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

[Tony Vargas]

. 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

Quantitatively, though the Rogue's expertise will be better than the Druid or Warlock with the same skill.

So I ask again - why single out the Rogue as the sole class with no or little build flexibility to contribute in combat

Its not singled out: the fighter also has little or no flexibility to contribute in combat, it's just locked in high.

especially given its class description which suggests it should be excellent in combat (fearsome assassin, etc) ?

Assassins murder by stealth or surprise, that doesnt require excellence in combat.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I think it is hilarious when people equate word count needed to make fair and functional rules for a thing with the importance the game puts on that thing, so they see the book as being "all about combat" because those rules take more words than other rules do.

Never mind how the book says to actually play the game or what the book says the focus of play is meant to be on - only page count means anything!

Which is made even more hilarious by the fact that even Call of Cthulhu, a game that explicitly tells you that if you are in combat you are likely to end up with your character dead so you should seriously avoid combat - especially with actual monsters - spends more page count on combat rules than other sorts of rules, so this failure of logic that equates page count with "what the book's about" would say that Call of Cthulhu is "all about combat."

And if you don't think so, you must not be "thinking for yourself."

 

[EvilGeniusPrime]

Yeah, I'm going to jump on the bandwagon here and defend the rogue class. This is D&D, not WoW. Some people want to make the Rogue a DPS character but that's not their role in D&D. They're designed to be the skill class, do some cool things in combat, including damage mitigation, and be the stealthy-scout/trapfinder/unlocker-of-things.

If you want a DPS style rogue, then multiclass with fighter. The two classes work very well together and you get a big boost to combat abilities (Champion is great for increased crit range which also doubles sneak attack dice).

But this is a similar argument that we always hear about the ranger being underpowered in combat. The ranger is supposed to be less than a fighter in combat because the ranger gets spells and shines in the Exploration pillar of the game. Well, the rogue is supposed to be less of a combatant than a fighter and shines in the Exploration pillar of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think it is hilarious when people equate word count needed to make fair and functional rules for a thing with the importance the game puts on that thing, so they see the book as being "all about combat" because those rules take more words than other rules do.

You could spill a lot of ink on detailed rules for trade & economies, but D&D doesn't. So, it's not an unfair measure.
But, it's not the whole story, either. Importance and emphasis are not quite the same thing. Combat is life & death, so it's important to resolve it fairly, and that can include resolving it in detail - that doesn't mean a given campaign has to have a lot of combat, it could be very rare, it's just that, when it happens, it's important to resolve it completely & fairly.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

You could spill a lot of ink on detailed rules for trade & economies, but D&D doesn't. So, it's not an unfair measure.

It absolutely is an unfair measure - specifically because of the next bit you say:

But, it's not the whole story, either. Importance and emphasis are not quite the same thing. Combat is life & death, so it's important to resolve it fairly, and that can include resolving it in detail - that doesn't mean a given campaign has to have a lot of combat, it could be very rare, it's just that, when it happens, it's important to resolve it completely & fairly.

It's not the whole story, so trying to treat it like it is doesn't result in fair measure of what the whole story is.

A lot of pages are spent on combat rules, and there are reasons for that - but those reasons do not inherently include "that's what the game is about" for every game that has combat rules that take up more pages in the book the other sorts of rules do.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

I really don't think this thread is for you then. Good luck in your gaming!

Replies which talk about your basic premise are fair game. For any thread. This thread title asks a question. People can answer that question in a way that differs from your answer.

I agree with Paul and you, in different respects. Let's agree that combat is a more important pillar than the other two. However, being "more important" does not mean it's "all important". Let's say it's even 10%, 10%, 80% (which I think is an exaggeration - combat is likely not as high as 80% for a majority of games, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt).

OK, then if the Rogue does very well in the other two pillars (and it tends to) and the Fighter does not (which also tends to be true) then it should be acceptable if the Rogue is only 80% as effective in the combat pillar as the fighter.

