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.
That's s tad ironic...
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 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
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 he ended with "Let's be honest - D&D is a combat heavy game." No, it's not. At least 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.. If you started with 4e, then you're probably playing a fairly combat heavy game. But even then, not always.
.
"Damn cat! Get outta my way!"
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.
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.
I refuse the argument "you need to remain weak, little rogue, so us others can have enough combat time".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.
No.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.
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.Sorry but now you're wilfully ignoring the question posed in the very thread title.
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.I am not interested in you reducing the issue to my table.
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."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 the one who is asking for help. Whether you choose to accept it or not is entirely your prerogative.So if you don't have any generally applicable feedback I'll say thanks but no thanks.