D&D 5E Building a better Rogue

[Ilbranteloth]

It'd probably have to revolve around SA. Range limit on applying SA. No SA with martial weapons? IDK. Getting pretty specific with /dagger/ (traditional D&D dagger, bladded stabbing weapon 12-15", shortsword, bladed stabbing weapon 18-24" - no, don't even ask about 16-17" bladed stabbing weapons, please, just don't... I'm sorry I brought it up, OK...)

Anyway, maybe d4 weapons can roll 2d4 on an SA? Or maybe the rogue can just roll 2d4 with a dagger on some even-more-easily-me condition than granting SA?

So-not-5e. ;(
DM must be always be involved.


I suppose we could get jiggy with stealth penalties. Carrying any item that's more than 2' long. Stealth penalty. Carrying anything with lots of little bits inside it (like a quiver of arrows) stealth penalty. 4' long items (rapiers were prettty lonnng) big stealth penalty. Spear/staff? Heavy Crossbow? Fuggeddaboudit (as they say in Thieves' Cant).

I'm not sure I follow. I'm not complaining that you can be stealthy when wielding a bow or a rapier. It's more about concept. A thrown knife in the back? Very sneak attacky (a la the old backstab). Also the idea of the assassins leaping out of a crowd with a dagger to slay the king.

But a bow or crossbow? I think that's a bit different. Aiming a weapon of that type is different, and takes longer to get a precise shot off. There's also a question of the range itself for me. Also, it's not something that you can easily conceal and then make that sudden, sneaky attack.

Which also lends an interesting opportunity - being able to make a Stealth check to conceal a weapon. I might limit that to light, one-handed weapons finesse (a light crossbow or sling would qualify, even though they need two hands to load). A successful Stealth check would work the same as hiding, the weapon is concealed, so you have advantage on the attack. This would not work in combat, probably first round only.

 

[CapnZapp]

A few changes I would like to make:
1) Make ranged roguery less desirable. Or make it a specific sub-class. Rogues should be stabby.

As in several other instances, the problem could be seen as something 5E changed from d20. If you bring back "only sneak attacks within 30 feet" you have come that much closer to forcing the rogue to actually stay near the heat of combat.

Of course, 5e still has no answer to why you should go melee, since the best way to do two-weapon fighting in this edition remains the ranged way (with a single hand crossbow, through Crossbow Expert, a feat you need anyway to not be hosed when engaged in melee).

Which brings me to my real objection. I don't think Rogues deserve getting nerfed. Their DPS even with automatic SA counted in simply isn't THAT great, which it needs to be to justify doing martial combat with such a lousy AC and HP.

So I would much rather keep ranged rogues the same, and instead incentivize melee Rogues with a substantial damage upgrade. One hefty enough that it makes sense not just for you, the stabby-Rogue-lover, but for the rational-minded group of players too. If melee Rogues do humongous amounts of damage, it makes it rational to not only bring one into your team, but also to start redirecting resources that could be used elsewhere (for instance, the party caster "concentration slot") to the purpose of giving said melee Rogue enough staying power to make him earn his keep.

It adds yet another approach to party composition, and variety is the lifeblood of the game

 

[CapnZapp]

Not much to change about the Rogue, it's one of the most well designed classes in 5e all around.

Actually, with its subclasses I fear it's a different story.

Neither Thief nor Assassin really gels. They get disparate subclass features that don't really make up a whole. Same thing with UA subclasses. (Let's trade class guide links if you want specifics)

The best-reviewed subclasses are Arcane Trickster and Swashbuckler, and Thief and Assassin could really stand to have been brought up to at least that standard.

 

[Helldritch]

I know that my solution will not work well for the theater of the mind; but for those who use the optional rules of flanking and positionning, it solves most of the problems you might have with "ranged" rogues.

By using both of these rules will encourage rogues to get in hand to hand. The classic backstabber will have many advantage over the ranged shooter.
1) Advantage on the die roll. This is what all our rogues seek to have. It is an excellent way to get it.
2) It will be easier to hit. With positionning, you won't have that darn shield in the way.
3) It will grant an ally on the opposite side of the target the advantage to hit.

As for using the classic dagger over a short sword or rapier...
Restricting the sneak attack condition to simple, light or ranged weapons should do the trick. You keep your ranged weapon contained to a light crossbow or short bow (i know about darts and slings...). You can add in the hand xbow if you want it.

So the rogue will get daggers and he will take the rapiers or short swords in case the fight goes against him and he/she needs to fight "honnorably".

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not sure I follow. I'm not complaining that you can be stealthy when wielding a bow or a rapier. It's more about concept. A thrown knife in the back? Very sneak attacky (a la the old backstab). Also the idea of the assassins leaping out of a crowd with a dagger to slay the king.

