D&D 5E Building a better Rogue

[Ilbranteloth]

Not sure what you're trying to say here. "That kind of problems takes care of itself" can be read as incredibly dismissive of party dynamics in general - as if you're Darwin and any not sufficiently optimized character is expected to die off and therefore deserves to do so.

Glass cannons are valuable since they add a party dynamic that isn't there if every party member is self-sufficient. Traditionally D&D has been content to put mostly casters in that role. And, to return to the subject, the game has made sure the "investment" has been worth it.

Protecting a squishe that one day will grow up to cast Wish, is what it boils down to.

A melee rogue will never reach those heights. So why "waste" resources on keeping him alive?

So obviously you only hang out with people that will make you a billionaire one day, right?

Oh, you mean you actually like the people you hang out with? That people aren't just numbers, and aren't just about combat, or getting a better job, or getting rich, and perhaps the reason you're in combat is you have a shared goal in life and that goal is big enough that you'll risk you life for it? that there's more to life than just fitting an optimized niche in a fight? I'm guessing some of them aren't really going to benefit your future riches in any way at all. They're just friends.

Part of the reason is "because it's fun; because Jim wants to play a backstabber and we support that", but that only goes so far.

In 5E the sad truth is that everybody is better off by telling Jim to put away the daggers and draw your bow instead. You can still do pretty much everything you could do before; your hide'n'sneak game becomes much easier, and our job of protecting you becomes much easier too.

Even if Jim did get a noticeable damage boost by sticking to his guns (his daggers, actually), it might still not be worth it. After all, if Sue is playing a Wizard, we need to protect her first. A party's collective protective powers in 5E aren't that great after all, unless you devote specific players to creating "bodyguard" fighters (which is far from certain). The party wizard might not want to spend her only Concentration slot on allies. And so on. To make that a more palatable choice, the defensive buff you do agree to place on the Rogue must mean the protection of a truly valuable asset, and "top damage" is one of the few I can come up with.

All of this suggests that if a melee rogue got a HUGE (not yuge) damage boost, all the factors might converge to actually making it worth your while. Even if you do introduce a weak link to the party, you'll at least enjoy top dog damage.

Wow, so supporting your real life friend's desires in a game where you all are representing your pretend friends desires doesn't cut it forever? That seems kind of harsh.

"Sorry Jim, I know you want to play this character and all, but if you want to play with the big boys then you'll have to select something we approve of and can get behind."

And maybe a good example of why many non-optimizers might point the finger and say "that's not role-playing." That you're more concerned about the math than making decisions as a fictional character.

The last party in our campaign varied over time, but at the end it was a included a bard, a rogue, a ranger, and a druid. It started as two rogues, a bard and a ranger and a wizard, and then added the second bard. In the middle there was a different druid, a cleric and a paladin. So clearly this group can't survive 5e because it's mostly the classes that everybody has declared suboptimal. Only the wizard died (by accident, when they forgot about a trap they already knew about, he was already essentially an NPC by then too, played by another player since the original player had left).

Actually, the only character that died was the wizard, and that was accidental, and after the player had left and the wizard was an NPC. They thought they were safe (having cleared out the squatters in their own house), and he wandered into a trap that they forgot about when going to get something for the others. And the rogue was the one that was primarily being protected for other reasons.

In my campaign, the players make the characters they want. Most of the time before they even know what anybody else is playing. In part because I specifically want to avoid, "oh, I wanted to play a rogue, but we already have one. Nobody's playing the cleric, I guess I'll play that." The characters are people, who don't know who they are going to meet, or who they'll end up spending time with. The players all know that all of the other players can choose whatever they'd like too, and there may be lots of a single class, or none. Then they go do what adventurers do. And somehow they seem to actually do what adventurers do. They fight some combats, and get some treasure.

So to me, the sad truth is that it seems like you're limiting the options and the fun of Jim because he doesn't fit your style of playing. Or that you feel like you can't play the game if you're not all picking the best options all the time. If you'd like to join my group and optimize away, hey, go for it. I do understand that's the best part of the game for some people. And I try to support that, although I also understand that if that's your primary focus, you probably won't enjoy playing a game where the others don't. Maybe I'm wrong.

And frankly, the game becomes more exciting if the PCs aren't so damn superior all the time.

And that's a great quote to promote non-optimizing. I love it! Try making your next character by rolling your ability scores randomly, in order. That's a start. Random hit points too, even at 1st level. Instead of system mastery, shoot for game mastery and survive despite your flaws and weaknesses.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

The Battle master at 5th level can do two "Commander's Strike" with his attack action. The rogues will then use their reaction to attack with advantage and their sneak attack damage. As long as the Battle master is not on the same initiative count (and it is best if he is after the rogues), this will ensure 4 sneak attack with advantage on the die rolls.

I think RAW it doesn't matter which initiative count the Battle Master is. A reaction is a reaction, and technically on somebody else's turn, regardless of whether you turn is on the same initiative count.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think RAW it doesn't matter which initiative count the Battle Master is. A reaction is a reaction, and technically on somebody else's turn, regardless of whether you turn is on the same initiative count.

Generally you would have a point, except Commander's Strike happens on the warlord BM's turn.

It is the Rogue that spends the reaction (on the BM's turn).

Now hopefully you see why Helldritch said it's best if the BM goes after the Rogue. What he means is, it's best if there aren't too many monsters inbetween the Rogue and the BM (since "after" is meaningless with cyclic initiative).

