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

[Rossbert]

Why are you okay with the Rogue out of all classes lacking a combat-focused build?

All the other classes (to my knowledge) can be built for combat. Party-focused combat even (that is, disregarding the "the Rogue does perform well in combat, assuming it gets to sneak around on its own" argument).

Most complaints (that I've seen around here) are directed towards beastmaster ranger, four elements monk and sorcerer. But it turns out ranger multiclasses excellently with fighter, the beastmaster is the sole class WotC have conceded needs an upgrade, you can choose another monk subclass, and as long as you choose red draconic the sorcerer does splendidly (and in fact rises to the DPR top on any short adventure day, converting most low-level slots to sorcery points to twin or quicken spells or even both in the same round).

But the Rogue is expected to work its ass off, and for what? Byzantinely scrounging a second sneak out of it? That's not good enough - that level of play expertise plays off much better with any other class.

Even if I buy your numbers right off the bat, the thing is, no class as squishy as a Rogue will "dominate" combat with a mere 2 points advantage over the sturdy Fighter. What it does imo is just barely justify why any party would invite a rogue - sure it's squishy, but at least it now pulls its own weight (dealing competitive damage), and it's useful to bring along for hidden traps and treasure.

It is, after all, "just" a martial. Imo all martials need to do well in combat, since they don't have nearly the same amount of doodad magics as the full casters.

I think the fundamental conflict on that is opportunity cost. For any of the casters to have a high-damage combat build they generally have to give up a lot of their other options, this hurts less for the big three classes that can rechoose spells each day but still exists.

A bard who goes all-in on damage probably stops healing or inspiring teammates as much, using their dice and buff spells on themselves, and still won't be good at it compared to a real combat class.

A sorcerer is a bit more obvious because they have so little for features beyond spells. If they pick for combat focus they give up almost all of their potential utility out of combat, and are probably hosed if something is resistant or immune to fire.

The martial classes are limited because they don't have a big pool of features to pick from to determine their focus, it is chosen to a large extent at class selection.

A fighter is good at fighting because his base AND subclass features are all aimed toward combat, the same reason he is never going to be as useful outside of combat as a rogue, bard or ranger.

A rogue will often be a bit behind the fighter in straight-up combat because the out-of-combat part is baked into the base class features so you can't give those up for more fighting like you can in some other classes. Much like the bard they can't really go for a true 'combat build' because their utility comes from a part of the class you can't exchange for combat options.

Many people see this as a feature. Your class determines your outlook. A fighter will focus on main combat in some form. A rogue will be utility with a strong dose of (common) situational damage. A ranger will have more utility than a fighter (especially in the wilds) but will have fewer combat options.

Other perspectives see it as a bug, where all classes should have the option of ditching more of the utility aspect of their class to focus primarily on combat, instead of having the mix dictated by class choice. In this specific example it would probably involve ditching the skill focus of the rogue to up their combat gimmick of sneak attack.



I do suspect the Great Weapon Master feat in particular was built to help strength fighters and barbarians not get completely left behind by rogues and other DEX heavy builds shot got accuracy, damage, initiative, defense, and some useful skills from one stat.
I also think people really underestimate the potential impact of that -25% chance to hit that comes with those feats against less mookish opponents, but I have limited experience to say for sure so do not wish to imply it is anything but theory and a gut feeling.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If you argue that a rogue should be as good as any other class in combat, then the converse also applies: all classes should be as useful as a rogue out of combat.

Personally. I don't see why someone who just wants to smack things round the head shouldn't just play a Barbarian. Choose a class that suits your playstyle, don't choose a class and then try and change it to suit your playstyle.

 

[Tony Vargas]

If you argue that a rogue should be as good as any other class in combat, then the converse also applies: all classes should be as useful as a rogue out of combat.

Yes. That way it doesn't matter if a campaign gets into a mostly-combat rut, or goes off on a diplomatic tangent, or stays in a dungeon exploring 80% of the time...

