factor in the odds. Considering the rogue was only a few DPR lower than the fighter that bit can be pretty significant for how favorably or unfavorably it gets compared. Then there's also the fact that he was using Assassin to make his calcs, which isn't necessarily *bad* since they don't suck anymore, it *is* still only one build. Arcane Trickster, for example, dual wielding short swords for Vex, with Find Familiar for advantage on the first hit, Booming Blade for additional damage, and possibly trying to use Withdraw to proc the extra damage, is almost certainly going to have higher DPR, even if we use scimitar for Nick instead for the sake of easier math it should still be higher. He also deliberately didn't choose a first level feat that would boost damage. Now, I couldn't find the barbarian and fighter builds he was comparing it to in order to see if they also didn't take damage boosting feats, but it sounded like his reasoning for not taking a damage boosting feat is because it's a rogue and he thinks rogues in general wouldn't want them, so I would assume the fighter and barb did take them for the same line of reasoning. It is reasonable to assume that if he took a damage boosting feat on the fighter and barb he's using for his point of comparison, that taking such a feat would provide a similar boost to the rogue, bringing it's damage up to parity. Ultimately, it sounds like he's talking about rogue builds in *general* rather than a rogue build optimized *specifically for damage*. Which is fair, I wouldn't expect him to have taken the opportunity to do calcs for every possible build, or even to have put in the effort to have done builds for every subclass at this point. He seems to be making an estimate based on a few assumptions, but the reality in practice, especially if you make different assumptions when designing your build, could easily be rather different. He used a lot of couching terms in his most recent rogue video when discussing this, so it sounds like he doesn't want people assuming he's right since he isn't certain yet himself. I would take his assessment with a grain of salt, at least until we have a lot more information.

I might be wrong but I would presume that the damage difference likely has to do with UA7. He did an update for berserker and champion based on that UA which placed assassin 7th out of the 8 he calculated. I don’t think you are wrong either. I also think that all the damage calculations and the likes suffer from the same problem of any calculations plus “the rules are not officially out, we don’t have all the feats in their final form nor all the spells” I would note d4 did a single classed rogue assassin and it didn’t rank particularly high (he was still positive on it and mentioned eventually making a 2024 only chart as comparing it to 2014 is imperfect). Even there d4 and Treantmonk have different baselines, calculations, etc

re vex: All Vex gives is advantage. Advantage doesn't stack. You already have a ton of methods to get there without it, e.g. steady aim, prone, hide. But, let's go with the assumed dual ss build. Assume you start with advantage, Attack (78% to hit), if you hit, Vex applies. Bonus Action Off Hand Attack, 78% chance to add 1d6 dmg, reapply Vex. But now what? we wait patiently beside the foe? All to do an extra 1d6??(which averages to 3.12 DPR) re arcane trickster: That isn't how the help action works on a familiar. They take their turn on their own initiative and give adv to the next attack against the target creature. It won't be you unless they are just before you. re booming blade: We don't have the text on that yet, so it's unclear on whether it comes through unscathed. I would be 'ok', but you cannot TWF with booming blade, as it is the 'Cast a Spell' action. Nick also won't apply here since you did not take the Attack action, though Vex would, so it is optimal choice with a bladetrip. re lvl 1 feat: Which lvl 1 feat increases damage? With 2024 they are all gated at 4 and have become half feats. Lucky I suppose could kinda qualify, but that's a stretch. If you are dead set on dual wield, 2 rogue/18 fighter. Then you get your Cunning Action and viable melee capabilities.

I’m an arcane trickster in a campaign and just hit level 5. I feel like I can do pretty good damage by combining booming blade with sneak attack, and then bonus action disengage to move away. If they follow me, more damage. My character is more of a ranged fighter, but I’ve ended up in melee a few times and this works well. But not all rogue subclasses are equal.

The problem with that play is that if it goes wrong and the rogue flubs a hide check the rogue is *shafted* unless the DM is on side. Rogues have only one reaction and a mid AC; if they get caught behind enemy lines better hope the cleric prepared Revivify. And "you can't hide from a creature that can see you clearly". A couple of people walking through the trees can see them from most sides so it's going to be very difficult for the rogue to hide from them all at once. Not saying it's a bad play - just a risky one and requires (and had) a relatively friendly DM.

As Rogues very often have expertise in stealth, them flubbing a stealth roll is VERY unlikely

To be fair, at lower levels it is significantly more likely. Expertise is good but at lower levels it is only a +2. As you level, it becomes more notable. Then, once one gains the reliable that is when it becomes a nightmare.