But a bow or crossbow? I think that's a bit different. Aiming a weapon of that type is different, and takes longer to get a precise shot off. There's also a question of the range itself for me. Also, it's not something that you can easily conceal and then make that sudden, sneaky attack.

Nothing about 5e SA speaks to the weapon being concealed, I don't think. But, the reasoning behind the old Thief weapon proscriptions was that thief weapons needed to be amenable to stealthy work - that's what I was thinking back to with the idea. Rogues do get stealth, and it's one way to get in SA, especially at range, so if carrying certain weapons gave penalties to stealth, rogues would be less likely to use the routinely.

Which also lends an interesting opportunity - being able to make a Stealth check to conceal a weapon. I might limit that to light, one-handed weapons finesse (a light crossbow or sling would qualify, even though they need two hands to load). A successful Stealth check would work the same as hiding, the weapon is concealed, so you have advantage on the attack. This would not work in combat, probably first round only.

I think there may have been a rule like that in 3e or 4e, but I'm not remembering it clearly.

 

[jgsugden]

I am surprised by the love in this thread for the rogue as I have not seen the class work well beyond the lower levels.

Out of combat, pretty much all of the tricks that the rogue has get surpassed by magic. People just throw a spell at a problem and the locked, trapped, etc... issue disappears. It may start at 6th level or take until 11th before it starts to happen, but it happens.

In combat, they are overshadowed by pretty much everyone. An 11th level assassin may get off a nice starting assassination strike for 2d8 + 7 + 12d6 for about 60 damage - maybe even two assassinations for 120 if they are sneaky about it. However, the party vengeance paladin can deal 150 in that alpha strike round with smiting, haste, great weaponmaster, etc... In subsequent rounds when they're not going all out, the rogue is dealing 40 while the paladin is dealing 90.

I strongly feel that the class would be better balanced if all attacks were allowed to be sneak attacks rather than having the once per turn limit. It would allow a hasted rogue, a two weapon rogue, etc... to be competitive in melee.

I admit to having not played a rogue in 5E for more than 1 session (the only class I have not significantly played), but I have seen a lot in my parties and the higher level rogues just don't stay competitive and end up feeling outclassed by their peers - every single time. In my opinion, this class, more than the ranger, needed an overhaul.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am surprised by the love in this thread for the rogue as I have not seen the class work well beyond the lower levels.

Out of combat, pretty much all of the tricks that the rogue has get surpassed by magic. People just throw a spell at a problem and the locked, trapped, etc... issue disappears. It may start at 6th level or take until 11th before it starts to happen, but it happens.

In combat, they are overshadowed by pretty much everyone. An 11th level assassin may get off a nice starting assassination strike for 2d8 + 7 + 12d6 for about 60 damage - maybe even two assassinations for 120 if they are sneaky about it. However, the party vengeance paladin can deal 150 in that alpha strike round with smiting, haste, great weaponmaster, etc... In subsequent rounds when they're not going all out, the rogue is dealing 40 while the paladin is dealing 90.

I strongly feel that the class would be better balanced if all attacks were allowed to be sneak attacks rather than having the once per turn limit. It would allow a hasted rogue, a two weapon rogue, etc... to be competitive in melee.

I admit to having not played a rogue in 5E for more than 1 session (the only class I have not significantly played), but I have seen a lot in my parties and the higher level rogues just don't stay competitive and end up feeling outclassed by their peers - every single time. In my opinion, this class, more than the ranger, needed an overhaul.

Thank you.

When I read this, I was going "Paladins sure, and how about GWM fighters."

Then it struck me - there is no corresponding feat for a mid- to high-level rogue to suddenly add +40 DPR or so.

Perhaps what's needed is a feat that works on sneak attack, but also only on "melee weapon attacks". Something like:

Backstabber
You roll the maximum on your sneak attack bonus dice when using a melee or thrown weapon.

Okay, so at level 12 that's 6d6 going from 21 average damage to 36. Hmm. That's still only +15 points, and you can still miss. And not getting to roll all those dice, that's a critical design error right there!

Okay, you're right.

So how about...:
Backstabber
When you make a melee sneak attack using a concealed weapon such as a dagger, you get to roll twice as many sneak attack damage dice as usual.

Now we're going from 6d6 to 12d6 and +21 average damage (minus the downgrade from rapier to dagger) Better. And way cooler.

Now all we have to do is to pair this rogue up with some real Warlord, you know the kind that gets to give others a free action every round of every combat. And we're set.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Nothing about 5e SA speaks to the weapon being concealed, I don't think.

No, it doesn't that's why I was saying it was more about my concept of what a sneak attack is. In AD&D, of course, it was stabbing somebody in the back. But historically there have been plenty of "sneak" attacks made in plain view with a concealed weapon.

