Anyone else tired of the miserly begrudging Rogue design of 5E?

Tony Vargas

Legend
I can't say I'm a fan of designing to the lowest common denominator in player mechanical acumen either..
I can't say I am, either, nor of designing to the bleeding edge so only optimal builds are viable.
I'm more a fan of balance - if robust enough, both the optimized and indifferent build can be viable, even at the same table...

Completely valid, and maybe not an issue at all. It is just the specter that rises in my brain whenever people want to pull classes closer together.
Actually doing that is a clumsy - and ultimately self-defeating - way of trying to balance two things, they effectively become one thing.
It's just not what was done in 4e, nor what the proposal in this thread was trying to do.

I had the same worries with some of the UA stuff that mixes class features (But that wizard with sorcery points was)
Understandable, the Sorcerer is already put-upon.
and the Xanathar bard that uses Battle Master dice
less of an issue, I think, no worse than the bard lifting otherwise unique spells from other casters' lists.
I guess my big concern is that light armor and one step lower hit die might not be enough to offset being the skill monkey AND a high level DPS. The fighter gets high damage and durability but at the cost of having almost nothing else to contribute.
Nod, it's not a great situation, to start with.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
To me, the rogue feels like one of the better designed classes in 5e. I think this thread is the first I've ever heard that anyone was disappointed with it.
 

devincutler

Explorer
I think part of the reason the OP is getting a lot of responses that he considers not on topic is because he essentially made a single point: that rogues should not have a clunky mechanic for optimizing their SA, and then befuddled it with contentions that rogues are not proper glass cannons.

These are two entirely different points requiring two entirely different arguments, and so I don't think the OP should fault responders for responding to one and not the other.

I will respond to both.

With regard to the glass cannon issue: my sense is that the OP wants rogues to fill the glass cannon niche found in MMOs...they do the most DPS but are also quite vulnerable. From his point of view, rogues in 5e are not glass cannons, they are glass rifles or glass pistols. In other words, their damage output does not justify their lack of tankiness.

My response would be, as others have said, the rogue is not designed to be the MMO glass cannon in 5e. 5e is supposed to, ostensibly, support all 3 pillars of play equally, and that means the rogue shines in other areas aside from combat. IMO, a rogue that can contribute meaningfully to DPS, who can use tactics to remain out of harm's way (and they have PLENTY of tools to do so), and who excels in the noncombat pillars is a well designed class.

With regard to your second contention, that forcing rogues to utilize OA and other clunky exploits to maximize SA's per combat round (not turn) is bad, that may be more valid, IMO. I am not too comfortable with mechanics that exist just for mechanics sake. Why would a rogue under a haste spell get 3 SA a round if he readies an action but 2 per round if he makes both of his attacks on his turn? Seems counterintuitive to me!

I'd rather see a rule as follows:

A rogue gains 2 sneak attacks at the start of each of its turns. Each sneak attack can be used once per action, bonus action, or reaction where it makes an attack roll with a qualifying weapon under qualifying circumstances.

That would seem to cover it. A two weapon rogue could use his action to SA with his on hand and his bonus action to SA with his offhand. A one weapon rogue could get an SA during his attack action and an SA during an OA.
 
Last edited:

Hjorimir

Adventurer
I think part of the reason the OP is getting a lot of responses that he considers not on topic is because he essentially made a single point: that rogues should not have a clunky mechanic for optimizing their SA, and then befuddled it with contentions that rogues are not proper glass cannons.

These are two entirely different points requiring two entirely different arguments, and so I don't think the OP should fault responders for responding to one and not the other.

I will respond to both.

With regard to the glass cannon issue: my sense is that the OP wants rogues to fill the glass cannon niche found in MMOs...they do the most DPS but are also quite vulnerable. From his point of view, rogues in 5e are not glass cannons, they are glass rifles or glass pistols. In other words, their damage output does not justify their lack of tankiness.

My response would be, as others have said, the rogue is not designed to be the MMO glass cannon in 5e. 5e is supposed to, ostensibly, support all 3 pillars of play equally, and that means the rogue shines in other areas aside from combat. IMO, a rogue that can contribute meaningfully to DPS, who can use tactics to remain out of harm's way (and they have PLENTY of tools to do so), and who excels in the noncombat pillars is a well designed class.

