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

[Cap'n Kobold]

Roughly what numbers do you think you need to aim for?
Or possibly more relevant: what builds is your Rogue competing against on the "DPR list"?

Are you trying to hit fully-optimised BM CE+SS/2-nova-encounters-per-day sorceror - level DPR? Or are the other players a little more baseline?

How many combat rounds is the average day, and what is the DPR that you're working towards?

The problem is the rogue must not take the type of damage a fighter can take.

It's a huge restricting factor.

Unless you like being the wet blanket that the Cleric needs to revivify after every other combat.

What are the relative ACs and HP totals of the Rogue and Fighter? Assuming that they both prioritised survivability with the same weighting in ability distribution it would be extremely unusual for the Rogue to be dying so regularly compared to the Fighter.

 

[5ekyu]

I think to better understand the basis and foundation, it would be necessary for the OP to post specs for foghter and rogue baselines used in his analysis. References to his non-optimizing rogue and such makes me wonder if the issue is (was there something about harder to optimize) a less efficient vs more effecient character, not class.

Having baselines more informative than "drag" or "bottom" are needed to see how big the gap that needs closing is.

How can one assess "x dice burst" if we dont know that shortfall and its source?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

I still don't get the basic premise that the Rogue has to be on equal DPR footing with dedicated fighting classes. They already get such a full package - Cunning Action, Expertise, lots more skills, great defensive abilities in Uncanny Dodge & Evasion, a decent-scaling Sneak Attack, auto-crits for Assassins & built-in Mobile for Swashbucklers, an extra Feat (though still not as many as Fighters), having the super-Stat Dexterity as their core stat, and the higher level abilities like Reliable Talent are awesome as well.

The perfect scout and skirmisher, rogues fit their niche superlatively and are probably the best class at their role in the game. I have to assume that the thread title is a bit of attention-attracting hyperbole by stating that the Rogue is a 'miserly' design.

If you want to do more damage, multi-class as a fighter. Get more attacks, fighting styles and combat-oriented Feats. Just 7 levels of Rogue get you a great foundation for that class and you still have 13 levels to put into fighter.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The issue isn't so much rogues, the issue is with other martials getting Extra Attack, and then the feats that synergize well with it.

The obvious solution, then, is to restrict certain feats such that they no longer synergize as well with Extra Attack. That way, you're only meddling with the optional rules which are obviously broken rather than a core class which works well within the core rules.

 

[Oofta]

You really need to specify whether you're using feats, MC and/or items, Oofta.

That's because if your experiences are in a no-options game we are actually in agreement!

I don't want to "limit" rogues - I want to "unleash" their potential two sneak attack damage for all the rogue players that can't or won't maximize. It's not that I don't understand that you gain twice the DPR if you use your reaction to sneak a second time. It's that it's uncharacteristically byzantine class design for 5E to rely on such a complex game feature. Did you read my suggestions?

In our game we used feats, my rogue was a sharpshooter with (eventually) an owl familiar who would help and distract opponents to give him advantage on attack if he couldn't hide. At higher levels I didn't need that often since he was a arcane trickster who could get advantage with his mage hand. I did take 4 levels of champion fighter to get another attack, but to be honest I think that may have hurt more than it helped and was more of a character decision than a optimization decision.

I'm thinking the next rogue I play (when I get around to playing one) will be a swashbuckler in which case I'll definitely take sentinel. I don't see the feat as being "byzantine" any more than any other feat.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on one fundamental assumption though. I don't think rogues need to be at the top of the DPR pile. It's going to depend on your game and style, but I'm OK with rogues being "decent" at damage and flexible outside of combat. Rogues being strikers was an artifact of 4E.

 

[Hjorimir]

A reasonable request.

My rogue player is not exactly a minmaxer. He simply does not get the potential for using your reaction to gain a second sneak attack.

This thread's suggestions simply move that damage into the regular sneak dice, for a much more newb-friendly, generous and straightforward class!

So many times the Rogue has simply missed with his sole attack. Even the fewer times where the player realized he couldn't gain advantage and so would do hopeless damage.

I found this to be a REALLY interesting response. All of this time we've been talking about the rogue (as a class), but your response here is about "the" rogue (a specific player). It sounds like you want to help this player have a good time in your game (if so, kudos to you for being a good DM and seeing that enjoyment is the point of the game). Let me suggest that instead of solving the issue of combat performance through modification of the entire class that you handle this with a good ole' magic item. Maybe a short sword that ups sneak attack damage to d8s (or even d10s). Something along that line.

Why? Because of other players (and potentially you) having the ability to abuse an up-tuned rogue.