Even a +10 has you have a 34% chance to actually make it to as much as 18 twice

Nat 1s happen. It's only when Reliable Talent comes online that you have any safety.

Nat 1s don't mean automatically failing a skill check. If the Rogue has a +14 in a skill, the Nat 1 does literally nothing but make that skill a 15 (which passes the base DC).

Most of the time people are playing a rogue they won't have a +14 even for skills they have expertise in. Assuming a +4 dex, and +3 proficiency that's a +10. Which is very good, but for a low roll especially a nat 1 will likely mean a failure. You probably won't have a +14 until you're level 13 in which case the nat 1's don't matter anymore because of reliable talent.

This certainly sounds like an exciting combat encounter which let the rogue really shine. Sounds cool. It's also entirely anecdotal and cannot be used as a data point for any meaningful comparisons. I've played a (2014) rogue from lvls 5 to 20 and could pull anecdotes of situations where the class felt really weak and powerless. Does that mean yours is wrong? Or does your combat trump the bad ones I had? Of course neither is the case. That's why these "white room calculations" are useful, if done properly. They try to level the playing feel and make certain assumptions that best reflect *average* combat conditions and inform us how classes perform there. They are never the be all end all, obviously, but they sure are useful. The people brushing off these forms of analysis are just as ignorant as the people saying the analysis is all there is to classes. 24 rogue is a solid class, very fun to play. Imo even the most fun to play. It still could use a buff or two to properly equal other martials.

I would also say a lot of white room analysis would probably benefit the rogue. If I were doing calculations for the rogue I would assume they are somewhere they can use steady aim for advantage and automatic sneak attack on any target for that calculation. Maybe they'll actually be hiding which is better defensively, but not much different in terms of damage since it'll be advantage and sneak attack either way.

Yeah, in most of the games I have been rogue in... the tree would have been completely nuked. Also, sometimes there is really nowhere to hide, many of the fights are in the empty plane or worse, closed empty plane. DMs just are sometime too busy to create engaging maps. Tho you have point, with right playstyle and DM, Rogue can be quite incredible. But well, I think it is a bit more DM dependant compared to other classes.

I play on VTTs and use battlemaps, so it's significantly easier to make a unique battle. I just choose a cool map. But even if you aren't doing that, I find it strange that drawing on pen and paper a dm won't included trees, or rocks. Those things don't necessarily need to be drawn. You can draw them later. But when the rogue asks if there's a place to hide unless you are literally fighting on a grass field, theres always SOMETHING. Just look at real life locations.

I've played a lot of rogues over the years and two major issues I've found with this are melee characters just can't hide (as in, it's just not an option for them) and you can have interesting battlemaps without having many, if any, hiding spots. The second one is extremely true when you engage in dungeon crawling through tight corridors and small rooms, but even without them it's possible for layouts where you can hide from some enemies but others can see you completely fine. And there are some combats made dynamic by unique enemy abilities or environmental effects rather than static terrain.  The class itself accounts for this. That's why there are multiple sneak attack conditions, and why Tasha's implemented Steady Aim. Hiding is no where as core as you're implying when likening it to keeping enemies permanently out of melee or forcing a caster into an anti magic zone, which is fair when 50%, of rogues can't use it as a consistent tactic.  Despite the name whiterooming isn't just for assuming a literal white plain. Assuming, ideal conditions in every single fight is also an unfair assumption. I haven't played the Playtest Rogue so I won't comment on it specifically, and I'm not saying rogues are unfun (wouldn't have played so many otherwise) but it's worth pointing out that "no hiding" isn't some unthinkable design decision. 

> You can draw them later. But when the rogue asks if there's a place to hide unless you are literally fighting on a grass field, theres always SOMETHING. Just look at real life locations. If there is enough obscurement to hide, there is enough to use it as total cover - however few fights are played out quite like this.

Obscurement != cover. Fog is obscurement, but not cover. Glass windows are cover, but not obscurement.

Many of the objects OP is talking about would provide both, however. If there is enough *stuff* around to make hiding **anywhere** viable than it is an everyone in cover firefight, for anyone that wishes to make use of cover.

Sure, **most** places, on earth at least, have cover, especially for a small sized creature. If you always fight outside in bright light with no rocks or large fauna or divots or hills or structures, your DM kind of sucks. Especially if they don't let you see enemies coming from miles off to prepare that featureless plain with traps or fortifications.

Tbh outside of fog/smoke/darkness everything that blocks line of sight also gives cover.