With regard to your second contention, that forcing rogues to utilize OA and other clunky exploits to maximize SA's per combat round (not turn) is bad, that may be more valid, IMO. I am not too comfortable with mechanics that exist just for mechanics sake. Why would a rogue under a haste spell get 3 SA a round if he readies an action but 2 per round if he makes both of his attacks on his turn? Seems counterintuitive to me!

I'd rather see a rule as follows:

A rogue gains 2 sneak attacks at the start of each of its turns. Each sneak attack can be used once per action, bonus action, or reaction where it makes an attack roll with a qualifying weapon under qualifying circumstances.

That would seem to cover it. A two weapon rogue could use his action to SA with his on hand and his bonus action to SA with his offhand. A one weapon rogue could get an SA during his attack action and an SA during an OA.

Please don't take this as an attack, but I cannot stress enough how broken I think this would be. No other class would even come close to this level of consistent damage output. It would make all rogues go swashbuckler and to dual wield instantly. Sure, Sentinel can give you an extra sneak attack, but that doesn't happen each round. It's very situational. To each their own, but no way I'd support such a rule.
 

devincutler

Explorer
Please don't take this as an attack, but I cannot stress enough how broken I think this would be. No other class would even come close to this level of consistent damage output. It would make all rogues go swashbuckler and to dual wield instantly. Sure, Sentinel can give you an extra sneak attack, but that doesn't happen each round. It's very situational. To each their own, but no way I'd support such a rule.

No worries. I was just addressing the OP's concern that there are all these clunky ways to squeeze out a second SA in a round, so why not just embed that into the rules in the first place?

By your response, it is apparent that, in your play, rogues are not squeezing out second or multiple SAs. But there are threads where rogues are getting something like up to 5 SAs per round using RAW, so why not just eliminate all of that hokum and cap it at 2?

As far as dual wielding, well that was pretty de riguer for rogues in 3e when they got to sneak attack with all of their attacks. Dual wielding rogues in 3e got 2 SAs per round while 1 weapon rogues got 1 SA per round. If it was acceptable then, then what's the issue now?
 

S

Sunseeker

Guest
I dunno, the only reason I ever play a rogue is to be a skill-monkey.

Usually I do a fighter/rogue MC swashbuckler-style character because it fits my playstyle better. More attacks with the fighter and more skills from the rogue.
 

Hjorimir

Adventurer
No worries. I was just addressing the OP's concern that there are all these clunky ways to squeeze out a second SA in a round, so why not just embed that into the rules in the first place?

By your response, it is apparent that, in your play, rogues are not squeezing out second or multiple SAs. But there are threads where rogues are getting something like up to 5 SAs per round using RAW, so why not just eliminate all of that hokum and cap it at 2?

As far as dual wielding, well that was pretty de riguer for rogues in 3e when they got to sneak attack with all of their attacks. Dual wielding rogues in 3e got 2 SAs per round while 1 weapon rogues got 1 SA per round. If it was acceptable then, then what's the issue now?

3e was a different beast altogether. Power Attack could go crazy and there was a slew of monsters immune to sneak attacks. Rogues were more in the glass cannon mode with d6 hit dice and as many sneak attacks as they could conceivably crank out. What I'm getting at is that I feel this rule would create too large of a disparity between classes.
 

devincutler

Explorer
That's fine, though I do take issue with the idea that d6s instead of d8s make that big of deal. That's a difference of 1 hp per level. 10 hp at 10th level or 15 hp at 15th level is not going to make a difference. In fact, it is the EXACT same difference as between a fighter at 15th level with an 18 CON and one with a 20 CON. Is the 18 CON fighter (who has 15 fewer hp) a glass cannon comparatively speaking?
 
Last edited:

To me, the rogue feels like one of the better designed classes in 5e. I think this thread is the first I've ever heard that anyone was disappointed with it.

From later responses, I think it's because CapnZapp has a player in their game is that is not as effective as the rest of the party, and they're trying to think of a way to boost that character.
But rather than phrase that question in a helpful way where we can give useful and focused advice, he phrased it into a general complaint regarding the rogue. So we were trying to fix the class instead of trying to fix the character.
 


Remove ads

Top