One could argue that a sneak attack has better damage because it's more precise, better aimed. But even true backstabs are typically not that precise, because they have to be quick before being detected.More importantly, if it was a precision thing, then it wouldn't be limited to (or even attributed to) a rogue.

I think a sneak attack does more damage because it bypasses the normal (reactionary) defense of trying to avoid or at least lessen the blow. It's the element of surprise, that the target doesn't see the attack coming.

But, the reasoning behind the old Thief weapon proscriptions was that thief weapons needed to be amenable to stealthy work - that's what I was thinking back to with the idea. Rogues do get stealth, and it's one way to get in SA, especially at range, so if carrying certain weapons gave penalties to stealth, rogues would be less likely to use the routinely.

I think there may have been a rule like that in 3e or 4e, but I'm not remembering it clearly.

I agree with that, that the weapon can't be so unwieldy that it's not stealthy. Adding a bunch of penalties just gets complicated.

But there isn't really a mechanic to account for that. I can certainly justify (fairly easily) the use of a bow for a sneak attack (or really any weapon under certain circumstances). But because of the nature of how a bow is used (it requires good aim for a precise shot), I think that the advantage that is granted for being hidden represents that. And yes, then you could add that the element of surprise also allows the sneak attack aspect. This is a classic sniper.

And that's the problem I have with it, I think that ability should be available to fighters as well, not just rogues. So I'd prefer that whatever "sniper" ability that is designed, it's available to both. And I don't want sneak attack to stack. So I see it as a different ability.

On the other hand, I think a sling is a must for sneak attack. It's the ultimate concealed weapon - a strip of cloth and a stone (I have different range and damage for stone and bullet). I think it works for sneak attack as well, because it's much faster than raising a bow or crossbow, aiming, and shooting.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I am surprised by the love in this thread for the rogue as I have not seen the class work well beyond the lower levels.

Out of combat, pretty much all of the tricks that the rogue has get surpassed by magic. People just throw a spell at a problem and the locked, trapped, etc... issue disappears. It may start at 6th level or take until 11th before it starts to happen, but it happens.

In combat, they are overshadowed by pretty much everyone. An 11th level assassin may get off a nice starting assassination strike for 2d8 + 7 + 12d6 for about 60 damage - maybe even two assassinations for 120 if they are sneaky about it. However, the party vengeance paladin can deal 150 in that alpha strike round with smiting, haste, great weaponmaster, etc... In subsequent rounds when they're not going all out, the rogue is dealing 40 while the paladin is dealing 90.

I strongly feel that the class would be better balanced if all attacks were allowed to be sneak attacks rather than having the once per turn limit. It would allow a hasted rogue, a two weapon rogue, etc... to be competitive in melee.

I admit to having not played a rogue in 5E for more than 1 session (the only class I have not significantly played), but I have seen a lot in my parties and the higher level rogues just don't stay competitive and end up feeling outclassed by their peers - every single time. In my opinion, this class, more than the ranger, needed an overhaul.

In my campaigns over the years, for whatever reason, the classic thief abilities have not been their focus. So the locked/trapped thing is there, but they are happy to allow magic to do it faster (and more safely for them). They don't mind giving that up at all.

Never had a problem with anybody being overshadowed in combat. The players work as a team, and it's not about who makes the kill or who does the most damage for us. It's more about getting out alive (my encounters are tough and my monsters generally use intelligent tactics), and the fact that a combat is not the focus. Their focus is on their goals and the narrative, a combat is just an obstacle to reaching that goal. In fact, the three strongest characters in the last campaign in combat were two rogues and the ranger.

But we're not an optimizing bunch nor worried about maximum DPR, alpha strike rounds, etc. No need for everybody to be at risk. If the paladin is all that's needed, then send in the paladin. If a combat is tough enough that everybody is needed, then they are all essential to surviving that combat, and that's all that's needed.

The rogue can maximize their sneak attacks if they maximize opportunity attacks, and the party can help with that.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Yep, there is one. The optional rule of flanking and positioning. If you use that one, the rogues suddenly feel an urge to go melee. Two rogues in a flanking position are deadly. Add in a battle master with at least 2 attacks and these two rogues will backstab the poor target a total of four times. This can be done as soon as level 5.

Of course if you don't use these optional rules, WotC has nothing to goad your rogues into melee.

But flanking is built into the sneak attack rule to start with: "You don't need advantage on the attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it..."

Flanking gives them advantage on their attack roll, which might entice them to move into melee, but staying at range they can still make their sneak attack and avoid damage.

I don't understand your four backstab example. Only two of those (one each) will be a sneak attack, not four.