Variants/Subclass for a DPR Rogue

[Guest 6801328]

The only bummer is that Mage Slayer doesn't grant an opportunity Attack, just an attack as a reaction, when an adjacent enemy casts a spell.

Huh? What am I missing here...?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Huh? What am I missing here...?

I misspoke. Mage Slayer and War Caster don’t combine to allow the casting of a spell as a reaction to a creature next to you casting a spell, but not only for the reason I stated.

War caster is too specific about its benefit for that, saying, “When a hostile creature's movement provokes an opportunity attack from you, you can use your reaction to cast a spell at the creature, rather than making an opportunity attack. The spell must have a casting time of 1 action and must target only that creature.”

Mage Slayer lets you use a reaction to attack an adjacent creature if they cast a spell. If either feat was worded slightly differently, you could cast an action spell as a reaction in response to an adjacent creature casting a spell, but sadly it doesn’t work out that way.

I was lamenting that.

 

[Zardnaar]

Run two mastermind rogues in the same party. Profit.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Run two mastermind rogues in the same party. Profit.

I’d go with a Mastermind and an Arcane Trickster or Swashbuckler, but yeah they are very fun.

Inquisitives are fun too.

 

[Zardnaar]

I thought the assassin was the DPR subclass already the thief the utility I e and the trickster depends on how you build it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I thought the assassin was the DPR subclass already the thief the utility I e and the trickster depends on how you build it.

You and I both know the assassin doesn't provide much DPR increase to a rogue.

 

[Zardnaar]

You and I both know the assassin doesn't provide much DPR increase to a rogue.

It does with the CBE feat. Its the ranged version of the fighter1/Rogue XYZ dual wielder build both of which deal more DPR than the run round with a rapier/shortbow variety of Rogue. I play most of my Rogues as fighter/rogues anyway even if single classed.

If you want 4E striker level ROgue damage or 3.5 levels (well kinda), you have to get creative. Rogue has more stuff packed into the exploration pillar, not the combat pillar and even then it does fine without feats. THe main problems I see are.

1. People want to play it as a skirmisher which yo can do just be aware its less damage
2. The -5/+10 feats don't to much for Rogues so their damage looks bad (try playing without feats)
3. People don't know how to build or run Rogues.
4. People lack the knowledge for some of the more creative ones such as the heavy armor Rogue.

Dex based melee is a bit weak without team work or a bit of min/maxing. Some of this is also 5E design things such as a high dex fighter with the right back ground isn't that much worse than an actual Rogue at doing Rogue stuff. I have been banging on about some of this stuff since late 2014 bu basically got shouted down by the "5E's so great" crowd, I think some of their decisions have resulted in things like this. ANd some people still don't listen when they ask for help, we give them some advice but because it doesn't match up with what they have already decided or how they want to play they complain the Rogue sucks. Square peg round hole.

 

[FrogReaver]

It does with the CBE feat. Its the ranged version of the fighter1/Rogue XYZ dual wielder build both of which deal more DPR than the run round with a rapier/shortbow variety of Rogue. I play most of my Rogues as fighter/rogues anyway even if single classed.

If you want 4E striker level ROgue damage or 3.5 levels (well kinda), you have to get creative. Rogue has more stuff packed into the exploration pillar, not the combat pillar and even then it does fine without feats. THe main problems I see are.

1. People want to play it as a skirmisher which yo can do just be aware its less damage
2. The -5/+10 feats don't to much for Rogues so their damage looks bad (try playing without feats)
3. People don't know how to build or run Rogues.
4. People lack the knowledge for some of the more creative ones such as the heavy armor Rogue.

Dex based melee is a bit weak without team work or a bit of min/maxing. Some of this is also 5E design things such as a high dex fighter with the right back ground isn't that much worse than an actual Rogue at doing Rogue stuff. I have been banging on about some of this stuff since late 2014 bu basically got shouted down by the "5E's so great" crowd, I think some of their decisions have resulted in things like this. ANd some people still don't listen when they ask for help, we give them some advice but because it doesn't match up with what they have already decided or how they want to play they complain the Rogue sucks. Square peg round hole.

If your DM allows you to easily use the bonus action hide in combat then getting advantage from that and using a crossbow/longbow/shortbow and taking the dex bump is better than crossbow expertise and a hand crossbow. Depends on the DM though.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If your DM allows you to easily use the bonus action hide in combat then getting advantage from that and using a crossbow/longbow/shortbow and taking the dex bump is better than crossbow expertise and a hand crossbow. Depends on the DM though.

Also CBE doesn’t fix the fact that Assassins only get a boost in round 1, and then only really if there are surprised enemies. The Swahsbuckler and Inqusitive get more out of just being more reliable at getting SA than the Assassin gets out of anything but it’s capstone feature, in terms of damage dealing.

And if the 5/10 feats make one feel that rogues “suck” in a game with feats, the entire problem is those feats. Full stop.

All the “people don’t know how to play rogues and won’t listen to advice” nonsense is just window dressing. There is nothing wrong with subclasses that push a class more into a pillar that the main class isn’t as focused on. It broadens the basic sorts of characters people can play. The College of Swords Bard shows this quite well. It and the Lore Bard live alongside one another just fine

Likewise, optional rules that shift the focus of the class from heavily focused one way to slightly less focused on that pillar aren’t going to hurt the game..

 

[FrogReaver]

Also CBE doesn’t fix the fact that Assassins only get a boost in round 1, and then only really if there are surprised enemies. The Swahsbuckler and Inqusitive get more out of just being more reliable at getting SA than the Assassin gets out of anything but it’s capstone feature, in terms of damage dealing.

And if the 5/10 feats make one feel that rogues “suck” in a game with feats, the entire problem is those feats. Full stop.

All the “people don’t know how to play rogues and won’t listen to advice” nonsense is just window dressing. There is nothing wrong with subclasses that push a class more into a pillar that the main class isn’t as focused on. It broadens the basic sorts of characters people can play. The College of Swords Bard shows this quite well. It and the Lore Bard live alongside one another just fine

Likewise, optional rules that shift the focus of the class from heavily focused one way to slightly less focused on that pillar aren’t going to hurt the game..

Sure. Personally rogues that are played tactically no matter the subclass are always awesome. Stay in to take a hit here. Hit and run there. Got to injured pull out the bow and stand back.

My firm belief is that there are two important strategies to D&D that everyone forgets. Team player wants to focus fire while having team monsters damage spread out on them. Ranged attacks allow focus fire. Melee combatants are good at getting damage spread around. Rogues are good with both. Tactically speaking, even a ranged rogue should sometimes move up into melee and take a hit just so their front line fighter isn't always taking all the damage. Even a melee rogue should fall back and shoot arrows when injured.

When played well, a rogue does a little bit of everything