...and, given a fairly diverse set of spell choices, most classes can be reasonably good in each pillar.

 

[Rossbert]

Yes. That way it doesn't matter if a campaign gets into a mostly-combat rut, or goes off on a diplomatic tangent, or stays in a dungeon exploring 80% of the time...

...and, given a fairly diverse set of spell choices, most classes can be reasonably good in each pillar.

It often comes down a lot to skills, background and luck. If all you have is athletics, acrobatics, perception and survival you are probably not adding a lot to any court or merchant scene. On the other hand I have never seen a wizard make a jump or climb out of a pit on their own. Shows the value of always grabbing a slightly off-core ability. As Elan said cross-class learning is the key to a rich and fulfilling life. In this case that means being able to at least participate while the guy with expertise and 6 skills goes to town. Often literally.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Good call adding a mention.

Thank you for coming up with these 46 vs 44 numbers. They tell me my suggestions aren't far off the mark.

The point is, the Rogue's particulars scream for it to be a glass cannon. It should be able to make alpha strikes like no other class in order to justify it being squishy and have no magical tricks up its sleeve.

I don't really see it like that.
The Rogue isn't a tank, but it has 2nd-best AC and HP, and class abilities that allow it to avoid damage and/or reduce it effectively. Its generally the most squishy of the martials, but tougher than most of the casters. Not glass by any means.
Its offensive capabilities aren't as high as DPR-focused fighters for example, but are consistently good and certainly don't embarrass it in combat. Over the course of a day, it tends to edge out the casters in damage done. It doesn't have massive nova: its not a cannon. But when the wizards and sorcerors are down to cantrips, and the barbarian is out of rages, the rogue is still stabbing away consistently.

And what it loses in combat capability compared to fighters, it massively gains compared to them in out of combat capabilities.

Of course this isn't helpful to your game, which is high-combat, but concentrated into few encounters. The rogue isn't going to be able to catch up with the casters if the casters aren't going to run out of high-end spell slots, and the rogue's out of combat supremacy doesn't help if there isn't out of combat moments for it to shine.
Add to that that the rogue player prefers not to optimise, but the players that their performance is being compared to like to optimise a lot, and ts not surprising that there is a perceived discrepancy in performance.

By your feedback, I'd say the "backstab" ability needs a bit of a boost, but making it melee or thrown weapons only.

Maybe rather than a dice pool, just tweak the Assassin's ability: Once per short rest, you can turn a successful normal sneak attack into an automatic critical hit. Or something similar.

PS. Why are you okay with the Rogue out of all classes lacking a combat-focused build?

All the other classes (to my knowledge) can be built for combat. Party-focused combat even (that is, disregarding the "the Rogue does perform well in combat, assuming it gets to sneak around on its own" argument).

Mostly because I don't regard the rogue as a combat-focused class. It can hold its own, but it is emphasised much more towards out of combat capabilities. The same character concept could be expressed by a dex-based fighter if combat focus over out of combat capability is the preference.

But doesn't this make the base Rogue too good?

Oh. Absolutely.
But remember that this isn't a general fix for a general issue. Its intended to fix the issue with your player's rogue in your game, compared with your other players.
Its a houserule that isn't going to be applied to any other games outside yours, so its behaviour outside the idiosyncrasies of your game isn't a problem.

 

[Guest 6801328]

Mostly because I don't regard the rogue as a combat-focused class. It can hold its own, but it is emphasised much more towards out of combat capabilities. The same character concept could be expressed by a dex-based fighter if combat focus over out of combat capability is the preference.

So in other words a Fighter is better at fighting, and a Rogue is better at roguery.

...

Frankly I'm shocked.

 

[Oofta]

So in other words a Fighter is better at fighting, and a Rogue is better at roguery.

...

Frankly I'm shocked.

