Rogues aren't really designed to be good at *everything*, they are designed to be *very good* at a few skills (in 5e). Bards are the 'generalists' (which, imo. is blatantly OP considering they are also good spell-casters). PF2e is where they just kinda get *all the skills* (along with investigators).

If you were playing Bilbo in DnD 5e, the class that makes the most sense to give bilbo is Rogue. Commoner isn't a class; bilbo could only be one if he was an NPC. Does he exactly map onto the DnD rogue chassis? No, he doesn't, but he maps *worse* onto every other class.

Im not saying the Rogue is the best at everything. I'm saying the Rogue is good at everything. You can take a class and replicate some of the stuff a rogue can do, but usually that means not being as good at other things. Rogues don't have to make that choice. That's why I don't like rogues. A wizard could be the face and a damage dealer, but they can't be the tank at the same time even though it's possible for you to make a tank wizard. A ranger can be good at stealth and fighting, but that would probably make them a bad face. With each other class there is a trade off. Rogues as a class are a bunch of desperate parts slapped together and called a class.

A rogue makes a very poor tank compared to other classes.

I'd argue you could map Bilbo into a multiclass rogue and bard to get spells like Vicious Mockery. Bilbo's main actions in "combat" include stealth checks, sneak attacks with Sting, stealing items, and using bardic spells to manipulate the situation for his benefit.

Do all hobbits have to be a little rogue? Because in Tolkien's stories hobbits being stealthy isn't a skill it's a species ability.

Kinda like how in early versions of D&D elf and dwarf were classes.

So you think all hobbits have to be lvl 1 rogues?

Not at all, merely sharing a parallel I just realized/remembered.

Sorry, new here. Still having trouble keeping track of who said what, and who I'm quarreling with.