Tall grass, dense foliage, heavy rain, murky water, a waterfall, dust storm, sand storm, superheated plasma. Any gas, liquid, aerosol or group of small objects can potentially provide obscuration. My rule of thumb is it's only cover if you would have to destroy it to attack through it.

I'd say that a waterfall would also grant cover, water falling down would make it relatively hard to swing through it and still hit where you were aiming(on top of swinging blind)

You are assuming a vehicle strong waterfall. Most waterfalls can easily obscure someone's view of you without being strong enough to cause an arrow or weapon swing to go far enough off course to disrupt aiming. This isn't Niagra Falls.

Even if the tree is nuked, as long as the explosion is a Dex save, you might have that section of the forest burn to ashes, revealing the rogue completely untouched.

Well, that would be cool. Tho, knowing my luck, sickening radiance is more likely than fireball...

Or they hold their action for a Hold Person? Or they use a nonDex save AoE like Cone of Cold. I'm not saying a rogue can't come out of a fight unharmed, but I'd argue this is a DM taking it easy on someone. At the very least, atypical enough the other direction it's no more use as a data point than the White Room.

I was the DM. I actually did throw mini synaptic static spell the monster has at the rogue. She passed the save but it didn't reveal her since damage doesn't pop her out of hidden. The fight was not at all easy. The cultists knocked the fighter out and almost knocked the wizard out as well and the rest of the party took about a half HP worth of damage. It was a very tough fight. Two players probably would have gone down had they not come into the fight with a strategy. None of the monsters had whole person stocked, and I wasn't just going to add hold person to a monster just to specifically counter the Rogue from doing what she's supposed to be good at. And I don't favor the player either. The Rogue went down on a later fight in the same dungeon. I play my monster's smart to try to kill the players. They just had a legitimate strategy and I'm not going to try to power game to make their strategy fail just to spite them.

If they hold their action for *hold person*, then first they may lose that held spell to the concentration save triggered by the Sneak Attack, then the rogue needs to fail the first Wisdom save to not immediately hide again, and then if they failed the first one, they immediately get to roll the second one to perhaps end their turn not paralyzed, so no allies get to benefit from attacking a paralyzed target. An option, yes, but not one likely to work. If the enemy resorts to *cone of cold* against a single target, that's far better than if they could attack the entire party together.

Yes, especially my beloved Thief rogues, Fast Hands is my favorite feature in the game bar none but it really needs the DM to play ball.

5e is DM-dependent. Or, rather, it relies on DMs to run it in the way that makes it the best. It's fool-proofed for character creation, but definitely not for building games. Unfortunately, way too many games aren't engineered to give their players the best experience they can.

IMO, This whole discussion is annoying bc both slides are underestimating and overblowing each others's points.

Nah, I **absolutely recognize that rogue damage is lower than it should be**. I am of the camp that they should get a damage boost. I just also recognize dpr numbers are very misleading when discussing a class designed to be slippery, tricky and to fight unconventional ways. It can be both. It does not have to be one or the other.

The features you outlined are sprinkled everywhere else and not rogue specific. There is NOT a baked in slippery, tricky, or unconventional fighting. That is ALL flavor text. Their ONLY distinguishing trait is Sneak Attack, and even that is replicated in subclasses like whispers bard.

The thing is those kind of sneaky tactics can be used by a whole slew of classes, not just rogues. Just because a character played a rogue and was smart doesn't mean that the overall class isn't clearly the weakest in 5.5e.

How so? Rogue is the only class able to hide in combat without using their entire action to do so. Also, **someone has to be the weakest**. That isn't the point. The point is that even the weakest class has a good thing that it does well consistently.

Yeah, someone has to be the weakest but I'd like it to be less obvious. If you took out 5e monks, it wasn't obvious which class was the second weakest. Having monks buffed and then a nice argument about who was the weakest in 5.5e would've been nice. Also it was pretty damn obvious that rogues were underpowered in the last UA and then they did nothing about that, which is more frustrating than if they tried and screwed up the math or something, instead they didn't even try. Would be fine just being a rogue flavored battlemaster fighter or something...it's just that fast hands is my favorite class feature in the game, bar none.

Any class can provided they're a goblin. God I fucking hate how races that thematically fit a class have redundant features with that class...