Let's say Bob isn't a great player (mechanically speaking). He shows up and just wants to have fun with Bilfo the Burglar and isn't really doing too well. You up the rogue's power to compensate and now Bob's happy. Great! Unfortunately, Sally is a savvy player and she's decided to make one of these new fandangled cool rogues you've got in your campaign. She is great with mechanics and takes the feats/spells/whatnot to maximize the class's potential. Now you've got a monster on your hands and it's always more difficult to take things away from the players than it is to give them new things. Maybe you're good with the rules as the DM and want to send in some rogues/assassins for an encounter. All of a sudden you've got a TPK on your hands because you're melting everybody.

I'm firmly in the camp that fighters should be the best fighters, admittedly, but I think the rogue class is fantastic as is.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Let's say Bob isn't a great player (mechanically speaking). He shows up and just wants to have fun with Bilfo the Burglar and isn't really doing too well. You up the rogue's power to compensate and now Bob's happy. Great! Unfortunately, Sally is a savvy player and she's decided to make one of these new fandangled cool rogues you've got in your campaign. She is great with mechanics and takes the feats/spells/whatnot to maximize the class's potential. Now you've got a monster on your hands and it's always more difficult to take things away from the players than it is to give them new things.

Simply powering up the class could have that effect, sure, you start off with imbalanced characters and one player not having fun, and you end up with imbalanced characters and a different player dominating. Both are bad results, both are because of imbalance...

...but, the proposal was actually to snip away a bit of the Rogue's optimization potential by changing SA to per round instead of per turn, not just to power up SA in a vacuum.

If you pull all the striker (controller, etc.) powers from my books and shuffle them without including the fluff, many, possibly most, are difficult to tell apart

The name, class & level of the power, and the source, weapon, implement, & other keywords were not part of the fluff, so, no, not hard at all.
And, of course, they weren't shuffled together like the 5e spell list, but were grouped with their class, and, each list of powers for each class was unique.*

That was in reference to the balance of 4e.

4e was far more balanced than other eds, sure, but, I don't think that's at issue.

Rather, the point is that balance does not result in 'sameness,' so, your concern that Cap's proposed squishy rogue using a simplified, higher-damage, version of SA, once per round, to deliver DPR comparable to the Extra Attacking tanky fighter would somehow make them seem samey is unwarranted.









* with the exception of a few repeated names, and the Healing Word prayer, shared by the Cleric and the Druid(Sentinel).

 

[TwoSix]

The obvious solution, then, is to restrict certain feats such that they no longer synergize as well with Extra Attack. That way, you're only meddling with the optional rules which are obviously broken rather than a core class which works well within the core rules.

That is exactly a house rule I'm implementing.

In a perfect world, though, I would have any kind of extra attack tied to a bonus action or reaction.

 

[Rossbert]

The name, class & level of the power, and the source, weapon, implement, & other keywords were not part of the fluff, so, no, not hard at all.
And, of course, they weren't shuffled together like the 5e spell list, but were grouped with their class, and, each list of powers for each class was unique.*

4e was far more balanced than other eds, sure, but, I don't think that's at issue.

Rather, the point is that balance does not result in 'sameness,' so, your concern that Cap's proposed squishy rogue using a simplified, higher-damage, version of SA, once per round, to deliver DPR comparable to the Extra Attacking tanky fighter would somehow make them seem samey is unwarranted.







* with the exception of a few repeated names, and the Healing Word prayer, shared by the Cleric and the Druid(Sentinel).

Completely valid, and maybe not an issue at all. It is just the specter that rises in my brain whenever people want to pull classes closer together. I had the same worries with some of the UA stuff that mixes class features (whatever that wizard with sorcery points was), and the Xanathar bard that uses Battle Master dice. Good easily be paranoia and to be taken with a healthy dose of salt.

I guess my big concern is that light armor and one step lower hit die might not be enough to offset being the skill monkey AND a high level DPS. The fighter gets high damage and durability but at the cost of having almost nothing else to contribute. The sorcerer gets good ranged damage, but at the cost of limited uses and almost no durability.

It will be a challenge to give the rogue the level of damage asked for in a combat-centered game without unbalancing it with consideration to its general utility.

But then some also argue that the paladin has far too high damage in addition to his utility and defense. Doubly so if a hexblade multi class happens.

For full disclosure my current game has that kind of paladin, an assassin rogue, tempest cleric, and a wizard who thinks he is a bard or rogue (bladesinger). Paladin wrecks face, but the rogue and wizard are really helping with directing that fury and preventing Bad Things (goblin ambushes most recently). I will keep an eye on the situation as it develops and see if it lends insight.

 

[Hjorimir]

Simply powering up the class could have that effect, sure, you start off with imbalanced characters and one player not having fun, and you end up with imbalanced characters and a different player dominating. Both are bad results, both are because of imbalance...

...but, the proposal was actually to snip away a bit of the Rogue's optimization potential by changing SA to per round instead of per turn, not just to power up SA in a vacuum.

I can't say I'm a fan of designing to the lowest common denominator in player mechanical acumen either. If you do go this route, keep in mind that you're also removing the "opportunity cost" from the rogue, meaning that they are now free to spend those feats in other areas of improvement.