So you can both be right - combat can by-far be the most important pillar AND Paul's point about how nobody argues for all the classes to be as effective as the Rogue in the other two pillars are both fair points.

So the question really is why do you want the Rogue to be the best at the other two pillars which is 20% of the game (or more) and also EQUAL in the third pillar? Shouldn't they see a discount in combat thanks to their effectiveness in the other pillars to some degree?

 

[Morrus]

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.

CapnZapp, you are in danger of being asked to leave your own thread. You're being abrasive to multiple people and - equally importantly - are still trying to tell people what they may or may not talk about (and we've talked about *that* before). To make it clear again: starting a conversation doesn't give you *control* over people who engage with it. That is not how conversation works anywhere, either online or off. Knock it off, please.

 

[happyhermit]

...
A lot of pages are spent on combat rules, and there are reasons for that - but those reasons do not inherently include "that's what the game is about" for every game that has combat rules that take up more pages in the book the other sorts of rules do.

Yeah I really wish the idea of "amount of rules" = "focus of game" could just be put to bed already, it simply isn't true. A good example I have seen is Poker, by that metric bluffing isn't an important part of the game... which should be ridiculous on the face of it. The amount of rules a particular aspect of a game needs varies from person to person, system to system, but need not have a significant impact on how "important" that aspect is. For example, I rarely enjoy games with a lot of rules for "RP" or social interaction, not because I don't enjoy that type of game (quite the opposite) but rather we find it more enjoyable to just roleplay it out and we feel doing so most of the time gives us the most satisfactory experience. Combat on the other hand, we find having moderately detailed resolution mechanics to be better than just abstract ones, although sometimes we do just narrate or abstract things out if that seems preferable. You can pretty much look at any game, sport, etc and find areas that have a lot of rules compared to how "important" that thing might seem to a particular game.

 

[Pauln6]

Replies which talk about your basic premise are fair game. For any thread. This thread title asks a question. People can answer that question in a way that differs from your answer.

I agree with Paul and you, in different respects. Let's agree that combat is a more important pillar than the other two. However, being "more important" does not mean it's "all important". Let's say it's even 10%, 10%, 80% (which I think is an exaggeration - combat is likely not as high as 80% for a majority of games, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt).

OK, then if the Rogue does very well in the other two pillars (and it tends to) and the Fighter does not (which also tends to be true) then it should be acceptable if the Rogue is only 80% as effective in the combat pillar as the fighter.

So you can both be right - combat can by-far be the most important pillar AND Paul's point about how nobody argues for all the classes to be as effective as the Rogue in the other two pillars are both fair points.

So the question really is why do you want the Rogue to be the best at the other two pillars which is 20% of the game (or more) and also EQUAL in the third pillar? Shouldn't they see a discount in combat thanks to their effectiveness in the other pillars to some degree?

I suspect the issue is about the Rogue player's enjoyment being reduced by the perception that they are lacking so rather than saying, they should just re-skin as another class (and the UA scout fighter is perfectly functional for someone who wants to play a more skilled fighter - 2 levels of Rogue and the rest as a scout fighter especially with some moves from the martial adept feat might actually deliver but I digress), it's legitimate to think of options that might help.

Perception of play is a big deal and being able to damage spike occasionally might be enough to make the player have more fun. I would say a magic item is the best way to go. The next best is a daily pool of backstabbing dice, and an undesirable third option is letting them sneak attack more often.

Start low and work your way up imo.

 

[Rossbert]

If I read correctly there seems some wonkiness in the request.

It sounded like the player didn't want to try to find an 'optimized' build and taking the recommend feat to increase damage was either too complicated or unpalatable for some reason. However they were feeling left out or impotent because all the other players tried to optimize for damage and took the required feat(s?) to maximize their damage output.

It does sound a little like trying to have your cake and eat it when you want the results of the other players without making similar choices.