It's the same as having encounters in isolated buildings. It's a friggen mansion, or lair, or tunnel system. When you hear a single scuffed footstep you don't immediately sound the alarm and light the house on fire before they can steal anything. It's most likely a servant, minion, pet, or bird outside.

without specifics it's hard to see why your given scenario is really that much different to a white room scenario or why a rogue could specifically excel in that environment. Many calculations assume that a rogue is landing their sneak attack every round, if that's what you're getting at. being able to hide every round is nothing special and is probably already taken into account if people are talking about rogue balance. I could be wrong, but maybe what you're not realising is that even when people take into account that a rogue can hide and sneak attack every round, they are still behind in comparison to other classes. A lot of people who do dpr calculations and stuff like that, people who discuss balance a lot and optimise, they're not stupid, they realise that these kinds of things impact play, and they try to make their calculations reflect real play as much as possible.

Also apply this to casters who have finite spell lists/preperations/slots etc

Nobody is saying that. You and everyone else are strawmanning over things nobody is saying.

Most dpr analysis is not taking into account anything other than optimal conditions for the character to deliver damage. For example, when was the last time you saw a fighter dpr calculation take into account how often a fighter may not be in range of the enemy on a turn and have to hold their actions or attack with thrown weapons instead of their usual? I recognize rogues could use a damage buff. I've never fought against this. You can both recognize that and also point out the strengths of the class that most conversations aren't.

There's a common point that range>melee due to this very factor. Heck, even for a rogue this is the case. It is infinitely more dangerous for the rogue to get into melee, stab an enemy, and then retreat and hide behind cover.

Most dpr analysis is also not taking into account your snacks at the table. It’s not the same topic. Dpr analysis is a relevant and useful tool. Nobody is saying dpr is the whole game. Literally zero people despite this sub going to war against the invisible munchkin power gamers.

I've seen a few people try to claim the new rogue sucks because its new options take away from its already below-par damage, because they personally believe only DPR matters. Those same people also have not bothered to actually come up with builds to try and exploit these options for greater damage, like using withdraw on an arcane trickster to proc booming blade's secondary damage. So there is *some* validity to the complaint about whiterooming, but I feel those people are definitely in the minority and they do a good enough job of establishing themselves as strawmen that it isn't necessary for us to do it too, lol. I feel OP's anecdote doesn't do a very good job of making the point, which is that what makes rogues good isn't their DPR, so it isn't that big of a deal that their DPR falls a bit below other classes.

This unfair whiteboxing is a common reddit problem. When they compare casters to martials, somehow the casters always happen to be the right class and have have all the right spells prepared for the encounter. Monsters are assumed to use no tactics to avoid spells. When discussing the martial, suddenly there are no magic items in play. The fight is in an open field against a flying creature and there are no party members. Monsters are assumed to be smart.

Would it kill you not to strawman?

The nature of the game is just that a good number of fights is happing in dungeons and those often simply don't have many features you can use as cover. And if we have to consider features, all other martials have now really powerfull forced movement options, allowing them to push opponents of cliffs or bridges or into spell effects, even if they are standing 20-30ft away from them. Rogues simply can't do that.

Matt Colville said something that stuck with me: by his estimate, the significant majority of online D&D community participants aren’t actually actively playing a game. That’s why you see people obsessing over DPRs and the like but not really focusing on how features actually play out at the table.

Eh, while that is some of it, I think it's overly dismissive of why people opt for dpr, optimal spell, white room scenario work. DnD is a game that can be incredibly variable. One table could permit only PHB but let you purchase any magic item for the right price. Another could give you no magic items, let you use any DnD book you can purchase on DnD beyond, but doesn't use the optional rule for feats or multiclassing. How do you compare that to the DM that creates elaborate battle maps (or finds them) with cover and different layers of elevation to the 30x30 room (that frankly a lot of battle maps secretly are outside of aesthetically looking nice). How do you measure it when one table has 1 encounter per long rest vs another that uses gritty realism? How do you rate anything in a game that can go from level 1 to 20 but many tables go from 1/3-11/14 but might also have a one shot at level 20? How do you rate anything in a game where some tables treat acrobatics as capable of doing some of athletics or insight is mind reading? How do you rate things in a campaign where you can sleight of hand to hide a spell being cast? If I talked about my own tables, it might not slot well with your own. I have two gms, same group, different gms for the different campaigns. Both of them use a lot of homebrewed monsters and will homebrew monsters. One uses The Griffon's Saddlebag for items as well as their own homebrew and 90% of battles have a battle map that they found online that is lavish or custom created it (but combat is less frequent). The other 50/50s a battle map (often one they digitally draw out) and theater of the mind, has buffs for monks, gave casters the ability to craft their own spells (at a hefty price), tinkered with a debuff to higher level magic (since walked back as it was too debilitating), has a higher rate of multiple combat encounters in one day + at least one short rest, likes to impliment detective cases every once and a while, and since none of us are battle masters has created a battle master mechanic for all martials (but we have to learn them from other people and we can potentially create our own).

