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

[Rossbert]

That's s tad ironic...

In hindsight it is, but they are the best example of having a pool of extra dice to throw on damage rolls.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But there are many threads like this that make an assumption that there is something broken with the game, when the real point is that in that particular person's game, there's a problem. Every game is different

Games are balanced or not along a range of campaign emphasis and playstyle, so, yeah, bits of 5e are 'broken' in a game with too much combat emphasis, or too much exploration, or too much interaction, or the wrong mix of those three for the mix of classes in the party, or too few encounters per day, or too few short rests between long rests, or...

But he ended with "Let's be honest - D&D is a combat heavy game." No, it's not. At least not always.

Its long been an overblown criticism of D&D, and RPGs in general, that they're 'violent,' so pushing back against 'combat heavy' is understandable.
But, yeah, a disproportionate fraction of the rules touch on combat, and, as potentially imbalancing as focusing too much on combat may be for the rogue, skimping on combat emphasis will be equally deleterious to the even more popular fighter.

. If you started with 4e, then you're probably playing a fairly combat heavy game. But even then, not always.
.

4e was the only ed with substantial, structured, rules and guidelines for creating and resolving non-combat challenges and giving them importance and exp awards proportionate to combat encounters.

 

[Zardnaar]

"Damn cat! Get outta my way!"

I have that problem playing Thrawns Revenge.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

No, since combat is by far the most important pillar.

I'm okay with one class being "simple" in that it does only this pillar well. I'm okay with Fighters being a non-optimal choice in heavy social or exploratory campaigns.

But more importantly, don't change the subject, thank you. This thread is about Rogues in combat, not everything else.

You have said that before. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The core rulebooks present the three pillars as of equal importance, and that what informed class design.

If you choose to play the game differently, that's fine. However, by implying that it is the core design of the class that is at fault you are implicitly attacking everyone who plays the game differently to you, and so it is unsurprising that your comments are met with hostility.

If you consider all three pillars you cannot discuss the combat performance of the rogue without taking its performance in the other two into account.

 

[Pauln6]

Sorry but now you're wilfully ignoring the question posed in the very thread title.

I am not interested in you reducing the issue to my table.

If I answered rule and balance questions with a focus that narrow, I could just rubber-stamp "do whatever, it's only your table" and be done with it.

So if you don't have any generally applicable feedback I'll say thanks but no thanks.

If you dial this back just to damage, the problem seems to be that your campaign doesn't vary the encounter ratio between rests often enough to give at-will damage dealers a chance to increase their average damage compared to spike damage dealers like spell casters and paladins who run out of resources in a longer day. It's easy to resolve within the rules but if the goal is to keep encounters as is, you could grant them a daily resource.

Why not give the Rogue a daily resource like the paladin to increase sneak attack by 1d6 for each point spent. You'd need to balance out that paladins have competition for that extra damage so a rogue should get fewer points to spend, over the day. This seems an easier way to keep Pandora's box closed with multiclassing and retains some tactical choices for the Rogue. Maybe start with arcane trickster spell progression and see how much that gives you. Looks like 14 dice if you award 1d6 every time a spell is granted or 20 if you count the spell level like the paladin.

So a backstabbing pool of 1d6 per Rogue level, usable only with sneak attack, chosen after a successful hit, maxed at no more than half? the Rogue's level in any one hit.

 

[CapnZapp]

Although in a game that is not as focused on combat, the rogue is often a central character through the non-combat encounters. So bumping them up to be as good as the others in combat unbalances those games.

Another option would be to look at the other options and consider reducing the damage of others. 5e combat is often very quick, over in a matter of a few rounds. Bumping up the damage output of the rogue would probably shorten it more.

I refuse the argument "you need to remain weak, little rogue, so us others can have enough combat time".

The rogue isn't "as good as the others", you yourself said it. But there is nothing the Rogue can do out of combat that is qualitatively better than what a Druid or Warlock or Bard can do out of combat. They don't do the same things (at least not in the same way), but they can all pick ooc tasks and be successful at them.

---

So I ask again - why single out the Rogue as the sole class with no or little build flexibility to contribute in combat especially given its class description which suggests it should be excellent in combat (fearsome assassin, etc) ?