What you want is for the Rogue to position herself, and then the BM to command a strike before the critters have time to move around and generally make the Rogue's positioning difficult.

This makes much easier to predict if the Rogue will get off twin Sneaks (first SA on her own turn using her action, then the second SA on the BM's turn using her reaction)

Hope that helps

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not sure what you're trying to say here. "That kind of problems takes care of itself" can be read as incredibly dismissive of party dynamics in general - as if you're Darwin and any not sufficiently optimized character is expected to die off and therefore deserves to do so.

Yep, exactly how I phrased it to be read, but should've used SARCASM tags, to make it clear what I meant by phrasing it that way...

All of this suggests that if a melee rogue got a HUGE (not yuge) damage boost, all the factors might converge to actually making it worth your while.

I see the logic, but I'm not convinced.

I don't care for the selective way 5e "balances across pillars," but it does, and the rogue makes the fighter/barbarian a chump out of combat, so has to give up some combat utility, and that takes buffing the rogues' DPR off the table.

Rather, the root of the melee/ranged rogue problem - which I'm not denying - is the general melee/ranged problem, and that should be addressed, instead. JMHO.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ranged should be better. Ranged is better in real life too.

We really have incompatible goals, so instead of pursuing this further, I'll simply wish you good luck with your Rogues.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yep, exactly how I phrased it to be read, but should've used SARCASM tags, to make it clear what I meant by phrasing it that way...

Ah!

Yea, those tags, they're seldom large enough

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't care for the selective way 5e "balances across pillars," but it does, and the rogue makes the fighter/barbarian a chump out of combat, so has to give up some combat utility, and that takes buffing the rogues' DPR off the table.

I really don't understand any of this, but oh well. Okay, so you're out of the increase melee rogue DPR subtopic of this thread, got it. I shall have to discuss it with others, no problem. Consider every word I will utter explicitly not directed at you. Thank you.

Rather, the root of the melee/ranged rogue problem - which I'm not denying - is the general melee/ranged problem, and that should be addressed, instead. JMHO.

Then by all means let's do so!

Just not here, since this is a thread on rogues. Feel free to start a new thread if you like. Otherwise, I have probably started two or five myself on that worthy subject lurking just below first page... you have my encouragement to rekindle one of those if you want.

Best Regards

 

[CapnZapp]

Again to give back a bit to melee type rogues. You could always rule that daggers are doing critical damage on 19-20.
Sneak attack damage is multiplied, not the +10 of the GWM. That could be an equalizing factor.

A neat little morsel. It would certainly make daggers better than shortsword; probably rapiers too (haven't done the math, but an average damage decrease of 2 is hardly worth mentioning when the bulk of your damage comes from sneak damage)

What worries me, however, is the effect on feats and features. There's no longer any value in the ability to use non-light weapons for two-weapon fighting (for this rogue). Of course, since Dual Wielder is generally consider a poor choice anyway (if not an outright trap! it's mathematically worse to take it when you're still at below max Dex), anything that lessens the risk of us taking it could be considered a good thing

 

[Ilbranteloth]

We really have incompatible goals, so instead of pursuing this further, I'll simply wish you good luck with your Rogues.

I disagree. Furthermore, even if I have different goals for my game, it doesn't mean that I don't enjoy looking at alternatives or contributing to others. The fact that I don't have an issue with rogues at all doesn't mean that I'm not interested in looking at why others do, and seeing if I can come up with solutions that work for them. And quite often find that I will use them, or some variation of them.

For example, for the third time now:

Since I'm not the optimizer type, would anybody care to do the math if you eliminated bows and crossbows from sneak attack, and assumed that a rogue will get to make an opportunity attack every other round? Does that move things in the right direction?

What if we make it so a rogue gains an opportunity attack when somebody is knocked prone, grappled or restrained? Not when they are suffering the conditions, but the point where the condition is applied. How would that affect things?

I think that this addresses both concerns you have raised directly:

1) Removing bow and crossbow from sneak attack reduces the effectiveness of ranged weapons in relation to the rogue (and something I agree with, even though I also believe that in general, ranged attacks are better, I just don't think they should gain the benefit of a sneak attack).

2) Providing opportunity attacks for the rogue at least every other round increases the DPR of the rogue, and improves melee effectiveness, since you can't make an opportunity attack with a ranged weapon.

Also, is the idea of granting opportunity attacks to a rogue when certain conditions are imposed overpowered?

If you're going to choose to not engage with my suggestions, then I can't help that. Hopefully somebody else will, because I'm interested, and I don't know how to do the calculations myself.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Generally you would have a point, except Commander's Strike happens on the warlord BM's turn.

It is the Rogue that spends the reaction (on the BM's turn).

Now hopefully you see why Helldritch said it's best if the BM goes after the Rogue. What he means is, it's best if there aren't too many monsters inbetween the Rogue and the BM (since "after" is meaningless with cyclic initiative).

What you want is for the Rogue to position herself, and then the BM to command a strike before the critters have time to move around and generally make the Rogue's positioning difficult.

This makes much easier to predict if the Rogue will get off twin Sneaks (first SA on her own turn using her action, then the second SA on the BM's turn using her reaction)

Hope that helps

OK, got it. Although you still have options.

If the rogue is not next to a creature that meets the criteria for a sneak attack, all the BM has to do is make sure he's next to the target. Then the rogue can use a ranged weapon. Either a bow (since it just says "weapon attack"), if that's where he is (since the rogue is always better that way), or he can throw a dagger.

So even with the BM maneuver, the rogue is better off with a bow...