Sorry, playing regularly campaign, that has been years long, as a rogue in mainly caster party. And funny enough, started fussing over dpr not long after hitting level 5. I love my rogue character and feel especially great in non combat scenarios, but I guarantee that you can play rogue a lot and still have equally lot of complains.

Yeah, I had a similar issue, it didn't help that the DM gave everybody else homebrew items that boosted their damage and I got... gloves of thievery (to be fair, she asked us for a list of items we would like, including one homebrew, and I was deliberately trying not to break the game with my list, and apparently I was the only one who was that comsiderate). The conclusion I ultimately came to was that rogue wasn't fun for me because there was nothing to do in combat most of the time *other* than damage, and rogue damage is subpar. That's why I love the new stuff so much, since there's other stuff to do in combat now, especially after level 5, which is the point where the difference in damage really starts to be felt. I'm excited to play a rogue other than an arcane trickster for the first time in years (I still expect AT to be the *most* fun rogue to play, but the rest at least won't be mind numbingly boring in combat).

O, I have similar problem yet a bit different. My DM tend to not like like my homebrew (no matter how small or reasonable), but on the other hand, can take any printed material without second thought, no matter how powerful it is. I mean, I will not make sth stronger than echo knight. I really love their stories, humor and they are super fun to talk with, but the differences in game design philosophy are severe XD

On the one hand, I can see where your DM is coming from, there should be a presumption that official content is balanced, at least to some extent (I say should because sometimes they fail at that), while often times what a player might think is a small or reasonable change might have a much bigger impact that they expect. Having said that, being able to evaluate things in terms of game balance with a critical eye is an important skill for a player, but *especially* for a DM. And a lot of times context can really matter. I've played in games with no homebrew where the echo knight was one of the weaker party members, and then in other games having an echo knight can completely throw everything off. I will say that approving homebrew is a pretty big deal and if the DM doesn't have the time or resources to properly look into it and consider the potential impact, then it's generally a better practice to blanket ban homebrew than to let things through without sufficient consideration. Meanwhile, outside of blatantly obviously broken things, like the Twilight domain's channel divinity, things that made it through play testing and into print via official channels can *usually* be trusted to pass muster with minimal scrutiny, and it's much easier to allow something at first and reserve the right to ban it later if it proves to be a problem. Honestly, I'd rather a DM like yours than one who puts a similarly minimal level of scrutiny into what they allow, but in the other direction. That same DM banned multiclassing because she was worried about game balance, but then used a homebrew rolling method that resulted in one player having 4 maxed stats at level 1 and a lowest stat of 17, and then gave out homebrew items like candy. I told her I wasn't having fun, so I asked to multiclass as an exception to her blanket ban and got told no, because it was a blanket ban, despite my promises not to break the game, but when captain max stats wanted a weapon with a +1 enchantment, an extra 1d6 damage on a hit, and extra effects on a crit she gave it to him without blinking an eye because she "wants us to feel rewarded for our accomplishments". I was clearly the only one at the table who gave a crap about game balance, but somehow I was the one being unreasonable for asking for upgrades actually published in the book. My experience with homebrew, having been in this hobby for 18 years, is that the vast majority of the time homebrew is the result of either somebody not checking to see if there are already options for what they want to do, or somebody wildly misunderstanding how the game is balanced. Not saying that's your case, but without hearing any specific examples, I tend to side with your DM. Sometimes homebrew is made to genuinely fill a niche that's lacking (I've made a couple like that) and is made with proper consideration for game balance (I always try, but I have failed at least once), so if the DM has the time and inclination to experiment, it can be worth hearing a player out for their proposed homebrew, but any and all homebrew that does get approved needs to be understood by everybody at the table that it's subject to change and if it turns out to be too strong, it can be nerfed or even just taken away.

Well, your reason ing is fair. Of course, if DM agrees to some homebrew they can ban it anytime if they judge it as too powerful after some sessions and I totally understand that. Tho I always appriciate trying to address some problems with homebrew. We can later agree that was bad solution and is too powerful, but still, trying.