Almost like they serve different niches in a campaign that's not completely a table top combat simulator. Sacrilege.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The design of the 5E Rogue class is not generous.

We've never had a problem with it. <-- that statement is pretty much the reply to everything below, just FYI.

In games without feats, and where every adventure day is 8 encounters long, then maybe, just maybe, can the Rogue hold his own in the combat department.

No Feats in my game (or MC), and an adventure day is however many combats they get into. Maybe it's 8, maybe it's 0, maybe it's 15. And as long as the Rogue can hold his own for one or two rounds, that's all he needs. The Fighter, Barbarian, War Cleric or Ranger can step in and help/save the Rogue. But if you see a Rogue as a "stealthy fighter", well...

But in games with feats the fighter get upwards of 35 or more damage a round, along with a host of other tricks. That's 10d6! There is no feat to meaningfully increase sneak attack damage.

...and one reason (a major one, actually) why we don't use Feats.

And in games where the Sorcerer can cast a Fireball together with two Firebolts each combat (for something like 8d6+3d10+3d10+10 damage) the Rogue's so-called "alpha strike" looks just sad.

Ok, and? A Sorcerer geard to the DPR side of things can do a lot of damage. It's one of their possibilities. A Rogue is not a Sorcerer...so why do you think a Rogue should be able to do the same thing? If you want to do lots of damage, play a Sorcerer or twinked-out-Feat-Fighter. If you want a character who is good a detecting, infiltrating and avoiding combat, then you play a Rogue.

But the design is not only too stingy with damage. It is poor and counter-intuitive. There is no burst/nova capability.

Er...why does a class that focuses on "avoiding" even need a big 'burst/nova' capability? If the enemy doesn't even know you are there...

Correct play requires absolute system mastery, to gain two sneak attacks in as many rounds as humanly possible.

Hold the phone! ... Just what does "correct play" mean? That's like asking someone their favorite flavour of ice cream, and when they say Strawberry you yell out "INCORRECT!".

The Assassinate ability is just mean to the Rogue player, enclosed in so many requirements it basically never happens in games where the party consensus is that solo raids are boring for the rest of the players; much more fun if everybody joins in to the combat simultaneously!

Holy molly! I think we agree on something! I looked at the Assassin stuff too to see if they 'fixed' it from 3.5e. Nope. It, at least in our playing, virtually *is* impossible to get a situation where you can use it, let alone have any chance of actually pull it off. It's like they said "An assassin can kill in one blow! ... Well, at least paraplegic beavers. And maybe the occasional drunk goblin. I mean, it's not like an assassin is supposed to infiltrate a castle, find the general of the army, and then kill him. LOL! That would be silly!" :rolleseyes:

Sure the Rogue has its uses outside of combat, but let's be honest - D&D is a combat-heavy game, and there needs to be a straightforward way to build a Rogue that is competitive in combat.

...and we're back to disagreeing. In my opinion, a Rogue is MOST USEFUL outside of combat. That's where they shine. That's their "thing". A Rogue should not shine in combat any more than any other non-fighter type.

A Rogue is best when striking from the shadows. Backstab, missile weapon, etc. Setting traps and luering his opponent into them, and then pouncing. And a companion. It can't be stated enough just how damn useful it is to have another Rogue "partner in crime"! You want sneak attack damage all the time? Get another Rogue partner. Hell, get two! I ran one game where there were THREE Rogues in the group. If/when they ganged up on one guy it was brutal! But a Rogue all by his lonesome, standing toe to toe with an ogre, looking up at him, the Rogue shouldn't be thinking "How can I do the most damage to end this fight quickly?"...he should be thinking "Crap-dogs-on-a-stick! How did I end up here? Mother, you were right; I should have stayed in fighter school...".

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Zardnaar]

Could also be a problem related to that space between the keyboard and the computer chair.

 

[Satyrn]

Could also be a problem related to that space between the keyboard and the computer chair.

"Damn cat! Get outta my way!"