Again, if you want to be able to murderize your foes, why play a rogue when a fighter (or sorcerer) is much better at the job, which isn't just "killing the mark quickly" but also "...with as little risk of dropping yourself as possible"?!?

And again, those of you answering "I don't mind my rogue being weakish in combat, he's excellent out of it" - you are not answering the core question!!

If you don't mind its combat capability then you won't mind if we boost that? Right?

And don't come running with "if you boost combat, you need to take away from out-of-combat, and I'm not having that" - I am not taking away anything from you. If the player chooses a combat focus, it is not a problem that this becomes the focus - it is the answer.

And if you answer that with "but I need my rogue to be a weak combatant" I'm saying "but I'm not removing the possibility to build such a rogue, I just want to add a combat build".

Only if you answer that with "but I need Rogues to be the only class that isn't and can't be built for combat, despite being a martial class clearly advertised for precise strikes" are we done, because then you are clearly unreasonable.

So what it is? Where do y'all stand?

 

[CapnZapp]

You have said that before. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. The core rulebooks present the three pillars as of equal importance, and that what informed class design.

If you choose to play the game differently, that's fine. However, by implying that it is the core design of the class that is at fault you are implicitly attacking everyone who plays the game differently to you, and so it is unsurprising that your comments are met with hostility.

If you consider all three pillars you cannot discuss the combat performance of the rogue without taking its performance in the other two into account.

No.

Just because WotC wants it does not make it so. Don't you see it's a sales pitch?

You really should start thinking for yourself instead of just parroting the company line.

Don't claim the three pillars are of equal importance. It's laughable.

Just look at the rulebook. It's all about combat, and other action sequences.

Note: they might be equal in your games, but I'm not presuming to talk about your games.

There are rpgs with detailed exploration rules, but D&D aint one of them. The sections specific to this pillar number in the single pages.

And when we come to social, come on. About the only specific rules I can even think of is "npc interaction" which is about as simplistic and unsatisifying as I can think of, in any rpg.

D&D is a finely tuned combat engine, with a few extra bells and whistles.

If you truly can't see that, you really need to try out other rpgs - where the combat focus is massively reduced (some games even resolve an entire fight with just one opposed roll!), and where the social and exploratory (but mostly social) pillars might even be something more than rudimentary (and that's a very charitable description of these pillars in D&D).

Sorry, but don't expect me to discuss this issue further because I won't.

Have a nice day

 

[Krachek]

There is enough space in 5ed design and philosophy to allow damage increase to rogue.
Find a way.
But if you desperately need that all the community agree on your needs, that is a silly wish.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

Sorry but now you're wilfully ignoring the question posed in the very thread title.

I've already answered that question. The post you're responding to post was answering the questions you asked me in the post that it quoted.
Much of that post was you giving your personal opinions on what you thought the rogue was, ands asking why my opinions differed.
So I explained.

I am not interested in you reducing the issue to my table.

The issue exists at your table. Your rogue player is unhappy at your table because some of the ways that other players at your table play, and the adventure structure and emphasis at your table mean that they feel they aren't contributing.

At a more default table, it sounds like your rogue player would be happy, but you're asking for help at your table, and so telling you and your players to play differently wouldn't be very helpful to you.
So when responding to your asking for help with a table-specific issue like this, I'm going to give table-specific help.

If I answered rule and balance questions with a focus that narrow, I could just rubber-stamp "do whatever, it's only your table" and be done with it.

You're right: I could have answered "Nope. Your issue is entirely due to the way that you and your other players play the game. Do whatever."
But that wouldn't have helped your player who is currently not enjoying the game much would it?

So if you don't have any generally applicable feedback I'll say thanks but no thanks.

You're the one who is asking for help. Whether you choose to accept it or not is entirely your prerogative.

I've given 'generally applicable' feedback, but its not helpful to your actual issue because your issue is not a 'generally applicable' problem. Most classes have assorted hoops to jump through in order to optimise. Martial classes' hoops involve assorted shenanigans generally related to feats in order to gain additional attacks for bonus actions and reactions. Rogues weight those feats differently but the basics are pretty similar: get a bonus action and reaction attack.

 

[Gardens & Goblins]

Every time I set fire to my head, it catches fire.

Anyone else tired of the flammability of heads?

Obviously, heads are the problem.

Correct suggestions? Anyone?