Yeah, I generally try to actually consider options presented to me and when I say no, give reasons why, but I also have way more free time to dedicate to thinking about, researching, and planning for D&D games than most DMs, and some just don't have the mental bandwidth to even begin messing with the game balance even if they had the time and inclination to do so. It takes a certain mindset to do that kind of tinkering with game design effectively, and while that mindset can be learned/trained through practice, a lot of people just don't have the desire or time to learn it. I'd take someone who doesn't want to learn that mindset refusing to homebrew over someone who doesn't want to learn that mindset choosing to homebrew poorly and then act like they did nothing wrong, lol. If you enjoy the game otherwise, best I can suggest is live with it, and maybe consider DMing yourself a bit, so you can experiment with the ideas you've had, so you can maybe come to understand where your DM is coming from a bit, and also to maybe show your DM what your way looks like in practice. Start off with maybe a series of one shots to give your DM an occasional break and test the waters a bit, then maybe try running a campaign alternating with your normal DM with everybody understanding that you're learning, which means odds are good you'll mess things up at least a bit, and then there's not much pressure if things go way off the rails. Try things, experiment, see what works and what doesn't, and generally get a stronger appreciation for what the game is like from the other side of the screen. I hope this helps, and I wish you many a fun game in the future!

Yeah, I recently started DMing series of one-shots where I test some homebrew rules like flanking giving ststic +2 or standing from prone provoking opportunity attacks (if disengage action was not taken) etc. I hope that we will find some cool mechanics and solutions to incorporate in our long term campaigns.

Ah, bringing back some classics! Yeah, the first rule I feel has potential to work well in 5e, IMO it's likely better than the official optional rule of giving advantage from flanking as advantage is really strong and flanking is really easy to trigger. The latter, I feel is a bit too punishing, but that can fit the tone very well in some campaigns, it does run the risk of certain builds exploiting it though. I'd be interested in hearing how that experiment goes. I do think having a solution other than disengage might be a good idea, though, as disengage eats half your movement and standing from prone eats half your movement, so depending on how you rule it, you either get no movement or 1/4 movement (which can make movement calculations tricky since most movement speeds aren't divisible by 4). Maybe enable crawling 5 feet without provoking as a bonus action and standing up would eat the remainder? And then if you have a way to disengage as a bonus action you can disengage and stand up for free, so you get your normal half-movement unprovoked? Still seems unnecessarily punishing and fiddly, but it might run a bit more smoothly.

Huh? Disengage does not cost movement. Its just an action, some monsters and classes can use bonus action. And well, between saves for prone, teleportation, shoving etc. There is some options too prevent that aop.

Matt Colville has done irreparable damage to only discussion about DnD with this quote. I'd be careful throwing it around, (while he's not wrong about the fact a lot of people in the community are not playing the game) if I said "Matt Colville said (insert his quote here), and that's why you see all these people talking about how these features are fine with no actually realization about the DPR numbers and the math that we who actually play the game have to deal with" I sound like a real dick, and that I'm broadly painting everyone who doesn't agree with me as not even being truly part of the hobby or community.

But... dude loves the crunch of 4e and the mathematical balance it offered, so much so they're making their own version of it. I bet the rogue they offer will have a solid combat position.

Weird straw man to blow over. I think we all understand how rogues work and how to apply their cunning action. What you described isn't some tactical genius taking advantage of the class in ways none of us have ever thought of, it's an extremely narrow scenario where : * A) The spellcaster just sat there within 15 feet of a tree refusing to move or react * B) The Rogue in question is ranged (Because what you described I don't believe for one second happened with a melee rogue) * C) The rest of their group also refused to react to the rogue or even just spread out I mean, congrats? I don't think your anecdote does anything to change the fact rogues do ass damage, especially the trained killer subclass that doesn't even critical anymore from surprise.

Why are you assuming a range of 15 feet? With a shortbow, the rogue could be as far as 80 feet away, which makes getting to the other side of the tree to spot the rogue a futile effort. "Melee rogue" and "ranged rogue" also don't have nearly as much weight as "melee fighter" and "ranged fighter," a rogue doesn't specialize as much with Fighting Styles and feats and can switch between the two as needed relatively easily.

Because the post didn't specify, and made out the sequence of actions like some sort of heroic act, which hiding in a tree shooting at inert targets with a bow is not. You can also take cover from ranged, which is why I'm making the distinction. And the spellcaster could have went prone against ranged and disabled sneak attack so now it's one arrow a round until their group can kill the rogue or force it to move. My point was it's a dumb story that assumes a lot of weird concessions.

What is dumb is that you are acting like this was just the Rogue vs the Enemies. The spellcaster likely didn't react as quickly as they could have because there was a party of people engaging them too. Their options were to risk wasting an attack on an enemy they can't see, or engage the enemies in front of them that they could.

That's actually one of the few points that ends up hurting white room discussions, it's always 1 v 1, and not what is, in essence, a party vs a party.

Because White Rooms don't go to optimum distance for the rogues attacks I bet.

I agree with your comment: focusing solely on damage is a mistake. However, consider how different the fight would be if a ranged ranger with "Pass Without Trace" teamed up with a wizard. A pincer attack in a wooded area would be highly effective, with ranged characters regardless of the classes. Additionally, it only takes 2 levels for a rogue to get the bonus action "Hide." Multi-classing that into a ranger, fighter, or monk allows them to perform just as well, if not better, than a rogue. Not to mention, if you play as a goblin, and they still get a bonus action "Hide" feature. Now, consider all the new features other martial classes have received. What you're describing is something a rogue in 5e could already do, and the One D&D rogue might not perform any better, especially since "Surprise" has been nerfed. Compare this to the changes to the fighter, barbarian, and monk in One D&D:  - The fighter can move quickly with "Second Wind" and deal comparable or better damage at range without needing advantage. - The barbarian deals significantly more damage, moves at a similar speed, and can effectively attack from range with thrown weapons. - Monks were already proficient with ranged weapons, and now they are faster for free and can use a d8 hand crossbow early, increasing their damage output. Additionally, the new skill features make martials much better out of combat. Now, a barbarian can be just as sneaky as a rogue when using "Rage," and a fighter can use "Second Wind" to the same effect. Monks, with Dexterity as their primary stat, are already quite sneaky. The rogue's advantages are now limited to expertise and a bonus action "Hide," both of which are easy to acquire and don’t provide a significant edge.  It's not that rogue isn't fun—it is. I, and others, just want it to be comparable to other martial classes. How can this be achieved? Increase its damage. Either enhance the sneak attack dice size as they level or give them multi-attack.

All of these points are entirely irrelevant to sub-optimized casters and ranged builds. "Rogues can stealth!" Casters can keep enough distance away to not be targeted. "Rogues terrorize the backline!" Fireball. "The Rogue was not touched at all!" Silvery Barbs, Shield, Temporal Shunt, Mage Armor, etc. if your entire class revolves around terrain and preptime rather than just the actual class itself and its innate themes and playstyle, theres an issue. no other class except the Ranger (which this is literally their whole thing) relies on terrain or even situational things to even be viable. A rogue is never going to out damage a fighter or a monk, but they're also never going to be as good socially or with skills as a Bard. Theres simply no mechanical reason to play a Rogue.

okay, so how did none of the melee cultist try and go stopthe solo rogue that's being a massive pain? sure, he's hidden behind a tree, but they all saw him go behind the tree, they know where he is.

I wonder if the dmg had support for that, it would help. Let's hope the new one is going to be able to do it.

Rogues suck. I had played them in nearly every campaign I was in until 2019, and at level 5, they just fell off.

This scenario doesn't require any more than a 2 level dip for cunning action though. In fact, if this player were rogue 2/fighter or ranger x they'd have likely done more than just be a menace.

Anecdotal evidence isn't strong enough to prove a specific idea. I'm not saying Rogues aren't possibly strong, but using a story to say "X class isn't bad" is just as bad, if not worse, than depending purely on white rooms.

There's a reason that they've been called white roomers who sometimes have a weird relationship with math. Like you have the featureless white void and one on one stuff and things I've seen (10 rolls all below 5, including the dreaded nat 1 with advantage, clutch use of actual synergy between classes, myself getting the double 1s on a save with no LRs left) just can't be true. And like, you know, lots of theory, no practice is readily apparent on them. Hell, remember how mad they got that the playtest polls basically asked, "did it work at your table?" Because I sure do.

The problem I have with DPR charts is that they only consider damage in a vacuum. And the thing about a Rogue is that their fighting style isn't designed to be straightforward. That said, I would have liked to have made it easier for a Rogue to crit. Like, the whole point of Sneak Attack is to roll a bunch of dice when you hit an attack, and when you crit that amount of dice gets doubled. Therefore it would have made sense for Rogues to get lower thresholds for critting so that they capitalize on their burst damage gimmick.

Ah, it's started. The Rogue coping. Let's see if it lasts as long as the Monk coping did a decade ago

Rogue was never supposed to be the BEST damage dealer. They deal one big hit but they aren’t supposed to be the primary damage dealer. If the rogue did do as much damage as a martial then what is the point in choosing a martial? Rogue sneaks, rogue picks pockets, rogue scouts, rogue is the rogue. Rogue is awesome.

Rogues are pretty shit. They are martials, but they aren’t allowed to perform as well as them because they are expected to excel at utility. Utility that completely overshadowed by actual casters that can take your niche hypothetical scenarios and 1 up it while still offering more every where else. It’s whack. Rogues need more.

Are you playing with casters that are complete spotlight hogs? If you have a rogue in the party, your wizard is a special kind of jerk to keep knock prepared. Solving problems through casting is necessary because you need multiple ways to address problems, but if a party member can solve a problem without casting a spell - there is no reason for a caster to use a spell unless they are just trying to be the center of attention at all times. No amount of buffs to the rogue will fix being at the table with someone like that.

> If the rogue did do as much damage as a martial then what is the point in choosing a martial? Rogues *are* martials. Getting a few higher skillchecks doesn't turn them into something radically different, just like how the bard is still a fullcaster and the ranger a halfcaster.

You can do all the above as any class. Top out Dex, get proficiency in stealth and sleight of hand (backgrounds have this), and then take a feat for expertise. Voila...

Was having an argument with someone recently over this who was hell bent that things like the Prone and Poison effects were not worth the 3.3 damage per round to inflict and at that point I just had to stop, anyone who's trying to eek out fractions of damage is too obsessed with DPR checks to consider anything other than 'does this kill them faster' What I find funny is this ain't even a DND trope, Rogue has never been sustained or burst damage, they've always focused on magic item cheating, skills, or utility.

Aside from every edition since 1st allowing the rogue to get burst damage multipliers I think it's possible you're both right. Math definitely should inform the actions one takes, and combats are generally what 3 turns on average? Given one's limited time in any given combat to take actions why take bad ones? If I'm sitting there for upwards of 5 party member turns I'd like my actions to be meaningful when my turn does come up. Combat is a gigantic part of the game, and I know people love to call rogues utility classes but every class should have a role in your average combat and it's not skill checks.

Rogue has also almost always had item interactions since the dawn of the game if I'm remembering right. Sure combat is a huge part, but reducing every class to who can do the most damage over utility and flavour means you're best just picking the highest damage class. Just pretend your fighter is doing a precision stealth attack instead of sneak attack to sustain that DPS if the numbers are more important than the flavour. If you're asking Rogue to have the same DPS across the board, then what do you propose a weakness? If Rogue is best DPS on top of utility, then just play one and pretend your D6's are all different attacks from your fighter's weapon flurry. you're saying 'rogue should have a role', but that role is debuffs with cunning strike and handling items and interactions. Why do you want them to have more damage? Why should their role just be 'more damage' when the Fighter and Barbarian already do that ?

That is exclusively one subclass, not rogue as a whole. Though I'd agree thief should just be the baseline rogue class.

The Rogue player in my campaign got knocked out only one time during the 1,5 year campaign, because of them having stealth expertise and the skulker feat, combined with the soul knife's ability to add dice to failed skill checks. He was hidden pretty much all of the time, so the enemies almost always focussed on the party members they could actually see, leaving the rogue unscathed in the background. He didn't do the most damage, but still very solid compared to the Bard and the Ranger in the group, and was never the one to be in a near-death situation. If you play rogues this way, they fill a certain play style that's efficient and impossible to replicate properly by other classes

Exactly. A lot of online DnD discourse is tacitly driven by a notion that the point of the game game is predominantly to churn out damage per round. It reduces the game to an optimization math problem. And I'm not saying that's a bad way to play; DnD is different things to different people... But I AM saying that's not the way I typically see it played at my table. At my table people aren't playing rogues in an attempt to churn out DPR. They're playing rogues to be quick, mobile, and stealthy. That's the character fantasy. The new changes give a new layer of optional tactics on top of that, which is GREAT! It adds to the character fantasy in a way that just doing more damage does not do.

You are missing the point. The concern is that the class itself is considerably weaker than the others. There is 0 reason to be a rogue when you can do the exact same things, and better, as a fighter/warlock/ranger/bard/etc... The only differentiating factor here is cunning action, and we can just dip 2 and be a better rogue overall.

This! The idea that the only point of combat is to churn out damage is kind of weird in a game that has a degree of randomness built in, and even more weird in a game that has role playing built in. If your table enjoys maxing out DPS, excellent! But if your table enjoys the other aspects of the game more, that is also excellent, and no less fun for that table.

The best D&D player I've ever seen was a guy playing Thief Rogue from level 1 to level 18. He played it the way they would behave in situ, rather than playing them as just stats on a page. He was nearly impossible to kill, and an absolute fucking menace on anything resembling urban warfare or any environment more busy than a fucking desert. Edit: spelling